One issue the presidential candidates are not saying much about is space exploration. But some scientists, military experts and intelligence analysts say the next president may well determine whether America keeps an edge in space. Last year, the United States managed 16 space launches; Russia had 22; China blasted off 10. Their space program is still behind, says Robert Zubrin, one of America's strongest proponents for Mars travel, but it is rocketing.

Next January will mark the fourth anniversary of President George W. Bush’s speech at NASA Headquarters that unveiled the Vision for Space Exploration, the long-term plan that gave the space agency a new direction, away from the space shuttle and space station and towards a human return to the Moon and, eventually, human missions to Mars. At that time the announcement drew comparisons to the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), the last major effort by a president to reshape the direction of NASA, with corresponding concerns that the Vision would meet a similar, unfortunate fate. Yet the Vision is alive and well today (despite some concerns about its implementation), while SEI had effectively been dead long before it could reach its fourth anniversary. What caused SEI to fail, and what lessons did its failure provide future initiatives, like the Vision? These are questions explored in depth by Thor Hogan’s history of SEI, Mars Wars. The book (which can be ordered for $15 from NASA’s web site or read online for free) is, at its core, a thorough history of the SEI.

Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science recommended an increase of over $280 million above the requested level for NASA. However, within this budget markup, there is language that would prevent work on programs devoted to humans to Mars. According to a House Appropriations Committee press release, the markup language states that NASA cannot pursue “development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars. NASA has too much on its plate already, and the President is welcome to include adequate funding for the Human Mars Initiative in a budget amendment or subsequent year funding requests." THIS ANTI-MARS LANGUAGE MUST BE REMOVED! Otherwise, the program may turn into MOON ONLY program. We can't let that happen.

The choice to reduce science spending by $2 billion over the next five years is a last resort, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told concerned members of Congress on Thursday. But it's a necessary sacrifice to make sure the shuttles can safely fly enough missions to finish building the International Space Station before retirement in 2010, he said. The space agency delayed or canceled science projects only after making equally painful cuts -- about $1.5 billion worth -- to early work on new rockets, spaceships and other technology necessary to send astronauts back to the moon. One result of those cuts: the proposed shuttle replacement, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle, may not be ready to fly astronauts until 2013 or 2014 rather than two years earlier as Griffin once hoped.

The U.S. Senate approved a $200 million budget increase for NASA Thursday, giving the U.S. space agency most of the funding it needs to get started on a new lunar exploration plan to be unveiled Monday. The NASA funding was approved as part of a $48.9 billion spending bill that also funds the Justice and Commerce Departments. Of that amount, NASA would receive $16.4 billion for 2006, about $60 million less than the agency requested but $200 million more than it had to spend this year.

The House Friday overwhelmingly endorsed President Bush's vision to send man back to the moon and eventually on to Mars as it passed a bill to set NASA policy for the next two years. The bill passed 383-15 after a collegial debate in which lawmakers stressed their commitment to not just Bush's ambitious space exploration plans but also to traditional NASA programs such as science and aeronautics.

Michael Griffin didn’t mind it too much when U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay called him a “space nerd.” In fact, the new head of NASA seemed to relish in the nickname given to him last month on his first official visit to the Johnson Space Center. Just two months into his job as NASA administrator, Griffin has already made his mark. Management shake-ups have come quickly at the agency, which is often slow to change.

Things are looking up again at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans after a tumultuous 2‰ years. The future of the 832-acre production plant and its 2,100 employees looked bleak after the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry in February 2003.

NASA’s Mars program could undergo major alternation, driven by budgetary and technical issues, as well as science goals. “We’ve been getting inputs, advice, actions items…from the road mapping teams,” said Doug McCuistion, Mars Exploration Program Director at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. “Nothing is finalized at this point. There have been no final decisions made or, frankly, any interim decisions made as yet.”

President Bush proposed a $16.45 billion budget for NASA in 2006 this morning, a 2.4 percent increase over 2005's. The budget includes more than $4.5 billion for the space shuttle program, an increase of $366 million, mostly to cover the costs of the effort required to return the fleet to orbit this spring.

While NASA fared better than many federal agencies in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2006 budget request, the White House is not seeking as much money for the U.S. space agency as previously planned. The White House is seeking $16.45 billion for NASA in the 2006 budget. That's an increase of 2.4 percent over what the U.S. space agency has in its 2005 budget, but still about $500 million less than what the agency had been expecting.

Without a separate vote or even a debate, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has managed to deliver to a delighted NASA enough money to forge ahead on a plan that would reshape U.S. space policy for decades to come. President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which would send humans to the moon and eventually to Mars, got a skeptical reception in January and was left for dead in midsummer, but it made a stunning last-minute comeback when DeLay delivered NASA's full $16.2 billion budget request as part of the omnibus $388 billion spending bill passed Nov. 20, 2004

When the history of this lame duck Congress is written, historians may make little notes about the dustup over intelligence reform. However, their long memories are likely to record that, by funding the President's space initiative, this was a lame duck that soared. The $16.2 billion that Congress authorized for NASA, a five percent increase in its budget, made it official that mankind is headed outwards again -- to the moon, to Mars, and beyond. The House also passed a revised commercial space bill, which just a short time ago, was pronounced deader than Tom Daschle's political career.

With a green light from Congress, NASA is moving swiftly to carry out President Bush's ambitious plan to return robots and humans to the moon and eventually to Mars. The United States is also seeking foreign partners for the hugely expensive project, hoping to save money and avoid wasteful duplication. Space officials from 17 countries, including China, Russia, Japan and much of Europe, participated in a planning workshop in Washington last week. Representatives from each nation said they intend to participate in at least the planning phase.

Shifting NASA priorities toward risky, expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most promising space science efforts, states the American Physical Society (APS) Special Committee on NASA Funding for Astrophysics, in a report released today. The committee points out that the total cost of NASA's ill-defined Moon-Mars initiative is unknown as yet, but is likely to be a substantial drain on NASA resources. As currently envisioned, the initiative will rely on human astronauts who will establish a base on the moon and subsequently travel to Mars. The program is in contrast to recent, highly successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the Mars Rover, and Explorer missions, which have revolutionized our understanding of the universe while relying on comparatively cheap, unmanned and robotic instruments. It is likely that such programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of much more expensive and dangerous manned space exploration, according to the committee.