Mike Snead has a very interesting piece on the need for developing infrastructure in space, in this case for the deployment of space-based solar power, but the system he describes would also make it much more cost effective for NASA to do planetary exploration, both manned and unmanned. And it's a goal toward which they're making, to first order, zero investment.

There's very little in the piece with which I would disagree, though there is a quibble:

I do not use the term “reusable launch vehicle” or RLV because the design and operations heritage of expendable launch vehicles is not the approach that will lead to the needed level of passenger safety and operability required for successful industrial operations in space. The better model is taken from aircraft. However, the use of the term “aircraft-like,” or “aerospaceplane” to name the reusable space access system, does not relate to the physical design of the system—such as an expectation for horizontal takeoff on a runway. Rather, it relates to the aircraft systems engineering principles and practices that will be used to design, develop, produce, test, operate, and maintain the new systems to achieve “aircraft-like” levels of safety and operability.

I prefer the phrase "space transport" (as suggested by Mitchell Burnside Clapp several years ago) but I agree with the dislike of the phrase RLV--it carries too many connotations of existing vehicles, with all their flaws.

I also agree with the point that reusability is needed not only for lower costs, but also for higher reliability. I don't believe that we will ever get better than a couple nines with large expendable vehicles:

The need for full reusability comes from the fact that the primary objective of flight system design is to achieve airworthiness. It is a characteristic that will be needed by aerospaceplanes (and spaceships for in-space transportation) to enable the level of spaceflight operations necessary to support space industrialization. Each and every production aircraft is demonstrated, through ground and flight acceptance testing, to be airworthy before it is placed into operation. Only fully-reusable flight systems can meet this standard because the airworthiness of each production expendable component cannot be demonstrated without using up its life. When one thinks about it, every terrestrial human transportation system meets this reusability acceptance test standard.

This was a point that I made in my original draft of my piece at The New Atlantis, that got left on the cutting-room floor.

One of my concerns with the Pentagon SBSP report was that it implied, though didn't explicitly say, that a two-stage reusable launch system needed to be developed, presumably by the government, and that we only needed one such system (i.e., another phrase that I hate--the so-called "Shuttle II). I'd like to see a more explicit recommendation that 1) a robust space logistics infrastructure will have multiple ways of getting to and from space (and around in space) and 2) that they should be privately developed and operated, though perhaps with some artificial market incentives from the government.

I complain in the comments section of this post over at Space Politics on the GAO report (lot of good comments over there, by the way) about all the false lessons learned from the Shuttle. Well one of the valid lessons that we should have learned is to not have NASA develop its own launch vehicle, particularly not to have it develop a single one, with no backup. But Ares indicates that they missed that most important lesson from the Shuttle, illogically concluding instead that the problem was reusability.

A point is made that reusability is needed for good reliability. Reliability is also needed for good reusability. How reusable is a vehicle that needs a top to bottom inspection and repairs before every launch?

How reusable is a vehicle that needs a top to bottom inspection and repairs before every launch?

Not very. That's why it has to be designed to not require that.

The fact that the Shuttle wasn't isn't an argument that it can't be done. The Shuttle was designed with the technologies of three decades ago, and the development budget didn't allow proper investment into operability.

The only problem that I have with Mike's scenario (and it is a big one), is that his infrastructure costs several hundred billion dollars and a long gestation period (not including the costs of RLV development) before you can start to do anything useful. Short of an asteroid coming right at us there is no way that this will happen.

The longest journey starts with a single step (and I'd dispute your price tag--it depends on getting costs of access down). He's describing a desirable end state, but we don't even have a current policy planned to get us there at all, let alone soon.

[NASA]missed that most important lesson from the Shuttle, illogically concluding instead that the problem was reusability.

Rand, I've seen exactly one citation that even comes close to supporting that: Art Stephenson's notorious remark at the X-33/34 cancellation that "one of the things we have learned is that our technology has not yet advanced to the point that we can successfully develop a new reusable launch vehicle that substantially improves safety,
reliability and affordability." If you can provide more, I'd be grateful.

