We need less games on how much money will be made available to do the mission. Nasa needs to instead start finding ways to begin the planning and design phases, with what is available to do the vision.

I am very concerned with the current resupply situation with the ISS of having only soyuz capabilities at this time. I feel that a modified atlas or delta could do this very same job with ease. Nasa needs to think out side of the box for solutions.

Florida Today space news:
Station crew facing severe water, food shortage

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestoryN0523ISSWATER

Harold, I'm not sure what more you expect. Congress approves funding for everyone, NASA included. And to qoute a line from The Right Stuff "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".

Read this interview, you may feel better about what NASA is doing:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/148/1

But that is where the problem is, in the funding level and in the accounting of Nasa's use. Nasa needs to lower costs in general of all aspects of space operation, design and manufacturing of rockets.

For those that have not found this yet:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/webcast/townhall-052504/

Congressional Town Hall

May 25, 2026, 3 p.m. Pacific time
(6 p.m. Eastern time)

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) will visit JPL Tuesday, May 25. They will discuss The Vision for Space Exploration and answer your questions in von Karman Auditorium at 3 p.m.

Brownback is chairman of the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Rohrabacher chairs the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee.

$2B lost in space agency
Rep. Todd Platts is right to hold NASA accountable for billions of missing tax dollars

"Houston, we have a problem with your bean counters.
Maybe NASA should stop searching for microscopic critters on Mars and start looking for signs of intelligent life in its own accounting department."

http://ydr.com/story/opinion/26306/

Granted it's just another opinion about Nasa finacial responsibility but when will it end.

They need to revamp the accounting department in nasa more then anything else. 2billion thats enough to buy 10 delta IV vehicals,or do the mars rover mission 5 times over.or develope a shuttle derived heavy lift vehical and a man rated medium launcher.
Some heads in acounting should roll over that mistake.

On resupplying ISS kistler aero space accually apporched nasa on adding a pressureized cargo module to the K1 turning it into some thing like progress but much better as it would lift more and offer down stream cargo.Though nasa has only offered mild interest.
A craft like that could keep ISS running and possibley even be man rated in the future.
Another thing nasa could do is a crash program on a new style apollo and launch it with a modified SRB equipted with a liquid upper stage.
Use something basicly idiot proof for the upper stage engine like a pintle injection engine.
As for the apollo CEV they could use the same heat shield the K1 uses which is basicly shuttle RCC which wouldn't ever cause problems on either craft as it's safe from falling ice/debris etc in those two space craft configurations.It's very safe indeed with the CEV as it's covered by a service module most of the mission.
Whats sad that lost 2 billion would pay for both spacecraft.

Note the cost differences and follow up mission as well with regards to the Marsnews site article mentioned below. My thoughts are that a shuttle does not even come close to either of the figures. If we can not get or keep the shuttle flying then how do we expect to do more than one Mars mission if it ever happens.

I do agree with you on the kistler K1 rocket use but I also feel that the same could be done with the Atlas V and Delta IV as well.
Like I have said before put the burden of design in the rocket manufactures hands. Nasa will buy if it is available at the right price but will buy nothing if it is done with contracts.

From Marsnews site:

"NASA-ESA Study Shows Mars Direct Affordable

A joint study conducted by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) shows that a humans to Mars program based on the Mars Direct mission plan is affordable. NASA costing models show that the Mars Direct plan could be implemented for a cost of $39.4 billion for all hardware development plus the first mission, with each follow-on mission costing an additional $7 billion, while ESA costing models show Mars Direct costs for development plus first mission as $26.6 billion, with each follow on mission costing $5.2 billion."