I think the main solution is changing the popular perception of space travel.

U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed a funding boost for NASA that provides more support for Earth sciences missions and aviation, while keeping the agency's three space shuttles on target for a 2010 retirement.

NASA would receive $18.7 billion for the 2010 fiscal year under the budget proposal released by the White House on Thursday. That would be an increase from the $17.2 billion NASA received in 2008 and represents an overall boost of more than $2.4 billion for the space agency when coupled with the additional $1 billion it received in the recent economic stimulus bill.

It's depressing as hell, but it is also very, very hard to make a pragmatic argument for human space exploration. That's what's wrong with NASA.

And if putting even more people in space and sending them off to exotic locales is beyond NASA's capabilities, it's certainly beyond those of any existing corporation. Unless any megalomaniac but public-spirited billionaires want to step forward, it's not gonna happen soon.

It's one thing to load up a bunch of sailors unto a few ships and tell them to go off discover a new continent and loot it for slaves and gold, quite another to go colonize a barren lump of rock just because said lump of rock exists.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr., who's 62, said his ultimate goal isn't just Mars - it's anywhere far from Earth.

"I did grow up watching Buck Rogers, and Buck Rogers didn't stop at Mars," Bolden said in an interview with The Associated Press. "In my lifetime, I will be incredibly disappointed if we have not at least reached Mars."

That appears to be a shift from the space policy set in motion by the Bush administration, which proposed first returning to the moon by 2020 and then eventually going to Mars a decade or two later. Bolden didn't rule out using the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond. But he talked more about Mars than the moon as NASA was still celebrating the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing.

Bolden said NASA and other federal officials had too many conflicting views about how to get to Mars, including the existing Constellation project begun under President George W. Bush. That project calls for returning to the moon first, with a moon rocket design that Bolden's predecessor called "Apollo on steroids." NASA has already spent $6.9 billion on that plan.

"We cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now," Bolden told NASA employees in a televised speech earlier Tuesday.

A new independent commission is reviewing that plan and alternatives to it.

Once on the surface, the MSL rover will be able to roll over obstacles approaching 75 centimeters (30 in) in height. Maximum terrain-traverse speed is estimated to be 90 meters (300 ft) per hour via automatic navigation, however, average traverse speeds will likely be about 30 meters (98 ft) per hour, based on variables including power levels, difficulty of the terrain, slippage, and visibility. MSL is expected to traverse a minimum of 12 miles (19 km) in its two-year mission.[16]

A presidential panel wrapping up a review of options for future U.S. manned space flight operations delivered a grim assessment today, showing NASA's current plan to retire the shuttle, finish the space station and return to the moon by the early 2020s is not even remotely feasible without a significant restoration of previously cut funding.

"ALICE can be improved with the addition of oxidizers and become a potential solid rocket propellant on Earth," says Dr Steven F Son of Purdue university. "Theoretically, ALICE can be manufactured in distant places like the moon or Mars, instead of being transported to distant locations at high cost."

The jury's still out on whether there are useful amounts of water ice on the Moon, but there's known to be some on Mars. Being able to make rocket fuel on either body would be good news for prospective interplanetary expedition planners, as lugging fuel out from Earth for the return journey takes up a distressing amount of the outbound spacecraft's payload.

Brian Blessed

and how long would it take before they start to burn up?

Addressing the Kennedy Space Center Thursday, President Obama laid out his plan for the space program. He expects NASA to put astronauts in Mars orbit by the mid-2030s, but is counting on private companies to run trips closer to home. Ira Flatow and guests discuss NASA's future.

Howard McCurdy, professor, School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, D.C., visiting professor, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

Bill Adkins, president, Adkins Strategies, LLC, former staff director, House Space and Aeronautics Sub-Committee, Washington, D.C.

Elon Musk, CEO and CTO, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif.

FLATOW: But Howard, are they going to continue to do that model? Will the military still use these other rockets that were not mentioned?

Mr. MUSK: Yeah...

Prof. McCURDY: Well, I think that the model applies equally as well to the military and civil space. What's happening here is a globalization of the launch industry. It's sufficiently mature now that at least NASA can get out of the business of running an airline in a similar way that the U.S. Cavalry got out of the business of delivering the mail in 1925 and spurred the development of the aviation industry.

The big risk in all of this is whether or not private industry, with the incentives that competition provides, can do for, say, three to six billion dollars what NASA was planning on doing for about 30 to 35 billion dollars, developing the next generation of launch vehicles to get humans to and from low-Earth orbit. That's a big risk.

FLATOW: Bill, do you agree?

Mr. ADKINS: Well, I think there's a - part of the problem in having a debate about this policy is a lot of it's a debate about labels about what is commercial, and I like, whenever anybody asks that, to ask them: What does it mean to be government?

Because I'm not sure that that debate really serves a purpose. I think the real question is, is: How will NASA implement this policy? And the devil's in the details, and there are lots of nuances. So one area of concern is if NASA, as they proposed, is to put industry up to bid on fixed-price contracts. And this program is still in beginning stages, and no one truly understands the requirements and the technical complexity of it, and it's very difficult to put a fixed price on a complex development. And there's a long history of problems in the Defense Department with fixed-price, complex contracts.

And I think the debate about commercial versus government is really the way to look at it, and they really need to look beyond that at exactly how does NASA plan to implement that program, and does it balance the risks appropriately?

FLATOW: So you're waiting for the details to come out. The devil's in the details.