[chimera]

Airborne launch systems always involved some tare weight. With manned systems, you're always going to have some of that. The shuttle is expensive because the tare weight is high and we haven't been able to meet the original timetable for vehicle turnaround. Perhaps those initial estimates were overly optimistic, I don't know. But, whatever, the reality is that we have at this time only one mode of getting into space. Developing another is fine and is probably the way to go, but I'd hate to see another long-term "gap" in the program, or, perhaps worse, having to hitch a ride with others to get up there.

Look, people, we need to understand that our space program is still an R&D effort. We're going to have mistakes, restarts, delays, and the like. Those things happen when you're in a development stage. I don't like them anymore than you do but I have been in the research game long enough to know that they're going to happen. The key point is not to throw away the whole smash because of setbacks here and there. If we're serious about long-term exploration and colonization beyond this planet, we need to keep that vision in mind, and not let it be obscured by penny-ante politics and small-minded thinking.

[narby]

Developing another is fine and is probably the way to go, but I'd hate to see another long-term "gap" in the program, or, perhaps worse, having to hitch a ride with others to get up there.

The development times today are far too long. The technology changes so fast that by the time it flys, it's obsolete. I saw some of the early proposals for digital networks in the space station in the early 80's, that by the time it was launched could have been replaced with stuff from Radio Shack. I don't know what actually ended up in the station, but that effort spent in the 80's was wasted.

If it takes additional money to speed up the development process, then it's money well spent. We developed the entire Apollo system with multiple spacecraft and multiple launchers in less than 10 years.

As for tare weight on air breathing launchers, who cares if it results in a vehicle that can be flown almost daily? Airlines scrimp on weight all the time, changing the number of plastic spoons they carry because some spreadsheet says it will save so much fuel. But they cruise for hours carrying the weight of very heavy landing gear, when they could certainly figure out a way to drop them off and maybe land on water or something. But they don't, because carrying wheels around gives them the practicality of one hour turn arounds. It's worth it.

Tare weight on an air breather, and finding alternatives for very large and very heavy launches, is worth it in the long run.

Oh, and for gaps in the program while developing a REAL space launch vehicle. We should man-rate existing boosters like the Delta II with exact clones of Apollo capsules for a stopgap measure.