if we’re lucky sequestration will mean the end of sls and maybe even orion. yay!

So from the standpoint of having a viable and vigorous human deep space agenda, the raising of taxes is not necessary for NASA to be truly relevant. But this is true only if we get rid of dead weight, such as SLS. However, if we keep SLS, then yes the only way to actually accomplish something would be to raise NASA’s budget by a truly exorbitant amount, which could only occur under the fantasy scenario of a really humongous tax increase. Even if that extremely unlikely huge tax increase occurred, then Congress still probably would not choose to up NASA’s budget by much if any. I give you the following as evidence: NASA’s budget did not go up significantly during the economic boom of the 90s when the government had a budget surplus.

A Clinton administration will not change a thing for NASA current course.

What is your point?

COTS like program can be on the rise, not only at NASA but also at DoD where they are badly needed. It is not about political ideology it is about pragmatism and making our government works for us all.

Yet another quote – slightly edited for your enterainment – by Nicholson. “When I think of Congress I think of the public and I take away reason and accountability.”

And this is not absurd to you? Oh come on! Whether you can technically do this or not is not the point. What is the point is to spend sensibly, spend with return in mind. Return must be defined otherwise you end up with SLS/MPCV and then I return your argument to you. If Washington can spend whatever it wants then let them have SLS/MPCV. Why do you care?

I am not disputing NASA’s budget. I am disputing the policy and its implementation that is not made in concert with public interests.

But in the end we agree to the restructuring and it will either be voluntary or not so much. There is a choice. Now.

NASA did not want SLS, Congress forced it down its throat. Some at NASA want SLS of course. And when SLS is being forced upon the agency then those voices of support have more influence on what NASA does. The amount of $$$ in any budget is the source of power of any manager. Not competency. Power. For how long?

“Tax are being used to fund NASA. Having space policy irrelevant to your source of revenues is absurd.”

NASA’s budget is pure spending, no revenue. That’s not unusual, as most government agencies and departments are pure spending – how much money does the DoD take in?

There is no limit to the amount of money NASA can be given, it’s more a matter of how much Congress wants to spend. In fact NASA’ budget, as a percentage of the Federal Budget, is at it’s lowest point since 1959. The last time it had a big increase in budget was 20 years ago when the ISS was being built, but otherwise it’s been consistently below 1% since 1975.

The agency needs a restructuring, it’s just a matter of who will take the lead to do it. But I’d be happy if it kept it’s budget at the same level it has today – that’s plenty to fund cutting-edge human exploration, but only if the SLS is cancelled.

Absolutely preposterous. Tax are being used to fund NASA. Having space policy irrelevant to your source of revenues is absurd.