I see no problem with doing both! What are we going to do, nickel and dime the entry of humanity into space? I don't know how many times I need to give this discussion, but I am always willing to try for the truth, again. Most posters on these boards realize that we accomplished fantastic things back in the 1960's in space. What is not so known is that in order to do that NASA's budget for that entire time frame averaged some 2% of the Federal budget. It peaked in 1965 at some 4% of that year’s budget. Now NASA's budget is only some 0.6% of the federal budget (and of course, because NASA's vast budget is so much less percent wise we are now having no problems with budget deficits at all??) at this time. And this is in the face of how much inflation since the 1960's? In comparison to others NASA is the most under funded agency in the federal system!!<br /><br />It is truly amazing to me that NASA has been able to do what it does do with this kind of treatment by our wise and ethical congress (which has also banned all pork spending!). If I sound a little sarcastic it is because I AM!!! Every time I get on these boards the only thing I hear is $$$$$, what an incredible bunch of baloney!! (that is the best wording that I can have for the attitudes of some on these boards)! <br /><br />OK, so much for the rant itself, how much could NASA's budget be increased by to be able to have a far more viable space program? Well, I think NASA's current budget is some $16.6 billion. To me at least they could do truly fantastic things if their budget was only half of what it was during the 1960's (after all, their have been improvements in technology that translates to economies in this area). That would be a budget of $25 billion per year with the current federal budget. I know that a leap this great would not work with congress, but perhaps NASA's budget could be increased by some standard such as 10% per year until it reached the figure of 1% of the federal budget (which