VSE != ESAS

10/16/05 00:00:00    

By Michael Mealling

Ever since NASA released the Exploration Systems Architecture Study there has been a semantic laziness among pundits in the community that confuses the Architecture with the Vision. Without going into specifics many habitually refer to the SDHLV, CEV and lunar return architectures as “The Vision” when they are only one suggestion by NASA for just one part of what the President articulated in his Vision for Space Exploration speech.

This confusion is potentially very dangerous for the community because it minimizes the importance of the other components of the Vision, indiscriminately lumps good programs in with the questionable ones, and creates a vacuum of clarity that causes the transition to a future administration/administrator a very dangerous time.

The Vision as articulated by the White House was rich with direction such as the use of in situ resource utilization, using the moon as a resources to build from, and the desire for cislunar infrastructure. But the President never said how those things were to be accomplished, just that they should be. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) outlined just one aspect of how NASA proposes to implement the transportation part of that Vision. It does not provide details on what might happen after 2020, alternate methods of implementing the Vision's goals using private industry, or any detail on what will be done on the moon or cislunar space to create infrastructure. Pundits who criticize the the Architecture but refer to it as “The Vision” run the risk of giving the reader the impression that they are against the entire Vision when in fact they may only be quibbling with using Shuttle derived technology or have issues with the reliance on HLVs.

In light of the desire for budget controls in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, Congress is possibly in the mood to cut budgets either now or in the future. If the space community is misunderstood by Congress to be against the Vision itself then Congress may not have any qualms about forcing the Architecture to be indiscriminately cut. Currently the Centennial Challenges program is part of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate which is the part of NASA in charge of the Architecture as well. If ESMD's budget is cut and money has to be moved around to support large contracts with the primes then that money will in all likelihood come from programs like Centennial Challenges. Ambiguous punditry that confuse the Vision with the Architecture now would most likely result in future cries of “That's not what we meant!”

In 2008 there will be a new President and possibly a change in the political party in control of the Whitehouse. As we have seen with the changes in NASA between O'Keefe and Griffin, the way NASA implements the Vision is greatly dependent on the Administrator. If the next President is intent on wiping out all things Bush, including his NASA Administrator, and there is enough criticism of the Architecture to give them political cover, then all the work the community has done could be for naught. The usual response to this is that there is no alternative to the Vision so the next President and NASA Administrator will have to adopt it or else spend money on doing nothing. But as we've already seen with two Republican administrators the way the Vision is implemented can change radically. In essence the “alternative” to the vision IS the Architecture. And its that Architecture that changes with each administration and with each Administrator. We run the danger of letting our focus and criticism of the Architecture turn into the same “design by Congress” that doomed the Shuttle while the importance of the direction articulated in the Vision is left to wither and die.

The point of all this is a warning to pundits, myself included, to be clear about whether or not you are talking about the Architecture as articulated by NASA or the Vision as articulated by the President. They are not the same. We should all be very clear and vocal in our support for the Innovative Programs Office even as we may (or may not) support the various bits of hardware that NASA proposes to build. If you have a problem with Shuttle derived heavy lift then say so. But don't call it part of the “VSE” because the Vision didn't say anything about using Shuttle derived hardware.

If we are unclear in our language about what we do or don't support then we give Congress and NASA the political cover to create something none of us want.