More of a note to myself, if anything, to be expanded on later, in another venue.

It strikes me that NASA's response to the president's challenge is a statement of fundamental unseriousness about it.

A serious program to go back to the Moon, and beyond, would be based on a foundation of an infrastructure that would dramatically reduce the marginal costs of getting to orbit, operating in orbit, and getting to the points beyond low earth orbit. It would be a decision that would allow dramatic and affordable increases in space operations, for both the government and the private sector.

That they have chosen an architecture that makes the marginal, per-mission costs of doing anything in space as high or higher than they've always been indicates that they're more interested in short-term milestones (getting back to the Moon and completing the lost missions of Apollo) than in opening up a frontier. I thought that I heard the president say something else over a year and a half ago, but perhaps, politically, they're right, and I'm wrong.

[Update on Saturday afternoon]

Clark Lindsey has some expanded thoughts on this subject.

Well, Dr. Griffin is an administration official who serves at the pleasure of the President. Upon taking the job he inherited a task which was to return this nation to the Moon and set us on a path to Mars. Admittedly, an Apollo Part Deux plan, built with legacy shuttle hardware, probably does have the least technical risk. If (and this is a very big if) Congress can be convinced to spend enough money on it.

Now, all evidence points to the fact that Dr. Griffin is a very smart individual. So I have to wonder if in his heart of hearts he thinks this plan is actually going to happen. And if it does happen in any of our lifetimes, will the program be sustainable? History suggests that an Apollo style exploration program will only continue as long as Congress is willing to buy the megaboosters needed to launch it. But I guess it really isn't Griffin's job to worry about a political decision to be made 15-20 years in the future. By then he'll be retired and writing his memoirs.

Is it going to actually matter?

Before they spend more than a few billion dollars on this, there's a good chance that the Falcon 5 will be proven, and the t/space air-launch and Falcon 9 will be undergoing first flights. If one or the other can win America's Space Prize, then what excuse can NASA use to continue development of more expensive boosters when those can be made into an adequate architecture? They'll try, obviously, but can't they be laughed down at that point?

Also, side thought... wouldn't Armadillo's powered landing and extensive software guidance be really useful for the LEM?

If you first assume that NASA engineers are competent (I know, an incredibly hard assumption for some) it changes your perspective on the current plan. As Dr. Griffen said, what the similarity of the plan to Apollo funadmentally points out is that if you want to explore beyond LEO, the guys who did Apollo got the basics essentially right on.

Leave aside any pixy dust ideas that it would be possible for NASA (or any government agency) to develop a 'sustainable' space architecture and what you're left with is concrete goal attainment. If your goal is to get to the moon on a constrained budget paid for by the US taxpayer, sending the majority of it up in one whack really is the way to go.

If your goal is to develop a sustainable space transport infrastructure, letting the private sector ENTIRELY handle it (from funding to development) really is the way to go, not arbitrarily funding pet projects on the government dime. That's how we would end up with AMTRAKs into space.

". . . dramatically reduce the marginal costs of getting to orbit . . "
They've already successfully used that con to keep the rice bowls filled for a number of years with both the Shuttle and NASP. Now they're using the "I'm being honest (for a change)" ploy of just telling you that they're going to do entertaining stuff, if you just give them 100 billion in 10 billion chunks.

As Dr. Griffen said, what the similarity of the plan to Apollo funadmentally points out is that if you want to explore beyond LEO, the guys who did Apollo got the basics essentially right on.

Dr. Griffin is mistaken. They did Apollo the way they did because it was the best way to beat the Russians to the moon. It was a terrible way to have an affordable, sustainable program, as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't sustained. In that regard, the new plan is too much like Apollo.

tom: I think NASA engineers are quite competent. But they don't work in a vacuum. They work in an institution with an ingrained value network. The incentives in that organization, and the political environment in which it is embedded, often work to thwart what we would consider objectively rational actions.

