I've seen this from at least 3 different sides: science, contractor, and government. have been done without the government. Lots of science being done today can't be done without the government. But the scientists don't need any rockets more advanced than what we were doing in the 60's and 70's. They would appreciate simplificiation. But when your instrument is a one of a kind you would kind of prefer that it not blow up on the pad so there is conservatism at least at the expensive end of the project scale. At the low end of the project scale there are plenty of projects who wuold be glad to build five instruments (because they're cheap) with the hope that at least one makes it into space. Plan" style because there's never enough money to get it done in one year. But stretching it out over ten years in fact makes it more expensive. Things get real expensive for the government, especially a balkanized 40+ year old agency like NASA. Others might say that in a spiteful tone, but I honestly say it in sympathy because I know how people struggle to get good simple cheap science done in an agency that at many levels is thinking only about the ten-year zillion dollar programs. You have to do more or better than the Russians, not the same, to compete. But more or better is always more expensive and longer to do... and it's often more than is actually needed too! The big ones try to be clever by buying the cheap startups but I wonder if the cheap startup simply gets stifled in the beauracracy. Tim.