Really? Then why has no shuttle orbiter ever suffered a failure of any kind?
O-ring failure was not on the orbiter. Foam ramp failure was not on the orbiter.
Yes, but I wasn't just referring to the oribter, I was referring to the whole launch system, without which the orbiter is just a glider. Therefore it seems sensible to evaluate the whole thing. And frankly if it was a well designed system neither of those accidents would have happened.
Even so, for what it was intended to do, it was overall a massive failure. It was intended to provide inexpensive and reliable access to space and it did neither, largely because of its design problems.
Cite.
If there are systematic problems at NASA, why has it been so successful in recent years? Why has it pulled off so many missions that exceeded expectations?
I cited one in one of my previous posts, I'll also add the commissions final reports from the challenger and columbia disasters which pointed out many systematic problems with NASA that were never resolved and pretty damning in their own right. But if that isn't enough there are others.
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4328http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-256825.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4980141/http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5361It has done missions well in recent years, certainly. For example the mars rovers were well designed. But let's be honest, the initial mars rovers were an amazing technological feat for back in the days when 56k dialup was king and your computer was running windows 98, but electronics technology has come a long way since then and building radio controlled robots, as important as it is, doesn't have the same mystique as before.
Why does everyone at the agency, right down to the tour bus drivers, appear excited, focused and driven about a coherent plan of action? (at least up until the moment it was cancelled, but now they at least got a huge budget boost)
Supposition. Assuming you're referring to the constellation program, given the major internal disputes over
whether or not the Ares I should have even existed it doesn't look like the focused and driven organization you're trying to paint.
The ISS has suffered a series of failures that highlight the challenges of sustained presence in space. It would be dead now if not for continuous ground support.
It was never designed to be self sufficient in the first place, it was supposed to be a testbed for the life support and waste recycling technologies that would be used either in future stations or in settlements offworld. Even though the kinks are being ironed out, most of the technology still does exist. I'm not going to deny that there is still plenty of work that needs to be done.
In short your argument that NASA has some kind of internal 'problem' aside from budget cuts and brain drain is unsubstantiated. Improve it.
It is quite substaniated, both in one of my previous posts and has been further elaborated in this case. After both the shuttle disasters, both of the commissions looked at NASA and fingered the way it was being run as a major culprit, but you completely ignore it. The "NASA can do no wrong" attitude is exatly what got us into this mess.