ME:<<Setting spending priorities mean you spend more money on higher priority items and only spend 0 on items you care nothing about. It doesn't mean you spend money only on priority 1 items.>>

I've tried to restrain myself, but this one deserves a great big

Well Duh!

First, let me say that I'm a big fan of fundamental research. My work at NASA Goddard doing analysis of DDF projects for the Technology Commercialization Office afforded me a glimpse at some of the early work done on Lidar ten years ago. It was funded through the Center Director's discretionary budget because it was considered a high-risk project. Now, everyone loves it.

I firmly believe that the Center Director's should have this discretionary auhority to use in their best judgement. I know it works because all of the NASA Academy students work on these projects. The technology is amazing! This fundamental research must continue.

That having been said, the question arises as to how much of a priority any form of fundamental research should be. Probably some, but shouldn't the bulk of the money be spent on making it applicable to human beings? I would have to say yes. Is there a magic percentage number that it should represent? No way I'm going to speculate on that one.

ME:<<NASA's relatively low priority is reflected in its low percentage alllocation. Your comment does not address the issue at all that we can address NEOs and manned missions to Mars with existing funding levels.>>

Mark, I'm glad that a) you have so much confidence in the funding levels discussed/proposed for the different flavors of Mars exploration, and that b) you feel that it can be done with existing funding levels (with a NEO search thrown in for good measure).

I don't. I don't believe that recent history has shown us to be capable of manifesting the capability necessary to meet the requirements of what y'all very optimistically project. I don't see the institutional wherewithal. I don't see the budget discipline. I just don't see it.

ME:<< You don't need to abandon human spaceflight to finance an orbital NEO detection system. You only need to cancel or postpone ONE robotic mission. >>

I'm sorry, but I thought that all of my discussions required an eventual human spaceflight presence. Did I misspeak? Are you merely making an odd comparison to prove a point about the cost level?

Did I not suggest that you could start a space-based NEO search by strapping something on to the side of the ISS? I doubt you'd even have to cancel a robot for that. For a full blown robust system, though, I think you'd better pick out a couple robots for termination.

ME:<<This is simple math Ken. Anyone who can do deltaV calculations should be able to add and subtract sufficiently to understand this arguement.>>

This comment actually comes very, very close to really pissing me off. I am a banker. I deal with addition and subtraction and a whole heck of a lot more every day.

How do you compute the optimized ITV on a collateral pool of disparate airplane types? What's the Yield-to-Worst? What's the risk of the derivative transaction at the other end of the product this bank is trying to sell me? What's the value of the warrant we received in the bond exchange tender?

I'm too angry to continue,
Ken