One thing is fairly clear, they're not funding NASA because they give a damn about genuine Space Exploration.

OK, I'm cynical enough about politicians that I can buy that. But we benefitted once from a political need to acheive certain things in space, maybe we can benefit from politics again. Maybe, for the forseeable future, it's the only way we'll ever get to do anything big. I've no doubt that industry will eventually take over, but until then it's your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat who holds the keys to heaven.

Sure, I wish we were going into space because our leaders had an inate sense that it was the right thing to do for humanity. And beleive me, had Bush announced that he was committing the nation to "Zubrin's Road to Mars," I'd have cheered as loudly as anyone (and then would've white-knucked it every second until the first crew returned).

I've wondered over the last little while, if we went to Mars and left the moon to China, for example, in that situation who really would have the "upper hand," so to speak? The engineers, scientists, and military people among us are infinitely better qualified than I am to make a judgement, but between the moon and Mars, doesn't the former have greater strategic value (if indeed either has any)?

If, at the end of the day, we're going back to the moon mainly just to keep up with the Jones, as it were, well that's not entirely unreasonable, is it? And it might be the best we can hope for right now. I for one would feel grateful for that much.