Yes, it does. It just doesn’t do it first. Go read the Augustine Report. Or if you have, try it again, this time for comprehension. And please stop with the CAPS LOCK. When you capitalize nonsense, it just makes you look all the more hysterical and foolish.

“LET’S GIVE CONSTELLATION ITS CHANCE & HOUR IN THE SUN, TO SHOW US JUST WHAT MAJESTIC THINGS WE CAN DO IN DEEP SPACE. ”

They have had a chance, and actually a lot more than a chance for 5 years. They blew it. Tough luck.

Cx’s current plan of doing two week sorties starting in 2025 (providing it isn’t delayed yet further), also get’s us no bases or development. And it doesn’t get us those firsts either. In fact Cx is, at this point, a carbon copy of Apollo with a more wasteful budget and longer timelines. The new plan may nto do the ‘bases on the moon’ thing, but it does explore deep space, something we’ve yet to do with a manned craft in any way. We’ve at least had small, short-term bases on the Moon. We’ve never had humans beyond Earth’s gravity well. It’s far more than a ‘circus show.’

“GETS US OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT & ONTO DEEP SPACE.”

SO DOES OBAMA’S PLAN (apologies for the caps)

“LET’S GIVE CONSTELLATION ITS CHANCE & HOUR IN THE SUN, TO SHOW US JUST WHAT MAJESTIC THINGS WE CAN DO IN DEEP SPACE. ”

Cx wasn’t slated to go into deep space until a decade later than the new plan at the earliest and it was set to go to the same place at that point, Mars.

“We want to see our astronauts break the bonds of Earth once more!”

We never really have. There was a point when our astronauts were more in the Moon’s gravitational area than Earth’s, but the Moon is still in our gravity well. And both plans call for a departure from that. But the Cx plan calls for a momentery hiatus to look over our space yearbooks on the same ‘ol 2 week vacations before trying anything new. Don’t get me wrong, we’d do a lot of good science on the Moon and it’s a destination worth considering. I wish we could do both, frankly. But if you want new and pioneering explorations of space leading to an eventual Mars trip and you can only pick one route, doing a mirror-image repeat of what we did 40 years ago is not the way to go.

“True, the Bush admin woefully underfunded its ambitious civil space goals. But at least there was a bipartisan consensus between the two branches of gov’t about the ends and the means. ”

Trying to catch up the conversation… Anyway, when some one like you makes statements like this it really is really sad. Then again my interpretation of what you’re saying. BUT: The Bush’s VSE had a private commercial component to it. So when I read you I understand you do not agree with this new plan which is nothing but the VSE with a slightly different approach which is btw very similar to that of O’Keefe’s.

Now, I realize your expertise is NOT technical but rather political (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/sterner_bio.html) but please. Constellation is a failure and I will not even read your comments otherwise. This “new” approach is trying, note trying, to put things back together. At least you should understand that, right? The market/no-market argument is a non issue! What is the market for Ares? Please show me.

Don’t you think it might be a lot more helpful if you were to try and provide something constructive for once?

And if the new plan is a “shot in the dark” how would you call the ESAS-Constellation plan?

Perhaps, but not with Constellation.