The California Democrat remained unconvinced, insisting that the current proposal is one that he cannot accept.

"Those are all fine words, but they don't make it so," Schiff said. "I wish we could all get by on good words, but what matters are the deeds."

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) shared Schiff's sentiments, saying the proposed planetary science cuts are "unacceptable," and NASA's vision for future robotic exploration is "not consistent with reality."

"I grieve for my country — I grieve for NASA," Culberson said. "There's no way you can say the planetary program can survive a cut of 21 percent."

Meanwhile, some 2,000 space scientists are gathering this week at the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas. Angry scientists at the conference, including noted Mars scientist Steve Squyres, a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. and principal investigator for NASA's Opportunity rover on Mars, are pushing back, and are rallying to restore the agency's planetary science budget.

But Bolden defended NASA' Mars program, and pointed to MSL's expected arrival at Mars in August as a sign that exploration of the Red Planet is ongoing and vibrant. He also said the rover's tricky descent and landing will be challenging for him and the agency.

"I think you'll see the finest level of performance of our Mars program," Bolden said. "Humans around the world will be able to see color, 3-D images from the surface of Mars. That has never been done before. Once I do that, hopefully you will be as excited as I am about the Mars program."

• The Best (And Worst) Mars Landings in History
• NASA's 2013 Budget: What Will It Buy?
• Mars Explored: Landers and Rovers Since 1971 (Infographic)

Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

6 Comments

1. 1. Mr. Pedantic 08:02 PM 3/21/12

   Just curious, why didn't NASA take this opportunity to criticize the government for the cut? Why are they acting like it was their idea?
   
   
   WAS it their idea...?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. dbtinc 09:02 AM 3/22/12

   Here's a news flash - the country is tanking and much as I endorse the pursuit of space, well, there's no money. Mars or cancer research? Not a very difficult choice. And please, don't tell me about the benefits of this knowledge on enhancing our competitiveness.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. racer79 12:45 PM 3/22/12

   I'm sorry that you feel that there must be a choice between cancer research and the exploration of space/Mars. The reality of the situation is that there is no less money in existence today than there was +15 years ago, in fact there is more which means that it is worth less. The government has simply made more agencies/departments and has grown the ones it already had making budgets become more thinly stretched. NASA's planetary science budget is more likely to affect the EPA's budget than it is any one single science research grant.
   Anyway, NASA should put its' planetary science budget on a temporary hold of sorts (in which the planetary science budget would temporarily consist of the scientists salaries, and any currently active missions not including ones in R&D stage, the budget would later be restored to its' full amount) and spend that money on figuring out a more efficient way of getting up to orbit/space. I mean seriously, NASA is supposed to be composed of some of the greatest scientific minds alive today, but for some reason we are still using horribly expensive and horribly inefficient rockets. We developed that technique of getting to orbit/space around half a century ago, and granted, it is tried and true, but give me half a billion dollars and even I could probably get a rocket into orbit (albeit probably alot less safely and accurately). IMHO I would think that NASA would be able to come up with a novel, efficient, and cost effective means of getting people into orbit/space over a 50 year time span.
   Bottom line is, there isn't really a choice between cancer research and NASA's budget.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. geojellyroll 02:22 PM 3/22/12

   
   
   Nasa can't come up with anything 'novel and efficient'...it hasn't for 40 years. A single shuttle flight averaged 1.6 BILLION dollars. American manned space flight is dead for the forseeable future (thank god). Billions were squandered to make it 'safe' rather than billions spent on actual science.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bucketofsquid 10:09 AM 3/27/12

   With the vast expansion of Homeland Security and the surge in retired population combined with the decimated economy, it is clear that the money has to stretch farther than ever before. Exploring Mars means nothing if we don't eventually transition to exploiting Mars in some form. It has been decades since we explored the moon and yet there is no exploitation happening. Axe the Mars mission to save on the budget.
   
   When we are no longer running deficit budgets we can restore the goals and funding for Mars.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Quinn the Eskimo 05:13 PM 4/1/12

   Lawmakers: You can't have so much money!
   
   Lawmakers: Why you cuttin' programs.
   
   See a trend here? Lawmakers.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this