[singsong]

Whatever the program is, however big it is," Evans said, "it will be within a responsible fiscal budget."

The problem is not yearly costs, the problem is lack of any return whatsoever. Unmanned exploration does a reasonable job for a lot less. But no, Bush puts the problematic and expensive manned missions in command of those humble but efficient unmanned projects. Does he want to ruin them too? Or simply can't resist the temptation of selling space soda and teeshirts for $10 mil each. And no, its not ONLY an election gimmick. He proposed real changes in the structure of NASA. Contrary to any logic and results shown. Consider: We scrap the shuttle (long overdue). We start ANOTHER, totally new, MANNED effort - and it takes TOP fiscal and control priority. Ridiculous.

[orionblamblam]

> Unmanned exploration does a reasonable job for a lot less.

Well... no. Unmanned exploration gets you photos and data... but doesn't get people off-world. We can send robots everywhere from now till the sun explodes, and it will in the end have no greater meaning than wallpaper. Now, if we start sending *people* hither and yon, and get off-world colonies set up... THAT will make a difference.

This is America. We are the children of people who went over the horizon. If we stop being those people... who are we?

[irv]

Unmanned exploration does a reasonable job for a lot less.

If you think posting pretty pictures on the internet is a reasonable job. I don't. If people don't go, then it's not worth even having a space program.

That said, I'd prefer that the private sector have much bigger involvement this time around to both offset costs and increase innovation and spin-offs. Also, because that's what's most likely to get people (not just a few ex fighter jocks turned astronaut) out there.