> In 2011, NASA began developing a heavy-lift rocket for the human exploration of deep space
...which is sort of stupid, given that there are multiple private firms eager to deliver this service, and deliver it at a price point lower than NASA is remotely capable of achieving.
This silliness is explained by the fact that NASA employees want to work on this project, even if it's going to cost more and deliver less than other teams working on it.
>This silliness is explained by the fact that NASA employees want to work on this project, even if it's going to cost more and deliver less than other teams working on it.
Not at all. It's explained by the fact that congress keeps putting more money in the space launch system than NASA itself requests; moving money to the project that NASA would like to use for its commercial programs.
It's not NASA being silly here – it's congress wanting to impress the world with its own space system.
Congress isn't trying to impress anybody. They're just playing the classic pork barrel game, by maintaining high paying jobs in key congressional districts through government spending.
If the NASA employees want to work on this project, then NASA should be selling their experience to the private firms who want to develop this for cheaper.
Or taking jobs working on rocket programs for other countries and other militaries, and for private-sector entities in other countries, which I suspect is part of the core of the development program.
It's not just private entities in the US that are interested in rockets and satellite deployments. (We're well on our way to four parallel GPS systems, after all. The US GPS, the European Galileo, Russian GLONASS and the Chinese Beidou system that are all coming online.)
And beyond GPS satellites and as Herr von Braun and others showed many years ago, rockets are dual-use technologies.
The only problem with private enterprise in building a heavy launch platform - is that they could be gone tomorrow, change direction or bought by a foreign entity - all of which could endanger an on-going space program.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like waste and this certainly is a large duplication of effort. However, I also see the concern that I am sure exists in govt/NASA.
NASA should stick with what they do best - robot explorers. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, soon Pluto, plus Mercury, and the famous Mars twins - all excellent and great ROI projects. Lots of science, lots of knowledge. Their Humans in space program is dismal at best, and a complete waste of money at worse. Robots do it better, faster, and way way way cheaper with no significant risk. Humans in space is nothing but a political boondoggle.
...which is sort of stupid, given that there are multiple private firms eager to deliver this service, and deliver it at a price point lower than NASA is remotely capable of achieving.
This silliness is explained by the fact that NASA employees want to work on this project, even if it's going to cost more and deliver less than other teams working on it.
As with regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture and the principal agent problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_agent_problem, the key insight here is that NASA is not run for the benefit of the people who cut the checks (the taxpayers) but for the people on the NASA payroll.
A wasteful rocket development program is not a COST ... it's a BENEFIT.