One of the reasons why I became in love in the space program, had to do with all the publications, the books, magazines, newpapers, radio reports and TV broadcasts.
We had a good amount of all of them and it was great.
Now, there are hundreds of videos, internet access, pictures from the astronauts' helmets.
If NASA has a PR problem, I sometimes wonder if it's not us, the spacenuts, who think there is a PR problem.
The spacenuts have widely criticized Glenn's second flight, while the public at large loved it.
I still believe a Triana kind of satellite is a great PR idea too.
They are not scientific, per se, but attract the imagination, the awareness of the huge space around our planet.
Of course, the HST combines all of this: genuine science, spectacular pictures, daring spacewalks.
But what exactly would be best for the space program? Always pure science, or sometimes Buck Rogers stuff? A little hype, if it attracts a lot of interest, is good PR, I think.

Raoul