This makes two NASA posts in a row; I promise it won’t happen again.

In a response to my previous post, Patrick Linsey pointed out that the next-generation Orbital Space Planes (the “Space Taxi”) are intended to be slimmed-down, ultra-high-tech replacements for the Space Shuttle.

Simply put, this is hype — NASA has done its best to paint such a picture, but those promises are old news. NASA has been researching RLVs for several years already, and at least two projects (the X-33 and X-34) have already been cancelled. By now there is enough of a case against RLVs that a new approach to space exploration is warranted.

Pat also mentioned the X-Prize, which offers $10M to the first privately-funded team to bring three people to altitudes of 100km (62 miles) twice within fourteen days. I agree that this is probably the world’s most promising aerospace development in years. Once somebody wins the prize, it will fuel the growth of a space tourism industry; the market is there, waiting for somebody to start selling.

What people should realize, however, is that the X-Prize competitors are not going into orbit; they are only going to cruise at suborbital height for a short while. In terms of cost and complexity, the distinction is enormous. And while I think Jeff Foust is correct when he predicts the X-Prize invigorating a stagnated market for launching satellites, for the foreseeable future, NASA remains the only American group with the knowledge, training, and funding to actually put people into space.

That said, the Space Taxi is a product of the “Space Shuttle mentality”. Its managers promise a sleek, robust, magical vehicle that will cut costs and work perfectly. The truth is that reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) simply don’t pay off. They weigh too much, require too much support, and do not generate enough revenue or savings to be worth the developmental expenses.

It’s very easy for NASA’s bureaucratic management (the same people that actively ignored Columbia’s launch problems until after it disintegrated) to proclaim, “The last generation of RLVs wasn’t great, but the next generation will cure our ills!” But they won’t.

I’m not saying the Space Taxis should not be developed at all, but they should not be the cornerstone of American space exploration — they are a stopgap measure, a preparation for the inevitable failure of the aging Shuttles. They are not the future of manned space travel.

NASA would be better off investing in a radically different, yet scientifically feasible, alternative to RLVs. The Space Elevator is one such alternative. Considering how much money it could save in launch costs alone, and given how many scientists are lining up to claim it can be built (given proper funding), it is worth the expense of research and development.

Articles this page links to:
NASA Explores Space Shuttle Options [28 Jan 1996]
NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs [01 March 2001]
The End of US Manned Spaceflight Looms Ever Closer [10 Jul 2003]
Is there a business case for RLVs? [02 Sept 2003]