[pi-err]

You could swap "tech" for "big media" and just play the same blame game for Reagan's and Bush Jr's elections.

> the crown jewels of America’s last century

Including Nasa in this pure idealization of the past. Nasa had many flaws that enabled a catastrophic Shuttle program and then the slow loss of US go-to-LEO capability.

There's probably more to expect of US investment in space without incompetent or contradictory military and political oversight than the current nasa zombie programs.

And it's unclear that Nasa can ever be without that oversight.

[jimbo808]

Do you remember when a President of the United States was impeached for an affair with an adult intern?

Do you remember when a Republican presidential nominee defended his opponent from a racist question at a Republican Rally, calling him a "decent family man?"

--

Then, can you think of a time when a POTUS committed a pump a security he was selling, only to dump it immediately after his inauguration, and it it was barely talked about at at all?

[Yeul]

I wasn't alive but I read about how people made fun of Carter for being a peanut farmer. So much for Americans believing in hard work and salt of the earth! Now they have a NYC property developer.

To understand America do not listen to what they say but watch what they do...

[john-h-k]

Okay but doesn’t seem relevant to how effective NASA currently is

[enraged_camel]

[flagged]

[pydry]

The shuttle program wasnt what NASA wanted to do, it was the military that pushed for that.

It's ironic that you'd blame them for the thing they didnt want to do.

If theyd kept their budget and autonomy after the moon landing it looked like they wouldve been building reusable rockets like the ones elon is building now, except in like, 1980.

[pi-err]

It's ironic that you didn't read a comment before answering.

> it's unclear that Nasa can ever be without that (military and political) oversight

By design, Nasa is probably doomed to get interference.

> If theyd kept their budget and autonomy after the moon landing it looked like they wouldve been building reusable rockets

Pure fantasy. Nasa's interest for reusable vehicles led them to the Shuttle. Even without all the design changes, it would have been a dud.

Due to its nature, Nasa can't freely explore and commit to a design like SpaceX does/did. It draws a concept and freezes it after contractor review, only to find after an already massive investment if it works. Then there's public accountability instead of executive risk taking.

I'd bet the proper way to have protected Nasa would have been to keep it focused on key scientific missions with limited financial exposure. Mars rovers are a perfect case, or most James Webb.

Using Nasa to go back to the Moon or reach Mars was doomed to fail (sort of like it failed post Apollo).

[exe34]

Yes, too much oversight is the problem here, not lobbying and self-interest/corruption.