NASA ESAS Final Report (DRAFT): FULL REPORT

jamie_young · Dec 27, 2005

Keith Cowing of spaceref.com has posted on http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1112 that he's uploaded the full 900 pages of the ESAS Report for PDF download on http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19094 in 16 download sections, 50mb entire download. Still downloading it, but thought you might want to know as Keith only posted that he'd made it all available just 30 minutes ago on his announcement at NSF. When he announced he'd uploaded three pages of this massive report, it provoked a 150 plus post thread of 3600 views on NSF in a couple of days, so this is going to be keeping everybody busy for some time!

mattblack · Dec 29, 2005

THANK YOU!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

steve82 · Dec 29, 2005

Been reading it most of the night.

henryhallam · Dec 29, 2005

Just got back from visiting family, thanks for the link!!! This should keep me busy for a while.

vt_hokie · Dec 29, 2005

I sure hope this boondoggle gets cancelled!

JonClarke · Dec 29, 2005

Thanks heaps! Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Dec 29, 2005

I think you are trying to say "Bah, humbug!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

vt_hokie · Dec 30, 2005

If I am a scrooge, then working on X-33 and seeing it along with so many other worthwhile programs get cancelled is what made me that way! Sorry, but I can't get excited about going back to capsules after growing up with such a more optimistic and promising vision for the future of space travel.

JonClarke · Dec 30, 2005

The so-called "promise" of X-33 turned out to be an illusion. I am glad you have been disillusioned. You have the opportunity to have more realistic expectations. I fail to see how going back to the moon in a far more capable way than was done in the Apollo and then going on to Mars can be less optimistic and promising than a fundamentally flawed program like X-33. But that is your choice, like it was Scrooge's. And you will end up left out. That is your problem. But I'll be damned if I am going to let the "Give me my spaceplanes or give me no space flight at all" attitude prevail. It's the attitude of the small boy who grew up wanting a flashy sports car and refuses to recognise what he and his family needs is a station waggon. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

vt_hokie · Dec 30, 2005

You can look at it that way, but it's more than "not getting my space plane". It's watching the United States waste billions on obsolete hardware to maintain shuttle-related jobs that is so frustrating. The future of spaceflight is not Apollo capsules and SRB's, and if my country is no longer willing to invest in new technology, then it will be another country that takes the lead in aerospace. That will be a sad day. Also, I don't see us going back to the moon in a far more capable way than Apollo. Assuming the funding is there to support the current plan, and everything goes smoothly, we'll send 4 people to the moon in an incrementally more capable way than Apollo, and not for another 12 years or more. And any talk of Mars is pure fantasy, as it will take a lot more funding and more technology than the "CEV" will give us in order to pull that off. We haven't even begun to tackle the radiation exposure problem or devise the required debris impact protection, among many other things, in order to enable serious human exploration beyond the Earth-Moon system.

mattblack · Dec 30, 2005

(Matt prepares, wearily, to flog the deadest horse of all) At the risk of taking a leaf from Gaeto's book (shudder) There are some people here who whine and whinge about the so-called "useless" ISS, then turn around and complain even louder about how we're not developing better ways to get to it, or some other "useless" Low Earth Orbit destination!! HUH?!! You can't have it both ways. In a better world, more friendly to manned spaceflight expenditure, I want full infrastructure for LEO, Lunar and Mars! It's quite apparent to me that Big Aerospace & Govt. cannot, repeat CANNOT develop a reliable and cheap spaceplane. Partly for technical reasons, but mostly for political and fiscal ones. *Oh my God! The X-33 suffers from propellant tank de-lamination? That's it: It'll never work. CANCEL IT. **The X-38 is $1.99 over budget? CANCEL IT. **The OSP will cost $17 billion? (actually $40 billion, if historical trend is anything to go by). Cancel, cancel CANCEL. What a bunch of PUSSIES!! It's obvious to me now that the Rutans and Bransons of this world are going to develop cheap(er) spaceplanes. LET 'EM! During the Clinton era, the US had a record LOW budget deficit and they were unwilling to develop a Shuttle replacement. What makes you think that in this era of war and natural disaster, they will now? Continually wanting to stay in the prison of low Earth orbit, and wanting to develop better ways to get there: THAT is the boondoggle!! And make no mistake, LEO is a prison, albeit with a very nice view. It's time to stop the rot and stagnation. LEO is a prison, with the ISS (an others) it's gold-plated cell bars. It's time for a JAILBREAK!!: http://www.content.loudeye.com/scripts/hurl.exe?clipid=001229201010006900&cid=600111 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

