THough Greg, if you really have issue with the use of Plan, in articles written for The Space Review, why don’t you write an article entitled “The VSE: Plan or Vision?” and submit it? If you do it in a calm and professional manner I’m sure they”ll acept it.

In fact I’d love for you to do so, not enough counterpoints to whats on The Space Review. Too much leans to my way of thinking. And for me to actually have enough critical thinking on the issue, I need to read opposing informed viewpoints.

Actually, the VSE is a Rorschach test. Chris Carberry and Dwayne Day call it a plan; you say that it isn’t a plan. You and Chris Carberry say that Mars is part of the VSE; Dwayne Day says that it isn’t.

I certainly agree with your comment that we don’t know what the VSE means. I doubt that we ever will.

That said, “back to the moon and on to Mars” is certainly part of it — check the VSE logo at NASA’s site that shows the Earth, a gray orb, a red orb, and a starburst (presumably that’s “beyond”). And that same NASA site says about humans on Mars,

“Building on the work that astronauts will perform on the moon, humans will one day find themselves on Mars. Though no timetable can be set until much more work is done, sustained exploration of Mars and beyond is the ultimate goal of the new Vision for Space Exploration.”

Personally, I have no problem with any of that taken by itself. But we really won’t know what it means in terms of monetary and opportunity costs, how sustainable it’s likely to be politically — or should be — until NASA gets real and produces the aforementioned plans, programs, schedules, budgets. With good fortune, we’ll start to get a better idea about such matters before the end of this fiscal year.