fred k made a good point in another thread:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/spacex-recovers-falcon-heavy-fairings-and-will-reuse-them/#comment-1066357
“The shuttle was an existence proof that rocket engines as well as the entire structure could fly to orbit, return and be reused. Granted, the shuttle program did not do this inexpensively, but that’s an optimization problem….”

NASA has shown us some of what can be done, and they have shown us how not to do it.

The biggest difference between our upstart startups and NASA is that the startups are moving forward, with optimization and new ventures, but NASA is moving back toward Apollo. This makes sense, because the startups need to make money in space, but NASA is trying desperately to relive its most famous — and possibly its greatest — achievement, right down to using a one-use capsule. The innovation is in the startups, not in NASA. Perhaps NASA’s last great innovation was the expandable space station module, which startup Bigelow has turned from an idea into a working device.

Forward motion for those who depend upon economy and the economy, backward motion for those who depend upon government approval.

As fred k wrote: “ What’s really exciting is we are in the very early phases of designing, building and flying reusable designs. Huge areas for improvement in front of us.“

Richard M wrote, “NASA’s budget in real dollars did drop a little in the early Obama years, though much of that was the result of the end of the Shuttle program. Astrophysics and planetary science got robbed, too, though that was more Congress’s doing.”

Actually, Obama slashed the planetary program big time. Astrophysics also died mostly, but that was not Obama’s fault but the overages for the Webb telescope.

NASA’s budget has been hurt far worse by the boondoggles of SLS and James Webb. And they haven’t taken a new launch vehicle from design to production since the Shuttle.

It is actually truly remarkable how consistent NASA’s budget has been since the Apollo wind-down. Since the mid-70’s, it has fluctuated right in a $15-20 billion (present dollars) range, with a slight blip above in the early 90’s to complete construction on the Shuttle Endeavour. Maybe he means some specific NASA budget ledger?

NASA’s budget in real dollars did drop a little in the early Obama years, though much of that was the result of the end of the Shuttle program. Astrophysics and planetary science got robbed, too, though that was more Congress’s doing.

P.S. I do think NASA has from time to time been helpful in technical advice to SpaceX, especially in its early years. Obviously, it’s harder to grok it being useful in project management. NASA’s chief value today is in giving it sizable contracts, and the ability to lease its launch facilities, which would have cost SpaceX a fortune to build on its own.

I recently asked a high school graduate, going into collage, who was a school reporter if they still followed the old 5 rules of reporting? Just the facts.

He looked at me like I had a second head. He had no idea what I was talking about. He was never taught the 5 rules, who, what, where, when and why. Anything else is editorial opinion.

Just read the standard article from any paper and edit out everything that is opinion. Just keep the facts. Sometimes you never even get all the facts.

Edward: I don’t see any major typo. It seems your comment was right on topic, and added weight to what I wrote.

Your summary is good too.

Ed Minchau: What do you mean you can’t post your blog address as your website? Does your blog have an ordinary url? If it does there shouldn’t be any problem listing as your website.

Of the NASA centers, only JPL is a Federally-Funded Research and Development Center. One of the recommendations of the Augustine report was to convert all the NASA centers to FFRDCs. Might be time for VP Pence to revisit that report.

(OK, third try posting this… apparently I can’t post my blog address as my website)

“That author did a terrible job. The Anderson quotes confused me, too.”

Robert wrote: “Instead, the article and Anderson both imply that NASA must lead, and teach these upstart private companies how to do this right.”

The article didn’t so much imply it as say it outright in an Anderson quote: from the article, “So the idea is we can’t tell them how to do it, but we can kind of coach them, and nurture them, and make sure they’re doing it the right way, in the safest way possible.”

The right way? Does he mean the NASA way? The way that takes longer, costs more, sometimes gets cancelled, but always does less than originally advertised? That way?

NASA had one great success, coming in on time and achieving the goal, but it was managed better, back then. Right now, it seems that only JPL is well managed, where space missions are concerned. Does Astronaut Anderson think that JPL should coach the private sector of space travel, or does he think the mismanaged, over-budget, over-schedule, under-performing manned space program should do so?

Vice President Pence has recently made it clear that NASA needs to get its act together and stick to schedule. He is right, because these upstart startup commercial space companies are going to outperform NASA in a few years.

Oops. Not a few years, Falcon Heavy is already doing so.

Anderson not seeing this is a sign of the problem. Pence seeing it is the beginning of the solution.