Shuttle, Shuttle, Everywhere

I do not envy the guy. At one point Russert gave him poll numbers -- 58% oppose paying for manned flight to Mars -- and asked him to reply. These kinds of questions are always tricky. No matter what you say, it's a hole.
He did a good job. With the poll question, he pointed out that you can ask poll questions a number of ways: depending on how you ask the question, you get all sorts of different answers. This is really the only classic response that works. He also said he wanted 20-22 more flights from the shuttle before the program is phased out. I wish them the best of luck on that count.
There were some interesting discussion on testing equipment. Do you destroy a component to test it? You can argue both sides, and depending on the individual circumstances you would make different choices.
NASA continues to be lost in a "risk-free" zone, however, which is not so good for the nation's exploration program. At one point he said something like "sure we made some decisions, but it's not like they were based on schedule or cost issues"
I am really concerned that NASA has backed itself into a corner here. Nobody wants to lose astronauts, but at some point the grown-ups need to make cost and schedule decisions. Saying that you will not risk human lives because of cost and schedule issues is preposterous -- people go out on shrimp boats everyday risking their lives for a few hundred bucks. Oil workers, firefighters, SWAT team members -- the world is full of jobs that involve cost/schedule decisions that risk human lives.
I guess there is no easy answer for NASA, though. In a political organization like NASA, nobody is willing to pony up when people die. That's sad. It's an honorable endeavor to risk one's life for the advancement of mankind; shame that we cannot cherish it as we should.