Space Shuttle hasn't flown in 14 years, the decision to retire it was made 21 years ago, they stopped making space shuttles 33 years ago, the system was designed over 50 years ago when the current NASA administrator was a child. What are these "recent times" you are referring to?
Are you referring to space disasters that occurred more than 20 and nearly 40 years ago as “recent”? Or are you talking about the design of the space shuttle, that literally occurred during the Nixon administration?
Many of those leaving Nasa today are probationary employees in their first years of employment. This isn't making up for past mistakes, it is hurting Nasa's future.
Wasn’t the space shuttle program dictated by the needs of the military? Something tells me any NASA military pork won’t be touched, it’ll be the scientists.
No. It was kept alive by congressional decree for at least a decade after NASA wanted to wind it down.
The explicit reason for this was that parts of the space shuttle were built in 50 states, and the “economic stimulus” trumped things like science or national security.
You're talking about the how of the space shuttle construction but not the why. It was indeed intended for at least some military use, and it was originally intended to be capable of polar orbits and would've launched from Vandenberg.
Of course there was major government pork and horse trading to southern states but this was a side effect of the project, not the primary driver.
The design was dictated in part by military needs, but then the DOD figured out their requirements resulted in such a compromised design that it was cheaper and more reliable to keep launching Titan III and later expendables.
Of course, the Space Shuttle (and SLS, for that matter), are bad designs and inefficient not because NASA teams design them that way, but because of the way Congress funds things. They add mandates, and require the contracts to be spread across lots of organizations and states to "budget proof" the projects.
For example, NASA's original space plane was a much better design that the shuttle, but they were forced to make it a joint project with the Air Force to get budget. The different requirements added up, and eventually we got the system we've all seen.
What does "efficient" mean for an organization such as NASA?
A: I am not convinced GOOD science and GOOD engineering means a quick turn around. So in my opinion having less quantity for higher quality output is efficient.
B: While there are many missions and projects at NASA it seems a bit unfair to judge their workings when they seem to have major changes in direction every 4-8 years mandated upon them.
I like this description of how the space shuttle got this way [1]. I don't think I'd hold NASA responsible for that.
Edit: I understand that The Space Shuttle Decision by T. A. Heppenheimer [2] contains a lot of the information that's in the Metafilter post, but in a more sober tone. The PDF is available direct from NASA [2]. It does at least mention that NASA itself wanted to cancel the shuttle program.
Please tell me what large organization out there doesn't have at least a few inefficiencies. This notion that only the federal government is bloated and inefficient is so untrue. Every try dealing with or working for a big telecom?
