"A bureaucracy, by its very nature, tends to operate in a negative or passive mode. Bureaucrats rarely get credit when they do something useful or positive, but they damn well get the blame if something bad happens. The FDA is a shining example of this kind of behavior: the FDA is rarely accused of holding up useful drugs, but if a killer gets through the process...ouch."

Yes. Though the Department of Defense is a bureaucracy. And it seems to me the government is in the bind you mention. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The INS may, I don't know, but may have done about as good a job as they had to money to do. Until 9-11 no one seemed very interested, at all, in tracking down people overstaying their visas, and they may have had a problem getting computer upgrades. I don't know.

And, it seems to me that NASA is a bureaucrats nightmare. Look at the two failed Mars probes. They would have been better off not sending them. So, a bureaucrat in NASA may think he/she is better off studying something than doing something.

And, they may not be too far off.

I don't know, though, how they can spend so much money on something like that truss. It has a control system for the bus built into it, so it's not just a hunk of titanium or aluminum or whatever, but that's a lot of money.

Having to send stuff up on the shuttle doesn't make it any cheaper, though.

It's a lot easier for me to sit out here and complain than be on the inside trying to make things work, though. Maybe something risky like space exploration ought to be done outside a classical bureaucracy, though. Social Security, that's fine, but not where there are chances to be taken. Goes against everything.

Arf