If you look at their budget, NASA’s funding has rarely been reduced and is currently it’s highest ever. Their political spin is that their rate of budget growth may be lowered or their percentage of the federal budget (around 0.5%) may be affected.

My perception (unfortunately) is that NASA’s budget is its highest, but their public contribution and visibility are near its lowest. From the casual observer, NASA looks like two decades of mismanagement and a lot of whining about funding without doing anything to justify what they are getting.

Too pessimistic. They launched JWST and put a helicopter on Mars this year. Last year, we touched the Sun. They're doing insanely great science work.

Rocket tech lags because it competes with the private market, which the people with money don't like.

> Rocket tech lags because it competes with the private market, which the people with money don't like.

This is exactly backwards.

Rocket tech lags because NASA, via congress, has been captured by the private market to ensure that existing big players continue to get contracts. SLS is a boondoggle in large part because Congress required that it use half-century-old rocket tech. Not because of concerns about competing with the private market, but to ensure that the major players that got contracted to build the shuttle rockets half a century ago continue to get contracts.

This lagging rocket tech created by Congressional capture (and a similar situation in Europe) created the private rocket market, not the other way around as you suggest.

> If you look at their budget, NASA’s funding has rarely been reduced

Apollo 18, Apollo 19, Apollo 20, and the orbit repair of Skylab have entered the chat.

> If you look at their budget, NASA’s funding has rarely been reduced and is currently it’s highest ever.

I assume you're not adjusting for inflation? That seems more than a bit misleading.

Adjusted for inflation their budget is the highest it’s been in 25 years. 25 years ago NASA was launching shuttles with manned missions multiple times per year.

Was that a good use of the money? How much did it advance science or technology?

I really hope the casual observer has some perception of how wildly successful NASA (and friends) have been in planetary exploration.

It's better if NASA focuses on space science rather than rocket engineering at this point. Private companies can build & fly them cheaper (discluding certain legacy contractors)

I agree, and NASA is increasingly using private launch providers. But it’s worth noting that many of the high level engineers and management in the private space industry come from NASA. Same goes for testing standards and valuable space hardware knowledge, which NASA releases as research to the public domain. The same can’t be said of private space companies, which keep their internal research to themselves.

you would be afraid to see the list of SLS subcontractors, i.e. who actually builds it. "private companies" indeed.

unless, of course, "private companies" is your shortcut for "SpaceX".

which other launcher of the same class are being designed, build and launched at the moment by the way?

I'm not sure if this is the point you're trying to make or if you're implying private companies aren't up to it, but... the other launcher of the same class, which will probably be launching within a year and is much more capable, is Starship.

https://everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sup...

Yes, but the list of NASA contractors are behemoth companies that are not focused on any one purpose. SpaceX is only focused on launching things into orbit, even if the majority is their own constellation. I’m guessing the money received by NASA contractors is pennies compared to other contracts they receive. Apples and oranges you’re comparing here.

I thought "(discluding certain legacy contractors)" would be clear in my first comment

Relativity and Rocket Lab are working with NASA

https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/jan27/nas...

https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-moon-mission...

Yeah I absolutely agree. The recent [CLPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Servi...) program seems solid. NASA really should just hand out contracts and let companies compete and run their missions with NASA supporting and operating science stuff, rather than them spearheading bloated messes such as SLS (and honestly shuttle)

The Shuttle was rather reasonable initially, then the military and other designers-by-committee ruined it.

> better if NASA focuses on space science rather than rocket engineering at this point

Or focus on novel rocket science. There is so much opportunity in novel propulsion systems, from nuclear propulsion to ion drives. Most of this is only useful in deep space, a region the private sector has no interest in.

Science doesn’t generate enough jobs. I can’t remember the attribution but the quote that the best military jet is one that has a part made in every congressional district surely applies to NASA as well. The problem is that is counter to the mission they should ideally be pursuing (imo).

In this situation exploding the rocket is the failure. Not exploding is the victory.