I have my own problems with that (above all, that it puts technology rather than economics front and center)... but even so, one thing it doesn't say is that "the problem with STS was its reusability."

In several hundred hours of interviews with NASA people over the last few years, I haven't heard anything close to that. Everyone I've talked to has taken for granted or explicitly acknowledged that reusability would be very desirable, for all the reasons Snead offers, and that we won't get far in space without it.

Then they offered many variations on "we don't see any prospect of Congress funding the upfront costs of a V 2.0 reusable," or "we don't see nearly enough public/private demand to justify the upfront costs."

You may disagree with those. You may think the upfront costs could be a lot less outside NASA's design and procurement system. You may believe as I do that not just the Constellation launcher mess, but the whole VSE premise of "let's get people beyond LEO again" is a diversion from the much more important goal of cheaper access to LEO. Quite a few of the NASA people I talk to believe that -- off the record, obviously.

"Not to see a workable path to X" is not the same as "not believing in X" or "being dead set against X." I don't see what you gain -- other than a reliable straw man -- by asserting that it is.

No, I've never heard anyone explicitly say that. I infer it from other things they say, and their behavior. I'm not going to dig for them, but I've seen many quotes on Usenet to that effect, so someone has taken that lesson from it, if not Art Stephenson.

O'Keefe said much the same thing (about reusables not being feasible, though he wouldn't be expected to understand the issue). Presumably that was based on advice provided to him by NASA types he trusted.

Mike Griffin has said that the Shuttle was a "mistake" (though he later retracted it under fire). If he didn't think that reusability was part of that mistake, why is he making such a huge agency investment into (yet another) expendable vehicle?

Mike Griffin has said that the Shuttle was a "mistake" (though he later retracted it under fire). If he didn't think that reusability was part of that mistake, why is he making such a huge agency investment into (yet another) expendable vehicle?

Because capsules are "the one thing that we know works" (or words to that effect).

As for the SBSP report, I'll take partial blame for that because I worked pretty hard to get them to understand and accept the aircraft paradigm. Unfortunately, it's hard to get government types to understand the distinction between "the United States needs to do X" and "the US government needs to do X."

I've never heard anyone explicitly say that
So, no cites for something I've seen you assert dozens of times. There's a shocker.

I infer it from other things they say
I offered an alternate inference that explains their statements and behavior better, since your version requires that they be stupid and/or lack a real desire to get us into space, neither of which describes the NASA people I know

I'm not going to dig for them, but I've seen many quotes on Usenet to that effect
Damn, that's unimpeachable research...

Short version: you're so in love with the rhetorical neatness of "they learned the wrong lessons from the shuttle" that you simply don't care whether it's actually, y'know, true...

Glad we got that clear. Carry on.

It's more than "capsules work," Ed, or he wouldn't be developing an expendable launcher.

Monte, I repeat, I've argued the point many times on Usenet. It's not something easily searchable, or citable, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

If NASA doesn't believe that a reusable vehicle can be built within the cost and schedule constraints, and they believe that because of the Shuttle experience, then I think my characterization of the "lesson learned" is a fair one.

The main problem in my view with changing the designation of "RLV" to something else, is that RLVNews.com will have to get a new domain name.

The main problem in my view with changing the designation of "RLV" to something else, is that RLVNews.com will have to get a new domain name.

It's more than "capsules work," Ed, or he wouldn't be developing an expendable launcher.

You put the emphasis in the wrong place. It's not just that "capsules work." It's that they're "the *only thing* that we know works."

The main problem in my view with changing the designation of "RLV" to something else, is that RLVNews.com will have to get a new domain name.

Clark is way ahead of you.

I prefer the phrase "space transport" (as suggested by Mitchell Burnside Clapp several years ago) but I agree with the dislike of the phrase RLV--it carries too many connotations of existing vehicles, with all their flaws.

