Today's Fox News column is up. It's basically the post about expendables a couple posts down. I've already gotten an email from a Dave in Bellevue, NE, chock full of conventional (and mistaken) wisdom. An amazing number of people actually believe the flawed arguments that Dave presents, even in the industry. That's why I try to spread the gospel as much as I can.

Hello. I read your article and on the surface it appears to make sense.

It appears to for the simple reason that it actually does make sense.

However, a Russian Soyuz (or Proton or Cosmos) SLV is not the same as a Boeing 757. So the argument of cost related to re-useability is not relevant. The fact is that 'disposable' boosters are the most cost efficient method in existance for routinely putting payloads into space.

Yes, this is true, and has nothing to do with my argument. I'm not talking about existing methods--I'm talking about better ones.

The fact that one blows up every now and then is just a reflection of how out of the ordinary space flight is (accelerating several hundred metric tons to speeds of 19,000 mph isn't the same as taking a commuter flight from Philly to DC). After all, some of these systems have reliability rates in the high 90's (such as the Delta).

Note, he says that as though high 90s is a reliability to be proud of. If aircraft had that poor a reliability, there would be many crashes every day. If cars had that kind of trip reliability, no one would use them except for short distances and unimportant errands--their chances of getting to their destination would simply be too small.

The reliability problem isn't because of physics--it's for the reason I stated. Every flight is a first flight, and infant mortality can kill on a mission like that, in which there are no opportunities for a gentle "shake down" cruise.

Also, comparing space vehicles to beer cans!?!?!? Try something with at least more than one moving part next time.

I didn't compare space vehicles to beer cans. I was simply making the point that it is in both theory and practice possible to build disposable devices that were cheap and reliable. If I were truly making the comparison of which you accuse me, it would weaken my argument, since I'm arguing against expendables.

Simply having a reusable booster will not ensure safety. After all, airplanes crash all the time, and even the ridiculously expensive shuttle has exploded on launch. And after you put all your cash into a reuseable vehicle, you will not build hundreds or even dozens of them, so the reliability won't necesarily be any better than a disposable system.

This is an amazing paragraph. Yes, there is an occasional airplane crash (though I think that "all the time" is an overstatement). That's because we have thousands of aircraft flights every day. That airplane crashes are rare enough events to be newsworthy, considering how much they fly, is a testament to their reliability (many nines).

And, WHEN one does explode, the replacement cost will be staggering.

This is making presumptions about replacement costs that are not backed up by any data. Shuttle is useless as a benchmark, because it was built in such small quantities, and it was done on a cost-plus constract, with ancient technology. There's no reason that space transports should cost much more than air transports (on the order of a hundred million or so) in quantity. And they will rarely "explode." Most expendable rocket failures are not caused by an explosion, except when range safety blows them up. There will be no range safety device on a piloted space transport, any more than there is on a piloted aircraft. Most failures will be simple mission aborts.

Single Stage to Orbit reusable systems may eventually be developed at staggering cost, but in the meantime, reusable systems are a pretty good deal.

I said nothing about SSTO. No one knows how much a space transport will cost, but if it's "staggering" it won't happen. Most studies I've seen show that it's less than staggering.

I suspect that he means that "expendable systems are a pretty good deal." Expendable systems are a lousy deal, and we will not be able to afford space for anything except government programs and commercial communications and remote sensing satellites, which can afford the high costs, until we develop real space transports for large markets.

I grew up Mesquite and went to highschool just down the street from the Town East Tower where the ID offices were located. Right about that time the game Need for Speed was out for the 3do and it seems that John was determined to own everyone of those cars available in the game. He had two Ferraris (one of which was not street but was often seen on the streets), a viper, a porsche, corvette, and a NSX. I'd drive by the parking lot every so often just to check out the cars. Even went up to the floor that they had their offices on once just to check it out. Looked more like a game room than a office. Pool tables, and man size replicas of the Doom monsters. Jeez its hard to believe that was almost 10 years ago already. I definently have to root for those good ole boys from Mesquite, TX.

Opps lost track of which comments I was under, meant to put this under the "More Good Press For Space Tourism" post

What about a space cable? Focus our technology on a relatively statiionary carbon-based satell9te which could receive modular packages into orbit.

What about a space cable? Focus our technology on a relatively statiionary carbon-based satell9te which could receive modular packages into orbit.