I haven’t really commented on C. Blake Powers’ proposal to abolish NASA. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t think that it’s politically realistic. However, he’s certainly not alone, and Leonard David has a report from the Telluride Tech Festival a couple of weeks ago, at which apparently many people called for it.

Part of the problem is that many who are calling for it now (e.g., Bruce Murray, Lew Branscomb) have always been opposed to the Shuttle and station, and the manned spaceflight program in general, so their calls look like simple political opportunism. Freeman Dyson has a little more credibility, as a long-time proponent of space settlements. But they’re all scientists, and we need to get out of the mode of relying on scientists for advice about space policy. Unfortunately, we remain mired in the false association of civil space with science exclusively.

The real problem, of course, is that the political imperatives behind NASA have very little to do with actual accomplishments in space. Abolishing, or even restructuring the agency would break many rice bowls, in the districts and states of very powerful congressmen and Senators.

The most frustrating thing to me, of course, is that we continue to discuss what to do with NASA without having the more fundamental discussion of what we’re trying to achieve. Everyone (including the scientists in Leonard’s article) simply assumes that they already know that, and are just trying to come up with a solution, when they’re not even asking the right questions.