It is understandable that lawmakers are reluctant to allocate money to a venture whose implementation plan is not ready at this time, and to an agency whose ability to deliver the proposed work is questionable (the management were not replaced, were they?). From a lawmaker’s perspective, it probably feels like funding another faith-based initiative vs. awarding funds for a more definite plan next year.

Personally, I think the economy cannot afford another year of aerospace infrastructure decline, so perhaps these budget committees could do worse than to reacquaint themselves with Gen. Moorman (retired), and the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry (2002) http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/, and then allocate the extra funds where they are most needed for the time being.

>> What a lot of people fail to understand is that the big blue part of the “sand chart” is not really an indication of how much this stuff will cost, but an indication of how much money they expect to be available to pay for it. <<

Is the plan to spend the budget and then see how far we have gotten or go to the moon by 2020 adding or subtracting as needed to accomplish the mission?

Gallons of gasoline (in my metaphor) equals annual budget dollars.

Is the NASA budget to be a function of what is needed for an agreed objective or will our objectives be chosen based on a fixed budget?

You lost me with a discussion of gasoline. I pay $1.64 a gallon.

The existence of this “failure to communicate” does reveal a gap or divide in explaining what the Bush vision is all about. And if the blue shaded region of the budget chart might well prove insufficient to accomplish the objectives of the Bush vision, Congress has very good reason to hesitate giving support.

There actually is a crucial political question here – – are we going to purchase enough gasoline, for example, to drive from New York to Seattle, or are we just going to buy 25 gallons of fuel (since thats all we can afford) and see how far it gets us? Before starting the trip, shouldn’t we know either (a) how far we can get or (b) what commitment is there to increase funding as needed to arrive at the destination?

Perhaps the Bush vision is an option (c), a new paradigm, premised on regularly buying 25 gallons per year, indefinitely, yet so far it has not been well explained, at least IMHO.

And just because President Bush proposes to purchase 25 gallons for 2004 through 2008, there are no assurances the next President will stay the course unless a bi-partisan “buy-in” of the vision occurs.

And why 25 gallons rather than 24 or 18 or 50 gallons?

For example, one must keep in mind that hearings are to some extent (but not completely) theater. Everyone there–from the members of Congress to the witnesses–are performing in some way. It is a complex performance too. I never thought that the exchange was nasty, and I thought that you could sympathize with both sides. For instance, it is impossible for NASA to determine how much the project will cost until it actually starts defining the architecture. But at the same time, one would assume that the President asked about how much it would cost and received some kind of answer.

What a lot of people fail to understand is that the big blue part of the “sand chart” is not really an indication of how much this stuff will cost, but an indication of how much money they expect to be available to pay for it.

The fictional image of President Bush asking “How much will it cost?” and being told:

“Here is a chart, Mr. President. Just integrate the blue region under the curve and you can figure it out for yourself easily enough. You do know some calculus, Mr. President, right?”

is priceless and deserves treatment by Saturday Night Live or Second City.