The Business Case for Reusable Launch Vehicles

An anonymous reader writes "Remember the failures of "shuttle replacements" like VentureStar? A Space Review article argues that even if VentureStar succeeded technically, it and other proposed big RLVs would never have made it financially: they cost too much to develop and wouldn't have made it up through increased launches. What's the solution? The author says that suborbital RLVs, like what Carmack, Rutan, and the other X Prize contenders are working on, will create a business cycle that will eventually lead to orbital vehicles."

Comments

I don't see what the problem is:

[burgburgburg]

We already developed the Eagle RLVs for Moonbase Alpha more over 4 years ago. Ask Commander Koenig.

We're going about it wrong

[confused one]

I say we take the aerospace guys and mix them up with the guys who build the nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. Tell them we want a vehicle that's nuclear powered, it has to reliably go to space and back, be self-contained (no boosters, onboard repair facilities, etc.), size / weight are not a factor (more power!!! Mwuahaha), budget is unlimited.

Then sit back and see what kind of aircraft carrier sized behemoth vehicle they come up with...