Eric Hedman has a column in today's issue of The Space Review on whether or not ESAS is a good approach, or at least a good enough one. His bottom line:

After reading over the ESAS, I’m confident that it can and probably will work. It won’t make everyone happy, but what does?

The issue to me isn't whether or not it's workable. It probably is, from a purely technical standpoint, given sufficient funding (which is actually a huge caveat). The issue is whether or not it's politically and economically sustainable. I believe that it is not. But there are other problems with the piece.

His last sentence above makes this (to me, unnecessary and trite intro) irrelevant:

If you read a number of the space-related web sites, forums, and blogs, you will find opinions on the direction NASA is going that range from just about perfect to that it will condemn the human race to extinction.

In fact, he negates it with his very next sentence:

I think that this range of opinions would exist no matter what the plans are or become.

Exactly. So why even bother to state it? Mark Whittington seems to imagine (based on his quoting of it) that there's some kind of useful point to be made here. Moreover, I suspect that he thinks that it's one that somehow reflects badly on yours truly and others that have criticized the architecture. But how can that be? If, as is stipulated, any plans will have fan and critics, that tells us absolutely nothing about which fans and critics are correct in their praises or critiques. It's a statement both true and trite.

He goes on:

I find it fascinating that a government agency that spends less than one percent of the federal budget can generate this kind of passionate discourse.

What is so fascinating about that? Since when is the percentage of the federal budget expended on something correlated with the degree of passion that some feel about it? People are passionate about space because...ummmm...they think it is important, not because it gets federal dollars. I'm only passionate about the federal dollars part to the degree that, as a taxpayer, I think they're being wasted. The fact that they're being expended in a way that will probably, tragically, have the opposite effect of that advertised (getting humanity into space in a big way) is just the more tragic, but the tragedy arises from the fact that it's being perverted from an important goal, not with how much money it is in terms of the overall federal budget.

When you read the arguments presented about what was good and bad about past and current vehicles under development, the arguments range from technical to purely emotional. Some of the arguments against the ESAS architecture are that it is a rehash of Apollo or it doesn’t include a spaceplane. Other complaints are that there is not a firm commitment to technology usable on a Mars mission. I personally don’t think that a cool look is a reason to pick a design. Cost, reliability, and mission capabilities should be the reasons a design is selected.

This criticism seems incoherent to me. Yes, one argument against it is that it is a rehash of Apollo. There is much to be said for that argument, to the degree that it's true (and the NASA administrator admitted as much himself, when he dubbed it "Apollo on steroids"). Though I haven't necessarily called for a "spaceplane" (whatever that is), the desire for one isn't necessarily driven solely by the desire for a "cool look." There are arguments for better earth-LEO transportation that actually relates to "cost, reliability and" (yes) "mission capabilities."

In other words, this is a strawman, at least in terms of my own criticism. Who would argue that the selection shouldn't be based on those criteria? The debate is not much about what criteria to use (or at least not exclusively that) but which type of architecture best satisfies them.

Here, he makes a classic fallacy of economics:

NASA has international commitments to complete the ISS. Not completing the ISS would waste the huge investment the US and our partners have put in it. Retiring the shuttle before the ISS is complete is not a realistic option. It would diminish the American space leadership position and NASA’s credibility. It would make it easier to cancel Moon exploration plans when NASA gets into the next budget tight spot or unexpected technological hurdle.

It doesn't matter how huge the investment is in a project, if it's not worth it at completion, or if it's not even worth the forward expenditure to get it to completion. That's called the "sunk-cost fallacy," also known as "throwing good money after bad." Perhaps it is in fact worth it, but Hedman doesn't make that case here.

It could just as easily be argued that by finally displaying a sense of fiscal and technical realism, and admitting that the ISS was a politically driven policy and technical disaster, NASA would have a better chance of establishing its credibility for future programs. I know that it would make me more inclined to support it. But that's just me.

[Monday evening update]

Mark Whittington has an incoherent rant about this post. If anyone else can explain it to me, please do so in comments.

It could just as easily be argued that by finally displaying a sense of fiscal and technical realism, and admitting that the ISS was a politically driven policy and technical disaster, NASA would have a better chance of establishing its credibility for future programs.

The decision to complete ISS using STS was made by people at a higher pay grade that is held by Michael Griffin.

ISS belongs to the President, not NASA.

I know that, but NASA could still provide some sense of technical reality about the decision. Anyway, I'd have more confidence in the federal space policy establishment in general if they could do this, not just NASA. As far as I can see, it remains business as usual, and there's no indication that the administration is as serious about the vision as it is these other political considerations. Opening up space remains fundamentally unimportant, politically, when it clashes with anything else.

