Responding to Mark's comments:

>So how come NASA needs a manpower reduction with all
>these new plans?

Maybe the plans are baloney? CEV isn't scheduled to fly until Bush is long gone. Do you think Hillary will continue to fund Bush's Moon program? Did Nixon continue to fund LBJ's Moon program?

>Doesn't make much sense to me. Is the change of direction too
>drastic to shift existing employees?

Rule #1 with NASA: Don't assume rationality. The managment process can be perfectly simulated by a pretty girl in a string bikini spinning a roulette wheel.

>You sound like a victim of burnout Gary.

No, I'm someone staring at career termination with no alternative options. It's happening to people around me everyday. Fortunately for me, my skill sets are fairly unique. The folks with generic skills are getting laid off now, e.g. wind tunnel technicians, CFD guys, straight code grinders, etc. I've got a job for at least 5 more months.

>I find your assessment of the possibility of life on Mars to be far
>too negative. For instance, I have yet to see you address the
>crumbling of one of the foundations of your no life on Mars
>stance - "no methane on Mars".

Mars exobiology was practically invented at NASA Ames. I've seen its main advocates up close and personal which is the basis for my skepticism. I'm surprised you attach so much significance to the Mars methane. The values detected are tiny and below the detection threshold of Viking. They are easily explained through nonbiological origins. Refer to http://mainlymartian.blogs.com/

>Happy Holidays and May You Feel Better Soon

Right now, I feel fine but I may have a different outlook 6 months from now.

Happy Holidays!

Gary