Nasa must begin to try at least to improve its image to the other ISS partners or we will lose a very precious chance to begin exploring space as a united earth nations that have interest instead of by individualized mostly militarily concious efforts or of one upmanship.

I for one do not want to see a chinese or anyother nations flag planted on the moon before we can plant another one ourselves.

I doubt that anybody reading this would argue that NASA _is_ the highest domestic spending priority.

Now yes, whether NASA is the “highest domestic spending priority” and whether it gets an increase (of any size) are separate issues. But that’s where the perception thing enters the picture–giving NASA an increase and no other budget an increase (other than Defense) strongly implies that NASA is special and should not face the same budget constraints that all the other agencies do. It is really difficult to argue against that perception.

I’m not saying I _like_ this situation. But we have to face the reality of the situation rather than deny it.

To go back to the beginning of the comments, I dont think that the abandonment of Hubble is the cause of this, but it is a symptom of the lack of a spectacular justification for making NASA standout from the rest of the budget. If NASA were willing to take risks, perhaps the Congress would be more willing to take risks on them. I know this is a simplistic analysis, but if Hubble is something Congress really wants (which I’m not sure has been determined), it wouldnt be a bad thing to put it on the negotiating table as a part of the budget increase.

This would create some tough trade-offs within a comparatively small budget increase, but if the public and Congress want Hubble, this would be a good way to slip in some extra funds for NASA without raising too much fuss. It could even be a way to spread the political credit for space exploration beyond the “Bush plan” (which goes to the crux of the issue, would this be perceived to cause political credit, or blame). At least it would take blame away from NASA if it is determined that Congress wants the flat budget more than Hubble. The risk is if this were played badly and/or Congress really doesnt care about Hubble, they could just say no thank you to the whole increase. Given the way things look now, that might not be losing anything. Something to consider.

Another note on the “fairness excuse.” Today’s story on Space Daily indicates that Boehlert is favorably disposed to funded the shuttle/ISS portion of the proposed increase, plus a “part” of the Moon, Mars and Beyond portion. Now, the shuttle/ISS portion is about 730 million dollars. Right there the “fairness excuse” is blown away because NASA has must of the increase. Now, let us suppose that Boehlert agrees to a third of the remaining 136 million allocated to Moon, Mars, and Beyond. That leaves a 91 million dollar shortfall, a rounding error it seems to me in the overall VA, HUD, IA appropriatrions bill. If the President and Congress can’t find that little amount of money to bring MM&B up to full funding, then something is seriously wrong.

The cynical part of me would suggest starting with the 300+ million Congress always saddles NASA with eremarks (i.e., useless pork.)

Issues such as “ISS completion” or “shuttle derived HLLV versus Delta IV EELV” or even “Bush v Kerry” almost seem to evaporate into insignificance when compared to the question “should humans beings become a genuine two planet species, bearing and raising children at multiple celestial locations?”

This essay suggests that grounding the orbiter may help focus attention on this bigger question.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/langewiesche.htm

Ultimately, it comes down to a _very_ simple political equation: we are at war, that war is eating up a lot of money, we are in a big deficit, and NASA is just about the only budget that gets an increase. So it is very easy to see how NASA is not going to get that increase.