…by Esther Dyson, over at Foreign Policy. The Space Frontier Foundation is cited.

Paul Spudis continues to mourn the Vision for Space Exploration. I don’t think it’s lost yet — what was really cancelled was ESAS and Apollo on Geritol. There is not currently a specific goal, but I think that it’s still possible to reform (in the literal sense of that word) the VSE over the coming months, refocused on the original intent of lunar utilization. With regard to the Chinese, I am completely unconcerned about whether or not they plant a flag. If they show signs of doing resource utilization, though, I’ll be more concerned, and I suspect that the political establishment will as well, kicking off a true new race. But we won’t know that for years, at their current snail’s pace.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of going back to the moon, Jon Goff has more thoughts on one-way-to-stay trips, which are probably the only way we’ll get back in the next decade. I’m wondering if it’s possible to do a “stone soup” project, and get commercial entities (e.g., Caterpillar) to donate components for the mission for PR purposes.

I have a longish rebuttal to Tom Jones up at Popular Mechanics.

[Update a few minutes later]

In case you’re confused, there are a couple problems with the piece that I’m trying to get fixed. First of all, obviously, that was supposed to be two billion dollars per launch not two bucks per launch (if only…). And I’ve quoted Tom Jones in the first paragraph on the second page, and farther down the page, Charlie Bolden, but there are no quote marks right now, so it makes it look as though their words are mine.

[Late afternoon update]

Jeff Greason weighs in on fairing-size issues in comments, and Jon Goff has some thoughts on heavy-lift technologies.

[Update a few minutes later]

The quotes on page two have been fixed, but we still have dollar-store prices for Ares I flights.

[Early evening update]

Ken Murphy says it’s the dawn of a new space enterprise.

This is sort of interesting, if true:

NASA sees China’s strategy for a manned lunar landing as launch vehicle intensive. While America’s notional Constellation moon project centers on a single – and still unbuilt – Ares-V “superheavy” lift booster for a direct ascent to the moon and two “lunar orbit rendezvous” operations, China will likely opt for two complex “Earth orbit rendezvous” maneuvers.

This will require four “Long March V” rockets – in the same class as the Pentagon’s Delta IV heavy lift launch vehicles – to put their cosmonauts on the moon. Launched in pairs over a two-week period from China’s new Wenchang Space Center on the South China Sea island of Hainan, the four Long March Vs will each loft 26-ton payloads into low Earth orbits. The first mission will orbit the rocket for the translunar journey which will then join a second payload of an empty lunar module (LM) and its lunar-orbit rocket motor. Those first two unmanned payloads will rendezvous in Earth orbit and then fire off for the quarter-million-mile journey to the moon.

Once the unmanned LM is in a stable lunar orbit, the second pair of missions will be launched into Earth’s orbit; the first with another translunar rocket motor and the second with a combined payload comprising the lunar orbiting module, a modified service module, an Earth re-entry module and the manned Shenzhou capsule with three Chinese cosmonauts.

Unlike many at NASA, they’re smart enough to avoid the huge development costs of a heavy-lifter. Of course, it will still be a very expensive mission, but based on existing vehicles. We looked at these kinds of architectures at Boeing during CE&R, before Mike Griffin took over and they became anathema. Of course, we were trying to actually satisfy the requirements of the VSE and the Aldridge recommendations, something that Mike apparently never considered important.

I should add that the article is clearly wrong on this point:

October’s launch of the experimental Ares 1-X heavy lift rocket, while flawless, may well mark the end rather than the beginning of America’s next-generation Constellation manned-space program.

It was hardly “flawless,” unless you don’t consider a failure to deploy all the chutes a flaw.

Dick Shelby is being as despicable as any Democrat. If the Republicans were smart, they’d have him stand down. But there’s a reason they’re called the Stupid Party.

[Friday evening update]

For those unfamiliar with his (Democrat) past, it’s useful to know that he was once dinged as “Porker Of The Month.”

Again, if the Republicans are incapable of disciplining this kind of thing, what is the point in even having a party, or principles thereof? Did they learn nothing from Ted Stevens?

Paul Spudis is unhappy with the new policy, and thinks that the VSE baby go thrown out with the Constellation bathwater. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but to disgustingly extend the metaphor, the bathwater was so polluted that the baby couldn’t have survived anyway, and it had to be done. We’ll just have to have another one, and be more careful the next time. I think we’re still fertile.

The astronaut, not the Welsh singer, doesn’t like the new plan. It’s too late for me to respond (I have more painting, etc. to do tomorrow, and then fly back to LA late afternoon), but I’m sure that the commenters will.

[Update a couple minutes later before hitting the sack]

I will say one thing. This isn’t a plan to go nowhere. It’s a plan to go anywhere, and everywhere. And a lot more realistic one that we’ve had for the past five years.