Replies

I worked in the now named Johnson Space flight Center during Apollo and Skylab. I state that so the reader will know my bias. I'd like to add some reality (as I remember it) to NASA's plight since Apollo 11.

Following 11, the budget cuts started. The final Apollo flights were canceled for budget reasons.

The space shuttle was supposed to be used for 10 years then be replaced by the next vehicle which was to be designed and built in that 10 years. There were numerous shuttle designs floating around. But, nobody complains too loudly when NASA's budget was cut so the cuts continued.

The shuttle as built was a compromise in an ever shrinking budget process. There was no room in the budget for the next vehicle. What was supposed to be a 10 year life span was stretched each year as more budget cuts eliminated any thought of new vehicle. So the shuttle has been stretched to a 20+ year lifetime with patchwork to make it last.

The original purpose of the space station was to have a platform to build spacecraft that did not have to be lifted out of earth orbit. Again, more budget cuts killed that. I have not heard of that use in a decade or more.

It was changed to the I space station for several reasons the first of which was PC but also to get the Russians to help pay for it.

So the net is NASA has built what they could with limited resources. There was plenty of vision, but like so many things, no money to implement the vision.
I could on and on about the changes at NASA but I'll stop here. (Is that applause I hear?)

I was working at JPL flying interplanetaries. Then went on to JSC on the ISS.

Once the people were not behind exploration the funding died. Every President since Carter has issued proclimations about going back to the Moon and on to Mars. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.