What a shame to announce this on the 35 th Lunar landing aniversary. It is only the first of many battles to fund this vision. Will all efforts end up short, so long as we are at war in so many places, or will the collective voices of the moon to mars blitz be heard.
Nasa needs creative think with less levels of burreacratic bull for procurement of any items neccessary to achieve the goal.

Isn't this the same issue with the U.S House of Representatives and funding cuts. While NASA does need creative ways funding, the funding issues occur at the U.S. House of Representatives sub-committee levels. Taxes are allocated for funding projects, so the U.S House of Representatives need to 'hear' from the tax-payer that funding should be allocated for the advancement of space technology. Unfortunately, the only voices they hear are for improvement of railroads, highways, and other issues of transportation. If the House of Representatives doesn't hear from the 'people' they are more prone to funding cuts. So, where does the actual vision and need reside? The population is more concerned over getting the the nearest mall for shopping and having good roads, than going to Mars. This is where politic's and scientific advancment or continue interest of science lack clear communication. A scientist is a scientist and a politician is a politician, very few scientist are politicians.

Maybe a new Space Race is needed for the U.S. House of Representative and civilian interest of colonizing the Moon or Mars to actually occur.

Well, at least the Russian's, Chinese, and Indian, and European governments are working on several applications for space travel. The poor American cowboy of 2025 is peeing behind the same old cactus and looking at the same old rattlesnakes. While an international effort to colonize with human explorers will occur with the combined efforts and knowledge of the European and Asian countries.

It's just the damn plumbing in the pipes--Jim!

What pisses me off is that this budget request had absolutely nothing to do with the new space exploration vision. The morons in congress are using it as an excuse to cut funding when the funding is going to be used to return the shuttle flight and cover current responsibilities.

The budget cuts by the house.
Among the cuts:
$230 million for Project Prometheus, NASA's nuclear-propulsion development program

Will cause research developement delays

$70 million for development of robotic missions to the moon

Will lower Lunar Recon Orbitor expectations of high tech instrumentation and could introduce delay in the 2008 launching.

$120 million from the international space station

Less air or less water, some repair supplies and even possibly closing for a time with manned presence aboard the ISS.

$438 million from the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, NASA's next-generation spacecraft for manned space flight

Will not only delay the CEV but puts more of a burden on the use of the shuttle for manned flights.

I think most are under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights catogory. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.

I am told that my way of thinking is off due to pre existing contracts on another web site.
My response to this is.
So we will have a great big pile of SRBs and External tanks with no where to go if the shuttle is grounded forever. Due to contracts rather than purchase as you go from the given manufacturer. Everthing should have stopped and only the necessary design rework for the external tank foam sheding should have been active.

As for closing and laying off those that work on External tanks and SRBs. When production levels drop it is normal practice to reduce the levels of full time staff. Which recently means in the electronic manufacting field is to fire all the temps or shared,leased agency employees. Also contracts are usually curtailed or severley lowered and or cancelled even if a fine is levied.

I am told again that my way of thinking is in error with regards to comparing electronics which can be high valume and scalable to rocket manufacturing.

On the continued use of the shuttle.
The CAIB certification if used beyound 2010 was not spelled out for the set of requirements that would indicate a pass. With all the work that has been done one could claim each time it is recertified to fly.