This is bad news, since that network and political environment haven't really changed. Changing who occupies the seats at the top doesn't do it. Changing mission statements, or pious pronouncements after accidents doesn't do it. I'm not sure what would do it.

"Bullwinkle, that trick never works!" Given that Dr. Griffin isn't dumb, I must assume he does have a hat that isn't 30+ years old and despite all appearances isn't Apollo Take Two. Therefore: this public plan is merely a backup plan, based on the assumption that each and every U.S. private attempt will fail in reusability and cost reduction due to a) government blocking of the private plans in the hallowed name of Homeland Security, or b) Dr. G. knows our industrial base is so far eroded that he is relying on purchasing flight vehicles from Russia, India, or China in the name of international co-operation, or c) neither of the above: the whole thing is merely PR to soothe the voters as the U.S. continues its descent into Failed Nation Status. There is a fourth possibility, which is all of the above. I wish I could think better of my country and its leadership both elected and appointed, but how many times can I see the worst choice made in a purposeful, deliberate manner, from shuttle design to station design to the "accidental" crash of the DC-X to VentureStar to this fiasco, before I come to a logical conclusion that our Masters wish us all to remain planetbound, the easier to control us? Is it paranoia when all the signs point to one conclusion?

I think the truth is that this is the plan easiest to obtain congressional support for because it preserves the most jobs in diverse congressional districts.

A commercial driven plan does not employ enough voters to be of intrest to them.

"Before they spend more than a few billion dollars on this, there's a good chance that the Falcon 5 will be proven, and the t/space air-launch and Falcon 9 will be undergoing first flights."

Bah! I'm putting my money on Roton! Roton will do it with a mission to the MirCorp space station!

"Bah! I'm putting my money on Roton! Roton will do it with a mission to the MirCorp space station!"

Yes, I realize that there's an element of "the last crop of private launch companies failed miserably, so this bunch will do so as well, QED".

I'd counter that this generation is a little farther along than Roton got, almost universally backed by billionaires who made their money elsewhere while Roton and Kistler were going under and have deep pockets to get them over the hump, and working with even better knowledge of rocketry and materials science.

I'm not going to simply say that "Well, next time it'll work", because today's communists say the same thing. However, based on the evidence--Falcon I is about to fly, t/space is parachuting mockups on a Powerpoint-and-binder budget, Scaled has already been to space 3 times, and Bigelow is going to launch his test modules on existing rockets pretty much no matter what--I'd say the odds look better for some combination of private systems than they do for the proposed government design.

I'm not very impressed by the NASA plan. For the kind of money NASA plans to spend on development, 15-20 billion dollars, you would think something more grand and more capable would come out of it. The only real change from Apollo is replacing storable propellents with cryogenic propellents. That squeezes the margins enough so that 4 people instead of only 2 can land on the moon.

The core failure of NASA's plan is reliance on chemical propulsion for the Earth Departure Stage. The only reason a huge (and therefore expensive) Heavy Lift Vehicle is necessary, is for launching the enormous chemical rocket EDS into LEO. The only way chemical rockets can get you to the moon, (or anywhere else) is with great masses and equally great expenses.

I would much rather see NASA use it's limited funding to develop Nuclear Thermal Rockets and Nuclear Electric Rockets for EDS than waste it's money developing HLV. A combination of manned NTR and unmanned cargo NER could revolutionize manned space exploration, plus integrate well with existing launch vehicles and even integrate well with hoped for alt-space cheap access to LEO.

I just heard about this guy named Paul Hudson who has this idea for a rocket called Phoenix. It is single stage to orbit. And it has windows! I think it could work!

I think we may be overlooking the possibility that Griffin is a very canny operator. Maybe he fully expects that private launch companies will prove themselves in a few years and the best thing he can do for them is to design a NASA architecture that can be most easily canceled once that happens. After all, not a penny is being spent on the heavy lift booster until the next administration. But of course, he can't say any of this publicly so we see this perplexing contradiction of statements friendly to private companies and plans that seem to ignore them.