An interesting comment (number fourteen) by "anonymous" over at Space Politics:

The other interesting rumor from that same post is:

“I was also told Griffin has put the word out that for now it is retire the shuttle and support ISS and wait to see what the next administration wants to do about the moon.”

If true, the VSE is arguably dead and Griffin its self-acknowledged executioner.

I've thought for a while that Griffin made a huge strategic error in focusing all the agency resources on building a new launch system and doing nothing to start the development of the infrastructure necessary to actually return to the moon, like the departure stages and landers. Had he done the latter, the moon program would be be more of a fait accompli, and politically harder to kill. But now, the next administration could easily revert back to a LEO space program if it chooses to.

If they do revert to a LEO space program, at least, they'll have a few commercial launch vehicles to use/ignore.

Let's see. Is this the fourth or fifth time that VSE has been pronounced "dead?" I wonder how many rumors from sources that refuse to post under their own names have to crop up before they start being ignored?

Actually, Mark, it's the first time. I don't understand why you have so much trouble understanding the difference between ESAS and VSE.

"I don't understand why you have so much trouble understanding the difference between ESAS and VSE."

The "difference" is a matter of semantics, for the most part, except in the fevered imagination of those with half baked "alternatives."

In any case you are trying to deflect from the real issue. Why do certain people seize about every rumor pur out by anonymous sources just because they desperately what that rumor to be true?

The requirement that we fly orbiter until 2010 has always been a significant handicap for the VSE no matter what architecture was chosen.

Also, given recent comments by the GOP Senator from Florida, keeping the NASA budget at current levels and laying off the Space Coast standing army will not be easy from a political perspective.

If ESAS withers away, then I see the choices in 2009 as being:

(a) Extend the orbiter program;

(b) Go with a single simple shuttle derived (shuttle C or Direct);

(c) Significantly downsize NASA

An all-EELV VSE is not politically sustainable due to the importance of Florida jobs and the Florida electoral votes as demonstrated by O'Keefe and Steidle choosing not to fight that battle a few years ago.

At least not with much effort.

Of course, had a shuttle C path (or a Direct path) been chosen in 2004 we'd be flying that new rocket before January 2009.

To say "fly orbiter for six more years" and then go to the moon really was a "kick the can down the road" policy.

The "difference" is a matter of semantics, for the most part, except in the fevered imagination of those with half baked "alternatives."

In other words, you don't understand the difference.

I'll explain it, in small words. VSE is the goal. ESAS is just one means of achieving the goal. ESAS dying means that NASA has to come up with a different way to get back to the moon. VSE dying means that we no longer have a goal of going back to the moon. If Griffin is really telling people at NASA what is reported here, VSE is functionally dead.

Oh, and as for this.

Why do certain people seize about every rumor pur [sic] out by anonymous sources just because they desperately what [sic] that rumor to be true?

I do not want VSE to die. I have always been in favor of VSE, if not in favor of the specific way that it has been implemented.

I do not want this rumor to be true. I can't imagine why you would think I do. Except for a problem with reading comprehension. And your inability to distinguish between VSE and ESAS.

I completely agree on the very important distinction between the Vision for Space Exploration from the White House (and still fully supported by Congress - the stumbling block is funding levels, not the vision itself) and the later Exploration Systems Architecture Study from Griffin/NASA.

The VSE sets the goals. The ESAS attempts to decide the best implementation to attain those goals. Two very different things.

However even though I'm not optimistic about the topic it's still too early to say the VSE is dead. What would be correct (assuming Griffin said as reported) is to say that the VSE as it relates to anything beyond ISS and Shuttle replacement(s) has been put on hold.

It's my understanding that the Orion itself will remain lunar capable (just not in any meaningful way with the Ares I as the launch vehicle) and that this whole thing is an effort to save face regarding the (ESAS) Ares I since it will at least manage to get the Orion to the ISS (i.e. strictly as a Shuttle replacement and thus meeting at least one VSE goal).

The Orion would still be fit for lunar use if launched by a more capable future launch vehicle.

However some rumors also say Griffin is planning to rework the Ares I into something closer to Direct v2 (I don't see how one could do this without scrapping Ares I but still that's what the rumors say). It that turns out to be true one can hope most of ESAS will be scrapped in favour of a Direct v2 approach.

The future will tell but hopefully at least the shit has hit the fan over at NASA HQ and they've realized something has got to change.

sorry, but the VSE/ESAS 1.0 can't really born as planned

that's why TEN months ago I've suggested to "Reinvent the ESAS plan" in this BAUT forums thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/47403-reinventing-esas-plan.html

if you want to save the "moon dream" I suggest to shift SOON to a VSE/ESAS plan 2.0

Habitat Hermit said "something closer to Direct v2" ... the AUGUST 2006 version of my MAY 12, 2006 "FAST-SLV": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

Yes, Bill, we know you think that any option that doesn't maximize the amount of money NASA spends on giant rockets and minimize the role of the private sector is "politically unsustainable."

We also know that a lot of Congressmen disagree with you.

Do you really think it's a good idea to base space policy decisions solely on political correctness, with no reference to engineering and economic considerations?

As for your "a-d" options, you've stacked the deck. Implicit in your list is the assumption that NASA must either develop some new national socialist space transportation system or face drastic cutbacks. There is another option you refuse to consider: NASA could obey the Launch Service Purchase Act and buy transportation services from the private sector, which would allow NASA to do a lot more.

Apart from "political incorrectness," can you (or Mark) tell us why that would be such a terrible idea?

(A sawbuck says neither one of you will answer.)

Thats the trouble. No politician wants to grasp the nettle.

Truthfully NASA admin, Congress and the political make-up of the next admin will kill Ares, Project Orion, whether we like it or not. No one's going to kill NASA because of the 'pork' involved though a personal view would suggest it needs it.

NASA is less and less a 'force' and has become more a joke, which is a real shame. It has had some really bad leadership from both the administrator and from government.

No matter now whether we have Project Orion, Direct v2 after late 2008 its going to be 2020 before NASA as an agency (if it survives) has something of any value. The commercials, if not 'killed' in the process will have something up and running long before then...

Rand, you are rumor-mongering. You quoted a followup post in another blog in which a followup post in a third blog states that an anonymous source told someone something. Not the most credible thing you've ever posted.

Griffin has neither the desire to kill VSE (based on everything he's said publicly his whole life) nor the ability (the White House owns the VSE; NASA is just the implementor.)

It is an exaggeration to say that "all the agency resources" are focused on the launcher and "nothing" is being done on the departure stage and landers. The EDS and lander are not required until 2020, six years later than the launcher, so one would not expect them to be dominating the budget now. Second, preliminary design work is being done on the EDS and lander. That is just about where one would expect them to be 13 years ahead of projected IOC, given the money they have to work with.

NASA can't win in some people's eyes. They base Ares I around a big SRM and are criticized for sacrificing performance for politics, but then you criticize them for not making a political calculation to front-load the development of the lunar vehicles.