I'm not saying they're right but they do have a point. Rather than spending tons of money to build reusable systems, they advocate an idea called "Big, Dumb Boosters". They're designed to be mass produced from simple materials, lowering the per unit cost.
Point of fact, the Soyuz booster may well be described this way (and that's not in any way meant as a put-down). Since it entered service, nearly 2000 Soyuz and Molynia boosters (Soyuz booster with an additional upper stage) have been launched. Once they worked out the bugs, the Soyuz has proven to be not only very cost effective (some put the price at about $1000 per pound to LEO), they've proven very reliable.
Here are some related links:
Big Dumb Rockets
Big Dumb Boosters: Can we build them?
Big Dumb Boosters: A Low-Cost Space Transportation Option?
Cost of Space Access - FARs Opinion
Reusable systems can make a lot of sense if they're simple enough to process between flights and if they're flown enough to recoup the higher development costs. As of now, reusability hasn't proven cost effective in the least.
Space/Science » in reply to Whatever the solution, the essential step is that the hardware be totally reusable with minimal turnaround time and maintenance costs.
Some people exactly the opposite
The whole thread (7 posts)
- What do you see as the long-term solution for low cost space flight? (If there is any at all.) My personal choice is the (sc)ramjet. (n/t)
- Whatever the solution, the essential step is that the hardware be totally reusable with minimal turnaround time and maintenance costs.
- re: What do you see as the long-term solution for low cost space flight? (If there is any at all.) My personal choice is the (sc)ramjet.
- re: ELV launched from the equator (n/t)
- Bimese Two Stage to Orbit (TSTO) using conventional rockets
- Living off the land