news

I agree with almost all of this. But the dirty little secret of NASA projects is that they are all privatized, and have been ever since its predecessor organization NACA was founded. The US senate keeps an iron grip on NASA's pursestrings. The reason for "space is expensive" is because the US senate writes literal laws requiring NASA to pay through the nose to defence contractors like Boeing (Delta rocket series, SLS rocket prime contractor, Space Shuttle prime contractor after buying Rockwell, Starliner crew vehicle), Lockheed-Martin (Orion crew vehicle, Atlas rocket series, SLS rocket subcontractor), Northrop Grumman (Space Shuttle boosters and SLS boosters), McDonnell Aircraft (Mercury and Gemini crew vehicles), North American Aviation (Apollo crew vehicle, company later sold to Rockwell, Rockwell later sold to Boeing), etc etc etc. Even most of their space probes are contracted out, often to Northrop Grumman, L3Harris, Ball Aerospace, etc.

NASA does not, and never has, built production rockets. Every single rocket ever put on a launch pad with a NASA logo has been by a private company - on the orders of the US senate, who make sure there's fat profit margins for their defence contractor friends. Even their experimental vehicles like the X-series are almost always built by private companies and not by their own engineering teams. This actually goes back to WW2 when the US Army was capturing unflown V2 rockets. The US Army contracted with Chrysler (yes, the car company) to do the engineering analysis on them.

It pains me greatly to say, but SpaceX and other so-called "new space" companies are actually saving NASA quite a bit of money because they operate on fixed-price contracts, and not the "cost-plus" contracts legislated by the US senate for the benefit of the MIC. I made some posts awhile back on the details of NASA's legislated subservience to the US defence industry..

Update, I've been thinking a bit more about this. The position of NASA Administrator is effectively a cabinet-level position. The Administrator has two bosses, the collective US senate who allocate funds, and the US president who has the authority to create and cancel specific programs and also to appoint and fire the Administrator. New presidential administrations typically replace the NASA Administrator with an ideological ally. Historically the president and senate have never really been in conflict with governance of NASA. Past presidents have quietly consulted with the senate on what programs they're willing to fund before the president makes announcements.

But with Musk whispering in Trump's ear nowadays, and Trump not really giving a shit about what the senate collectively thinks, I think there's a good bet that the SLS rocket and Orion crew vehicle that will ride on it, both of which have had ridiculously massive cost overruns and endless engineering problems, end up cancelled on Trump's orders. It's going to be a real moment because SLS and Orion really are shitty programs with about a decade-long delay and 10-figure cost overruns each. The senate (both parties) love SLS because it's pure pork for the defence contractors who pay their wages. SLS in particular is built using space shuttle technology developed 50 year ago to make sure the defence contractors involved don't need to pay for new R&D.

Does the executive branch have the power to do this? I honestly don’t know. I know the house and congress aren’t much better since the election, but, that at least needs a lot more than one crazy to make things happen.