> Back to public schools. If I look at the international comparisons, American public education burns through a lot of money for mediocre results. This is your money; you should be more critical. Why isn't there any Silicon Valley for education?

Because, the fundamental issue with education isn't the quality of teachers. It's the home lives of the students. That's why there's such a big disparity in public education in the States. Until we fix the cultural and social issues, schools will continue to be at the level they are. If we want to fix education, we need to fix the underlying problems that cause some kids to not do well. And it's generally not the teachers (yes, there are bad teachers; but socioeconomic factors of the kids have much more impact)

Then I am pessimistic if this can be fixed at all.

For example, an absent father tends to put a lot of stress on households, which can only to a limited extent be alleviated by extra money. I know, I grew up without father.

But no one can really provide new fathers to kids from fatherless families and the culture that frowned upon guys leaving their kids is long dead.

I am somewhat, too. I do think it can be done, but we should look at what causes fatherless households. Is it people having kids too young, and now seeing divorce as an option? Maybe we should stress not having kids until you're ready? Is it because they're jailed? Why are they jailed, etc. It won't be fixed until those things are fixed. Instead of, say, forcing a father to stay around due to societal pressure, we should fix why they'd be absent in the first place.

> American public education burns through a lot of money for mediocre results.

American everything burns through a lot of money for mediocre results. We're a country of middle-men and middle-men don't make money from efficiency.

(The space shuttle was cheaper to operate per payload in orbit than falcon 9, and was human-rated from the start. Most of the cost of the program was R&D. But indeed, it was not safe enough, especially compared to newer rockets, and even older ones)

"The space shuttle was cheaper to operate per payload in orbit"

This is somewhat surprising to me. SS launches were very expensive. Is it possible that SS was cheaper per maximum payload?

The catch is that maximum payload for SS was pretty big and its capacity was underutilized.

"Most of the cost of the program was R&D."

Well, refurbishment of the orbiters after each return was a significant recurring cost in both work-hours and money. The heat shield was a maintenance nightmare.