Policy proposals, speeches, visions, whatever. What counts are BUDGETS. And what Bush ahd to say on that front today worries me a bit.

To wit:

In the next five years (FY 2005-2010), NASA will do more or less everything it was going to do anyway:

-- pay for all the Shuttle return-to-flight improvements
-- finish constructing the ISS, as planned
-- operate the shuttle, as planned
-- develop a CEV (let's say that's a 1 - 1 funding exchange with OSP)
-- current unmanned science missions

In addition, NASA will:

-- send multiple robotic missions to the Moon
-- start developing technology for long-duration lunar bases
-- expand robotic missions to other places
-- do more work on long-duration human spaceflight issues
-- do other unspecififed exploration stuff

To do all this, NASA gets exactly $1 billion dollars above what is currently programmed.

I think most people would agree that simply meeting current objectives on the current budget projects would be very very tough. We're now talking about adding a significant robotic lunar exploration project and more planetary missions of some sort. If the CEV project is going to require more resources than OSP, then things get *really* difficult.

So, either there's really not a lot to see here before 2010 other than a reorganizing OSP into CEV, and the unmanned moon mission, or, if a lot is to happen then we have to be talking about significant cuts in other NASA programs.

If major new "explortation" projects are coming, and thus real cuts elsewhere, it'll be interesting to see what those are. How much can we save in the 2004-2009 timeframe by cutting back on ISS science? Are they doing to dump the aeronautical stuff at Glenn and elsewhere? Close centers and consolidate (if Congress will let them, which won't be easy)? Cut back on "deep sky" astronomy programs?

To be fair, just setting the goal is a big step; what Bush said today is important. Getting a planning effort underwway and orienting NASA towards post-2010 goals beyond Earth orbit is something important and not necessarily expensive -- more cultural and organizational. Hell, under Goldin it was verboten to hint at anything we might want to do beyond ISS. Telling NASA they are in the explortation business again is a good thing and a necessary foundation. These budget numbers confirm that the real action (and real money) is all in the 2010- timeframe, however.