I don't think "space transport" is generic enough. Like "air transport," it implies a certain type of mission and excludes vehicles designed primarily for reconnaissance, rescue, combat, etc.

Logically, the proper term for space vehicles that are analogoust to aircraft should be "spacecraft." That term has already appropriated for other things, however, and may be irretrievable.

"Spaceship" is a term with widespread currency in science fiction. Many people avoid it for that reason, fearing the giggle factor. After SpaceShip One, however, I'm not sure that's a serious worry. (Richard Branson certainly doesn't think so.)

your version requires that they be stupid and/or lack a real desire to get us into space, neither of which describes the NASA people I know

Then you don't know everyone at NASA, Monte.

In particular, you don't know Mike Griffin, who has specifically stated that it is not NASA's job to get us into space.

If you believe everyone at NASA (including the Administrator) wants to get us into space, please tell us what you believe NASA is doing to get us into space.

Do you think NASA's current project (replacing the expensive Space Shuttle with an even-more-expensive capsule and ELV) is the best way to get us into space? How will making spaceflight more expensive increase our chances of going?

If your answer is they want to get us into space but can't because mean old Congress won't give them the money (the old space cadet standby), then please tell us what programs you think they have requested for that would get us into space and when those requests were denied by Congress.

your version requires that they be stupid and/or lack a real desire to get us into space, neither of which describes the NASA people I know

Another question, Monte. Are any of these "NASA people" in senior management positions? Can you point to any public forum in which they have expressed their "real desire to get us into space" -- rather than just getting a few NASA astronauts to the Moon?

More facts, less rhetoric, please.

The solution to exporing and importing from Earth, initially goods and later humans, has been given a name "THE EARTH PORTAL".

It was announced in a close circle of friends on 4th.OCT.2007 to commemorate the 50 years of space history and set the foundation for the next 50 years. It might be as surprizing as was Spoutnik, for all but those who work for it.

It will be formally presented at the http://www.emlsymposium.org/accepted.html

I missed something.. what is the nature of the objection to the phrase "reusable launch vehicle?"

what is the nature of the objection to the phrase "reusable launch vehicle?"

The "launch vehicle" part. It implies a mind set that we want to break free of. If you call it an RLV, you'll build a "launch vehicle" (as we've doing, very expensively, and unreliably for decades) and try to make it "reusable." That was the Shuttle.

We need to think in terms of routine access to space, not "launching" things.

Oh, okay. I thought there was some problem with "reusable" for some reason. You're saying that by calling it a launch vehicle you're implicitly buying in to the status quo.

You're saying that by calling it a launch vehicle you're implicitly buying in to the status quo.

Right. And in a sane world, the word "reusable" would be redundant. It would be like calling an airliner a "reusable air vehicle." I want to make "reusable" the status quo, so we don't need to use the word.

Like "Compassionate Conservative!"

:-)

Like "Compassionate Conservative!"

Exactly, Jane.

If you have to put an adjective in front of a noun, it implies something about that noun. It's a backhanded slam. My recollection is that Mitchell's example at Space Access a few years ago was "Well, no one has ever credibly accused my political opponent of being a heterosexual child molester..."

Not that I'm a conservative, but this is why we love you (well, you know, in a beer-commercial "I love you, man," kind of way), and hope that you'll continue reading, and commenting, even when we disagree. ;-)

Best laugh I've had all day - I shouldn't read things like that with a mouth full of tea.

And of course, intelligent people who disagree with you are always a blessing - they keep you sharp.

With regard to Rand's comment on RLVs and space transports:

Mitch was probably the first to point out the inappropriateness of the term RLV. ( I would add: of course it's reusable, we don't talk about reusable airliners). However, I have been using the term space transport since the early 1960s, when I came up with this term to describe our efforts at North American to get away from the ELV mold. Moreover, in 1985, my company--while lobbying DoT to become a charter member of COMSTAC--was successful in changing the name of Jenna Dorn's office to Office of Commercial Space Transportation.