I don’t think the point here is so much about whether NASA is a good investment or that an expensive mission is a waste of money, it’s more that, with a limited budget, going all-in on an expensive sample return mission would hamstring other programs.
As far as outsourcing goes, I think it’s better for NASA to outsource anything that would be “easy” or commercially viable on its own. A business that can make a widget for NASA, and turn around and sell similar ones commercially, should find cost reductions and reliability improvements with higher volumes. Seeding an industry where companies then fund their own R&D is effectively a multiplier of NASA’s efforts and budget.
I definitely agree that NASA’s budget being political is a big downside laced with inefficiencies and perverse incentives. In this case, though, the article specifically calls out early technical mistakes and JPL’s staffing/management issues as two drivers for the increases. Pork sucks, but I don’t think that’s the issue here.
I don’t think the point here is so much about whether NASA is a good investment or that an expensive mission is a waste of money, it’s more that, with a limited budget, going all-in on an expensive sample return mission would hamstring other programs.
As far as outsourcing goes, I think it’s better for NASA to outsource anything that would be “easy” or commercially viable on its own. A business that can make a widget for NASA, and turn around and sell similar ones commercially, should find cost reductions and reliability improvements with higher volumes. Seeding an industry where companies then fund their own R&D is effectively a multiplier of NASA’s efforts and budget.
I definitely agree that NASA’s budget being political is a big downside laced with inefficiencies and perverse incentives. In this case, though, the article specifically calls out early technical mistakes and JPL’s staffing/management issues as two drivers for the increases. Pork sucks, but I don’t think that’s the issue here.