vt_hokie · Dec 30, 2005

We won't go anywhere in space, in LEO or beyond, on any significant scale until we develop a safe and affordable means of reaching LEO. What was the saying, Low Earth Orbit is halfway to anyplace in the solar system or something along those lines? I'm sorry, but spending billions of dollars in order to send 4 elite astronauts to the moon two or three times per year is not the way to open up the space frontier and break free of that "prison" that you speak of. Maybe that's how the powers that be want it. Perhaps our government doesn't wish to see routine access to space, but regardless of what they do to stand in the way, it will happen. It's more a question of whether the United States will remain a pioneer or end up watching from the sidelines. And you're right - it was ridiculous that X-33, X-34, X-38, etc were cancelled at the first hint of trouble. I blame that on poor leadership, and maybe if Bush hadn't been handed the presidency in 2000, things would have played out differently. Who knows. In the case of X-38/CRV, I don't even think there was any sign of trouble. That program had been progressing quite nicely! Oh, and I would just point out that I am not one who ever called the ISS useless or advocated its abandonment. Far from it. I think that despite its flaws, given what we have invested to date, it would be a mistake of unpredecented proportions to not spend the incremental amount required to see the project through to completion. As for Burt Rutan, I'd love to see him succeed. But as I said before, it'd take 100 Paul Allens to fund the development of a useful orbital space plane. A Mach 3 suborbital joyride, which may or may not prove to be safe and commercially viable, is a long way from developing an orbital system.

mattblack · Dec 30, 2005

I'm glad to see that we both agree AND disagree, without resorting to silly insults!! However, as you say a space tourist sub-orbital 'toy' is a long way from developing an orbital ship. But you gotta start somewhere!! />>We won't go anywhere in space, in LEO or beyond, on any significant scale until we develop a safe and affordable means of reaching LEO.<< True, but don't ask Nasa or its Aerospace buddies to do it. />>What was the saying, Low Earth Orbit is halfway to anyplace in the solar system or something along those lines?<< Yup, phrase courtesy of Robert Heinlein. />>I'm sorry, but spending billions of dollars in order to send 4 elite astronauts to the moon two or three times per year is not the way to open up the space frontier and break free of that "prison" that you speak of.<< I'm sorry, but I have NO problem with (examples) Eileen Collins, John Young, Franklin Chang-Diaz, Sergei Krikalev, Soichi Noguchi, Claude Nicollier etc being more 'elite' than me!! Astronauts for the forseeable future ARE the elite. Better them than (examples) Tom Green, Adam Sandler or Paris Hilton!! I CAN'T understand why some people are so against the (largely) fine ESAS infrastructure or indeed anything resembling conventional or 'mainstream' common-sense rocket science? Yeah, I've got some quibbles myself, but those who oppose ESAS generally seem to be pushing some Altspace-dogma barrow or obscure paper spaceship fantasies. Not saying you are, necessarily, but this is a time for unity about manned space travel, not a time to make space a microcosm of partisan politics and doctrine. Over the last couple decades I've seen space discussion degenerate away from the cold hard facts to become instead a thing to grind axes about. **Question: When the ignorant start claiming equal time and credence with the learned for their views, does that mean manned spacefli <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

josh_simonson · Dec 30, 2005

At least a bullet is being put to the shuttle as consolation. Even though much of the shuttle infrastructure is preserved, it is broken between two conventional modular launch vehicles. Once the shuttle lobby is divided between two vehicles, it'll lose power in NASA.

