There's an interesting (if not entirely accurate) history of the ill-fated X-38 program in the Houston Chronicle today. However, being the Houston Chronicle, it has a NASA-centric bias. I'll probably put up a longer discussion of this issue in the next couple days, and it may be the basis of my Fox column on Thursday. Suffice it for now to say that, in my humble opinion, this was an extremely flawed concept, in both requirements and design. Killing it may force some rationality on JSC and the space station partners.

But just let me point out at least one instance of sloppy reporting, or economic ignorance.

Though it no longer has a mission, the one-of-a-kind X-38 orbital test plane will have a market value of $1.4 billion once the assembly is finished, according to two appraisals sought by NASA. That is what it would cost somebody else to build the same craft.

There is a confusion here of two different economic concepts--value and cost.

I can readily believe that it would cost $1.4B to build another vehicle like this to NASA's specifications. That doesn't mean that it would have a "market value" of that amount. Value is simply what someone is willing to pay for it on the market.

No one would value it at that price other than NASA. And no one would pay such ridiculous costs for human space access, other than NASA. As long as NASA makes the market, costs will continue to be high.

That's odd. I was at the space center during the first week of June. During the tour they showed off the x-38 and said nothing about it being cancelled. I wonder if they're in denial or if they just didn't feel like coming up with something new for the tour.
That's rich though, confusing market value and replacement cost. I guess the market value of my 94 Mustang GT is $20,000...its not? oh well.

They're in denial, hoping that Congress will save it. They certainly aren't going to talk to the public on tours about it.

And it's not surprising that they don't know the difference. NASA has never understood basic economics--they've never had to.

What is that fashionable term today?... Enabler? So how is it we enable NASA to ignore market/economic reality?

...