>"This is a narrative I've heard, but is there anything to back it up? NASA has operations on multiple planets and now outside the Solar System. They seem to develop multiple major, pioneering projects, from space telescopes to probes to other planets to earth observatories to Martian rovers, all at the same time. I'm impressed."

SLS will end up taking more than 3 times as long and be many times as expensive as even the Saturn V program was, and that is after decades of technological advancement. The current math is that SpaceX does everything three times as fast at a tenth the cost of NASA; this is not a contentious view. Both ULA and Blue Origin are faster and cheaper than NASA too.

>"Any evidence of that? Due to the Great Recession, the GOP's refusal to increase revenue (and aim to shrink government), and the current radical budget caps, many programs in many departments - even essential military programs - have had to be cut."

NASA's budget was not cut significantly, and the current program (SLS) is incredibly expensive. There is an argument for a single launch vehicle being less expensive to develop and maintain than two, but this is somewhat counter-veiled by only having to man-rate a medium-lift vehicle, and not having to start again (almost from scratch).