vt_hokie · Dec 30, 2005

I'm sorry, but I have NO problem with (examples) Eileen Collins, John Young, Franklin Chang-Diaz, Sergei Krikalev, Soichi Noguchi, Claude Nicollier etc being more 'elite' than me!! Nor do I, but reducing, rather than increasing, the number of people that we can send into space is not a step forward. Yes, I'd like to see "common folks" have the opportunity to fly in space someday, but even before that happens, we need to be able to send more scientists and researchers into space. Even if you want to keep astronauts "elite", there are far more Ph.D.'s and medical doctors and pilots and other potentially qualified personnel who would love to pursue the dream of spaceflight than NASA will ever be able to utilize with its antiquated ESAS approach to spaceflght.

SpaceKiwi · Dec 30, 2005

matt, once again a voice of reason and uncommon common-sense. josh, they may be holding onto some of the STS hardware and infrastructure, but they have shown the ability to learn from whatever 'mistakes' (and I personally don't ascribe to that view) were made. By 'Shuttle' you really mean the Orbiter I suspect, and they are retiring that problematic part of the system entirely. They are then taking the other elements and reshaping them into 'superior' launch systems. Lessons like 'don't side-mount the payload' or 'do incorporate an escape system' have been taken on board. It's all positive news IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

vt_hokie · Dec 30, 2005

and they are retiring that problematic part of the system entirely. The orbiter itself was not the cause of either catastrophic failure, technically speaking, but rather the launch configuration and two elements that NASA does intend to keep - the segmented solid rocket boosters and the foam insulated external tank.

SpaceKiwi · Dec 30, 2005

Yes, sorry vt, I didn't word that very well. It was the configuration that made keeping the Orbiter safe problematic. The SRB is technically improved over the iteration that tragically doomed Challenger, and the ET 'problem' is solved by inlining the stack. Both will be used in improved configurations which will enhance safety in use. In that respect I believe the lessons have been learned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

josh_simonson · Dec 30, 2005

By 'shuttle' I refered to the stack+orbiter and it's fundamentally flawed horizontal integration. Both SDHLVs are straightforward rockets that will be much easier to improve over time than STS because their stages are independant from eachother. The SDHLVs are 4 relatively independant stages, while the STS is one inter-related monstrosity.

SpaceKiwi · Dec 30, 2005

And your reference to the 'shuttle lobby losing power'? I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that. Are you referring to those advocating another 'shuttle-like' vehicle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

jamie_young · Dec 30, 2005

Keith Cowing just started a new thread on nasaspaceflight.com that he's uploaded the final (not a draft version) on the same link as before on spaceref.com. Check out the MTV!! It's a real, big, SPACESHIP! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> They've put a bigger image of the MTV on the thread Keith posted on on Nasaspaceflight.com, it's the same or very similar to the ship from the 1998 NTR report http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-1998-208834-REV1.pdf

teije · Dec 31, 2005

Anybody know if and where I can find the Appendices to the final report? Thx adv! Teije

bobw · Dec 31, 2005

Are the final .pdf's significantly different from the original ones? I started downloading them the day before yesterday (modem). I probably only have the latest version for 14 through 17. Is it worth the effort to get the latest version for all the rest? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jamie_young · Dec 31, 2005

Some things have changed, like we know see what the Mars transport is with a new graphic and an improved graphic, some have not changed. There's people listing what has and what hasn't changed here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1145&start=1

bobw · Dec 31, 2005

OK. Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

NASA ESAS Final Report (DRAFT): FULL REPORT

jamie_young

Guest

mattblack

Guest

steve82

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

mattblack

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

mattblack

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

jamie_young

Guest

teije

Guest

bobw

Guest

jamie_young

Guest

bobw

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page