http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Hearing%20Charter%20-%20Pathways%20to%20Exploration.pdf

I say, no, it isn’t.

It is becoming too expensive to provide a LOT of meaningful missions, but the ones that it does provide are extraordinarily meaningful. So there is conservation of meaningfulness, I’d have to say.

A larger number of smaller missions is of value for exercising quick response to critical science questions, and of value for training. But the meaningfulness index is a wash.

NASA might need a dumb super heavy mass mover that is halfway affordable in $/kg. SLS is not. Period. If I want to place 100 tons of water in LEO, an SLS is one of the dumbest ways I can think of to do it. So in that sense, yes, SLS is a dumb mass mover.

As noted, though, NASA doesn’t need a super heavy mass mover because it doesn’t have any super heavy masses it can afford to move. Well, except water, perhaps. But real mission is going to use 100 tons of water in LEO, anyway? There are plenty of delusional missions that might, I suppose.

Exactly right. More to the point, this alignment is done as a part of Administration policy. That is, the alignment is supposed to help guide production of overriding policy, not create it. The value proposition for what we do in space may be suggested by the agency, but it is graven in stone by the Administration and Congress. So far, the White House and Congress have largely been out to lunch on this responsibility. To the extent that value proposition has to be developed to please certain congressional districts, it certainly isn’t up to Bolden to decide that.

“It’s time for a leader who understands how congress works and knows how to motivate them and soak their language, as well as bringing public opinion in line with a new and bold/exciting vision.”

Give me a break. There is no bold exciting vision. There are bold and exciting trips, and bold and exciting destinations, but no one can quite fathom what they’re good for. That’s the definition of “stunt”. It’s time for a leader who can come up with a vision that isn’t a stunt, and I’m sure not looking for it to be the NASA Administrator.

I agree with most of your post, but I don’t think we should take NASA completely off the hook. One of the key reasons Constellation failed was that NASA made it into something other than Constellation. The original concept of using upgraded versions of existing rockets to launch relatively small components to quickly establish interplanetary capabilities rapidly morphined into a complete waste of money: the development of yet another mid-sized rocket that the world did not need. Constellation achieved nothing because NASA (not Congress, not even the White House) managed to spend the money on, essentially, nothing. The Obama White House pulled the plug on this insanity, but Congress quickly put it back in another, slightly less wasteful form (in that, setting aside whether we need one, at least a heavy lift rocket is not something we already have in quantity).

— Donald

The committees continue to cut Technology development a requirement for deep space human exploration. These cuts caused Bolden to back off taking humans to a NEO and instead bring the NEO to Earth orbit.
The committees also shafted President Bush when it came to fully funding Constellation before Obama was President. Note that the Committees approved Constellation until it was disaster and ran away not taking any blame. Instead heaped it onto an easy targets, Obama and NASA.

I’ll agree that the general public is nearly completely disengaged because none of the propaganda via movies, TV and magazines for incredible space projects has ever come true. The public thinks they are just being fed a bunch of hype which the public is sick of being fed. However, the aerospace industry and advocate groups have had endless visions that remain unfunded and many could be done on the current budget. This is changing with “new space”.

Congress itself isn’t to blame but the space authorization and appropriations committees should take all the blame for creating the NASA of today.

The sooner human spaceflight is out of the government hands, the better.

“The real problem lies with the public.”

Why would you blame the public for the inability of space enthusiasts to clearly outline the benefits of spending $Billions of their hard earned money on space?

“It’s Bolden’s job to speak their language and understand the needs of key districts who hold the votes he needs to progress these missions.”

That’s not the job of the NASA Administrator. Here is a relevant section from the NASA HQ website:

“The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency’s stakeholders and constituent groups.”

If you don’t like Bolden, fine, but you apparently don’t even understand what his job is…