15% of that is about $2.25 billion a year. At that burn rate, it would take about 20 years to go to Mars, assuming a very optimistic estimated program cost of $45 billion. Given the track record, I have very little confidence in that figure being high enough. There's also the question of where to draw that 15% from NASA's budget since there's little sign of bigger budgets on the horizon. What would you cut to get the 15%? ISS? Doubtful since we've paid so much for it to date. "In for a penny, in for a pound" and "Good money after bad" both come to mind. Cut the Shuttle? What would we replace it with? Aeronautical programs? The first "A" in NASA is aeronautical, so unless we're willing to change the name to NSA (already taken), that probably won't happen.

My favorite line from "The Right Stuff" is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Without widespread and sustained public support, there's little chance in getting the money from Congress. Without the money, there is no program.

The Cold War is over, so I don't think the prospect of China sending people to the moon or elsewhere is going to have the same effect as Sputnik. In that regard, we may become like Europe - spectators on the sideline instead of active participants in manned spaceflight.