ESAS Presentation Live update thread

[Chris Bergin]

This thread will contain a "ticker" of information from Monday's ESAS press conferences, shown on NASA TV..with image captures added to the ticker.

[Chris Bergin]

If this http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050919_nasa_plans.html is it, then major yawns.

[FransonUK]

That's never the 100 billion dollar plan!?!?!? The article contradicts itself anyway!

[Chris Bergin]

Hardly the clearest read in the world....and leaves me thinking we're simply going to repeat the Apollo missions with a load of KSC workers laid off (or more like retired when we ironically lose all the Apollo workers at retirement age).

Please don't let this be the presentation, basically NASA moving to sending people up on an SRB and an Apollo to wander around the Moon for a few days.

Needs to be more than this, but that article is quoting one person and the writer got over excited and slapped his un-edited notes into the article I'd say!

Real fear NASA is going backwards four decades.

[SimonShuttle]

So. We get rid of the three Shuttles.

We lose interest with the ISS.

We start sending people up on SRBs

We pretend we're Neil Armstrong and bounce around the Moon.

Whoopeeee, how fu-king boring is that!

"Hey, we're NASA and we send people to space in 1960s capsuals. We used to have space planes".

[Jason Sole]

Man. I hate it if this is it.

[Chris Bergin]

They need to throw something like the AIAA documents out in this or the media and the public will be totally unconvinced.

This smells of an excuse to lose a load of KSC staff on a plan that could be pulled in five years. NASA HAVE to do this right and if some boffin blabbers on about a SRB stick CEV it's going to be a wet dream for the Shuttle basher crowd and those who romance over the good ole days of the Apollo.

Problem is...it's not the 1960s-1970s anymore!

[Sergi Manstov]

Thank you NASA for dropping the ball if this is their "plan"  

[Chris Bergin]

Well given no one on the ESAS is talking (that I know of) this could be just some second guessing pre-emption. I have no doubt this is on the document...I think we're all sure of that. But the lack of a plan (just some SRB launcher to the moon with an EDS) would be a massive anti-climax and would point to the lack of a 100 billion plan if the full 100 billion plan was not revealed, imho.

Like I said, we need to see something along the lines of the AIAA document, which shows the progression through to the SDLVs. That would get people excited about more than manned missions to romance about the Apollo era. This would show we're looking to set up base ahead of the mission to Mars.

Anything less and NASA deserves to be critised.

[JamesSpaceFlight]

Very uninspiring, but we should wait for the official press conference.

[Space101]

Same here, wait for the press conference. It could be someone's rushed on a story that only has quotes that work for this one element of the plan.

[SimonShuttle]

Where is the permanent manned base on the moon, that's what gets to me.

[Chris Bergin]

SimonShuttle - 19/9/2005  12:42 PM

Where is the permanent manned base on the moon, that's what gets to me.

That's what I'm miffed about. I can only think the writer could cover one element of the plan - rather than all of the plan - thus that's why it doesn't mention your aforementioned comments.

This simply can't be the $100 billion plan. As it stands it's an excuse of a plan to get rid of a load of KSC workers on the promise (which can be broken) of repeating Apollo days , which is great news for some of the older posters and STS haters on here who want those days to return.

Imho, this leaves NASA in a very dangerous position.

We lose the international partner requirement that ensures the STS continuation (or as viable as it can be continued for the ISS....no ISS and I doubt we'd still be flying - or trying to fly - the Shuttle) and put our eggs into a basket that could be scrapped with a change in the political climate.

Result, we end up with Sat launches from the Cape and the end of the manned space flight missions at NASA for years and years.

Again, we have to wait for the conference. I do not believe this article is "the plan". But I for one have gone from excited to damn nervous.

I'm only commenting on the article...as I don't think it's correct as way of showing "the plan."

[Flightstar]

Everyone needs to calm down as that article cannot be what they will present today. If they do, someone should be fired for going public with just that.

[Chris SF]

So lockheed Martin lost?