This is a reply to Mark's post on pg 2: http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/310794.html

Pres Bush's plan (so far) is mostly about direction. IMO what NASA needed badly was direction and I would describe Bush's plan as a first step towards providing NASA with the direction it needs- though more details are needed. The important parts of this direction are that Manned exploration is important- it's not just eye candy- and is an essential part of opening up the space frontier. Of course, first, there is the idea that space exploration is actually important part of our nation's near term future.
Now, it could have been possible that Bush could looked at the issue and said, manned exploration isn't really practical at least in the near term: there is the problems with radiation and low gravity, AND launch cost are hopelessly too high. The alternative direction could have been, let's extend the Shuttle program (building Shuttle II if the Shuttle gets too worn out), let's plan on ISS (or ISS II) for the next few decades- let's sustain the programs and try to lower costs [it's a decent jobs program, why fight it?]. Or another direction could been that Bush thought Zubrin's Mars Direct was the right approach- the focus would then be on building some launcher: what size is the right size? Should NASA start build a Shuttle C (or Z)? And let's get out of the ISS as quickly as possible- the study long term affect of low gravity and space radiation is a complete waste of NASA resources- Zubrin says we just need go to Mars right now, so let's get going. Who is going to build the launcher? Should we give a billion dollars to some company that says it can build it at the lowest cost, or should NASA build it more directly- like the Saturn V was built, etc, etc?

Bush did not say, NASA is all about science. He did not say NASA was all about developing technology. Bush said NASA is about exploration [and Bush as a oil man should have some clue about what exploration is about]. Exploration, of course, involves science and involves developing technology.

About costs.
To say that Bush's plan will cost a trillion dollar is (in the words of Oberg) absurd. What Bush has actually called for is a billion dollar increase to NASA over a period of 5 years. What Bush is mostly doing is beginning reorganizing/refocusing/re-directing, AND any actual plan that could have a price tag attached hasn't been made yet!!
[Now, personally I would favor a plan that had a costs which were trillions of dollars over say, a period of a decade, but this wouldn't *really be* a NASA plan- trillions of dollars spent by NASA. It would instead be a NASA plan which would evenually lead to private investment costs totaling in the magitude of trillions of dollars over a decade of time- which, of course, these would have to have the expectation of return in the magitude of tens of trillions of dollars.]

PS: If the Left's general fear is that a trillion dollars will be spend by the US on space related activity, then I would say it's a gross underestimate of the future costs. It's like being at the beginning of the 20th Century and saying the US govt plan of building roads for automobile travel will cost a MILLION dollars.