Tom Cuddihy wrote:

But you have to start somewhere. ESAS is what you call a 'baseline.'
It's the fallback. If all the other budding space projects fall through
completely, if SpaceX stalls after launching one or two Falcon 1s, if
all of AirLaunch's test engines blow up and Blue Origin kills a family
of 5 on their first suborbital joy ride, at least the ESAS will still
be in progress, keeping the public interested in man's outward destiny,
keeping at least a cadre of personnel knowledgeable in the issues of
manned space launch, hopefully beyond LEO.

Your argument makes no mention of the benefits of ESAS, or the costs.
Your argument would apply no matter how high the costs, and no matter
how meager the benefits. This is obviously nonsensical. Your argument
proves too much to be valid.

I take as proof #1 that NASA is not designing ESAS as a way to keep the
commercial market out of the business:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/busin...ay_051107.html

I'm not claiming they are. What I am doubting is the worthiness of
ESAS even in the absence of putative future alt.space capabilities.

Don't forget Ferdinand and Isabella sent Columbus out to the Spice
Islands by sailing west in 1492.

Don't forget Columbus is an utterly bogus analogy for space exploration.

Paul