h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:54:16 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(quasarstrider) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .

Sure, but my opinion is that we won't get costs low enough for
tourists if we throw the vehicle away. If we don't get them low
enough for tourists, we won't get them low enough to open up space (or
have an "affordable" and "sustainable" VSE).

IMHO the major advantage of reusability is reduced testing costs and
that is about it.

No, there's much more advantage than that. Like not having to build a
new vehicle for each flight...

The two are related, as you undoubtedly know. I think
the effect on development costs is less understood, however.
IMO, the Econ cost model that killed Phase A space shuttle
designs was flawed in not recognizing the benefits of
reusablility and the possibility of incremental flight
testing. Expending during development leads to hand-wringing,
crucial tests that tends to add greatly to development costs.
The impact on operational costs is more obvious.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com