I'm not convinced. A lot of the comments at T-TM depend on the belief that you can significantly reduce launch costs (and the need for lots of Delta/Atlas launches per mission) by what is believed to be the cheap and easy course of making a heavy-lift derivative of the Shuttle system.

First, there's zero money in the Bush plan to do such a thing, but let's assume that's fixable.

It's still not at all clear why such a project would be so easy and cheap -- is it really so much easier than evolving the well-known Delta and Atlas boosters? Those programs sure haven't been cheap or quick. Why should "Shuttle-C" or whatever cost so much less than a new Boeing model? And given the very low launch rate for a Shuttle-C, you'd still have high costs. For one thing, there's all sorts of KSC infrastructure that you'd have to maintain and modernize. I'm skeptical.

And, frequently the tone of such critics seems to imply that ALL aerospace development projects are vastly more expensive than they really should be. I welcome them to found their own competitors to Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, etc and get rich.

Sure, Rutan is able to do amazing things for the particualr problems he has worked, but if he could make an airplane that would carry 500 people halfway around the world for 1/10 the cost of a 747, why hasn't he done so?