> ISS belongs to the President

No, Bill, ISS is an *international* space station. It does not belong to the United States, and it certainly is not the property of the temporary occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

You take that imperial presidency stuff way too far.

For every person that realizes it is a waste to spend more money on ISS there are 5 (less well informed) people that would view it as a huge failure and would therefore want to reduce NASA spending. Informed people would be right and lose at the same time so what’s new. On the other hand if your goal is to see NASA destroyed…

For every person that realizes it is a waste to spend more money on ISS there are 5 (less well informed) people that would view it as a huge failure and would therefore want to reduce NASA spending.

I think that would depend a) on the degree to which NASA (and the administration) admitted it was a failure and b) the degree to which they showed that they had learned something from it that would signicantly reduce the chances of such a failure recurring.

But given the nature of politics and bureaucracies, that's exceedingly unlikely.

On the other hand if your goal is to see NASA destroyed…

Given its duplicity and failure in the past several decades, I say an institutional death sentence is called for. Off with their budgets!

It's not as if they're, what's the word, entitled to our tax money, you know.

It would be interesting to see a clear projection of 5-10-20 years with and without Govt manned spaceflight. I suspect that the difference would be almost invisible except for a few photo op moments. If alt space does or does not perform will carry far more weight.

Not that closing it down would save tax money, there are infinite ratholes to swallow those crumbs.

"Given its duplicity and failure in the past several decades, I say an institutional death sentence is called for. Off with their budgets!"

Not a sentiment widely favored and therefore something that is a waste of time to yearn for.

"It would be interesting to see a clear projection of 5-10-20 years with and without Govt manned spaceflight. I suspect that the difference would be almost invisible except for a few photo op moments."

Actually, no. Without public space as a core market to service, alt.space will *at best* be running joy rides in LEO for the very rich and adventurous in 20 years. With a core market, alt.space will be a major player in lunar operations.

Without public space as a core market to service, alt.space will *at best* be running joy rides in LEO for the very rich and adventurous in 20 years.

Mark, if that's happened, then the problem will be well on the way to being solved, because it means that space has become affordable to many, many more peope (as in orders of magnitude) than it currently is.

Can you say the same for NASA's plans?

> Without public space as a core market to service, alt.space will
> *at best* be running joy rides in LEO for the very rich and adventurous
> in 20 years.

You have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence to support that claim.

Even if that statement were true, it is largely irrelevant to the NASA budget since *less than 1% of the NASA budget* is allocated to anything that might create such a market.

There are plenty of people who would like to modify the NASA program to increase that percentage, but none of them have gotten anything but abuse from Mark Whittington.

> With a core market, alt.space will be a major player in lunar operations.

Yes, but the ESAS architecture says all lunar operations will be supported by government-owned Shuttle-derived heavy lifters -- not by the market or "alt.space."

But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of political rhetoric? :-)

Mark,

My point is that the public sector (tax supported) spaceflight is unlikely to acomplish anything of real and lasting value. Even if I were to grant your point of alt space service to public sector destinations, (I don't)Then I still don't see taxpayor space as making a difference. No difference to Mr. and Mrs. taxpayor other than photo ops and a few feel good moments.

If alt space is only providing joy rides to LEO in 20 years as its' only profitable activity, then so be it. I don't think it will be useful to try to force an artificial market that can disappear at the next election.

The govt spaceflight dollars should still be required to return something usefull in proportion to cost. I don't see that happening in the current set up.

Well, Eric doesn't even answer the question he poses in the first paragraph: "Is the entire space program on the right path?". At best it seems to elicit a luke-warm "I'm confident that it [ESAS] can and probably will work" and "it can be made to work".

Not exactly a ringing endorsement in my book. But some insight is provided deep in the article when he notes that somebody has to make the decision as to which path to follow, and that person is Mike Griffin. (Now shut up and eat your Wheaties)

When I hear things like that, I harken back to the rather crass phrasing used by Clayton Williams during his run for the Texas Governor's office, paraphrased along the lines of:

***Warning: this phrase is offensive***

"Well, you know, if a woman is going to be violated and can't do nothin' about it, she might as well just lie back and enjoy it"

(IIRC Ann Richards won that round)

So for all of the folks out there telling me to lie back and enjoy the ESAS ride, I say No Thank You.

Not a sentiment widely favored and therefore something that is a waste of time to yearn for.

But the look on your face would be priceless, I bet.