Well, putting up fewer missions in order to increase the chances of having safe (and successful) missions would be sensible, but sensible behavior and bureaucratic behavior don't always coincide.
NASA has always been in the uncomfortable position of having to put itself and its missions in the spotlight enough to maintain public interest enough to maintain anything approximating a decent budget. Missions that sound important and interesting tend to get people on NASA's side. Publicizing the boring stuff tends not to be good public relations.
These highly-publicized, big, important missions also have to go up often enough to maintain interest. More successful missions leads to more publicity leads to greater approval.
This all tends to backfire when the missions aren't successful, of course. But, you know, people get antsy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, putting up fewer missions in order to increase the chances of having safe (and successful) missions would be sensible, but sensible behavior and bureaucratic behavior don't always coincide.
NASA has always been in the uncomfortable position of having to put itself and its missions in the spotlight enough to maintain public interest enough to maintain anything approximating a decent budget. Missions that sound important and interesting tend to get people on NASA's side. Publicizing the boring stuff tends not to be good public relations.
These highly-publicized, big, important missions also have to go up often enough to maintain interest. More successful missions leads to more publicity leads to greater approval.
This all tends to backfire when the missions aren't successful, of course. But, you know, people get antsy.