The 52nd IAF Congress took place in Toulouse, France, at the start of October. As this was shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Congress paid a heavy price in attendance. Many congressionists from the United States couldn't participate, NASA had to cancel its presence at the exhibition, and the whole Congress proceeded under a mantle of gloom.

In spite of all this, the IAF Congress this year was still a central event and a formidable boost to our space-related activities, be they scientific research, technological development, or philosophical elaboration. On a more general level, the IAF and the space community spent a great deal of time on the elaboration of a new philosophy, able to drive the space industry out of its current defensive position into one of expansion.

The topic of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs), as opposed to currently used expendable launch vehicles (ELVs), was developed in several symposia dedicated to space tourism and other possible new space markets. Most studies* credit the RLV as the potential progenitor of such markets as tourism, solar power, medical services, entertainment, and even industrial production.

All the prospective developers have placed conservative figures on the costs of RLV development. A new discipline, called "Cost Engineering"*, was introduced by Professor Dietrich Koelle. Cost Engineering is intended to reduce the development costs of an RLV to fit the requirements of space agencies.

As Professor Koelle demonstrated, a two stage to orbit ( TSTO) spacecraft* could be realized by combining two reusable vehicles: one to reach low earth orbit ( LEO), the second to continue to high orbits.

Several studies outlined RLV business plans; these plans described how and when a potential investor would start to earn profits. Robert Parkinson (Astrium) puts the break-even point at 80 flights per year, with a cost to orbit dropping to US$2,000/Kg.

According to Henry Hertzfeld (Space Policy Institute of George Washington University), the economic success of an RLV now depends on the market, not on government policy, although governments could beneficially affect the speed of commercial development. Jason Andrews (Andrews Space and Technology, USA) looked beyond the second generation of RLVs to the third: He indicates a cost of $US1,000 /Kg for second generation RLVs and just US$100/Kg for the third, with a very rapid increase in revenues.

Mr. Youdale (International Launch Services, USA) said that in coming years we will see the transition from technology-driven vehicles to customer-driven services. We should therefore not expect new vehicles but new services. In such a scenario, expendable rockets would remain the main launch vehicles for at least another ten years. Mr. Tetuichi Ito (NASDA) brought a more concrete approach to the table. He presented a technological/economic plan to orchestrate the transition from ELVs to RLVs. In Japan, he said, industry, university, and research bodies are already collaborating to implement this plan. We will see.

No technological revolution is to be expected, explained Mr. Dautriat (CNES). Propulsion is the core of launcher design, and chemical propulsion has been unchallenged for decades. Airbreathing engines will have a chance to challenge rocket propulsion, but not for at least fifteen to twenty years. In this conservative scenario, a plan for a TSTO RLV development was sketched: ground-based studies from 2002 to 2004, flight models from 2005 to 2009, a decision about full scale development in 2010. But the ESA won't consider RLVs unless there is a change from an unmanned program to a manned one.

Could we hope to follow NASA's initiative, one (at least partly) based on manned spaceflight? NASA recently decided to keep its shuttle fleet operative for at least twenty years, as well as cancelling the X-33 project, which was not even designed to carry passengers, before it was even built.

Currently, the term "launch vehicle" is only mentioned in the conrext of satellite launches. But the satellite market does not require a number of flights per year high enough to feed an RLV industry*. We are, apparently, at an impasse: RLVs need new markets, but potential new markets need RLVs to grow and develop. Intelligent political decisions could break the impasse, but according to Dr. Patrick Collins, NASA spends US$25 billion of taxpayers' money per year, investing none of that on space tourism. In fact, NASA strongly opposed Mr. Tito's visit to the ISS. The economy is faltering, said Dr. Collins, and urgently needs new industries to reverse the downward trend. The opening of the space frontier would create many such industries.

At this rate, no one foresees the true beginning of the industry for perhaps fifteen years. But Werner Inden (ASTRIUM, Germany) has a more optimisitic view, particularly concerning Alpha, the International Space Station ( ISS). He believes the ISS is the foundation of a virtuous circle that will lead to tourist space flight within 2015. Here's the paradox: without the ISS, space hotels cannot exist; without a space hotel, space tourism cannot exist; without space tourism, there will be no funding for the necessary technology to make the business profitable. Consider also that to have orbital space tourism we not only need transportation and a destination but also methods of moving huge amounts of construction materials.

Mr. Inden also mentioned that spaceplanes should have the feel of an airplane: they should have upright seats and use a horizontal takeoff; they should leave from standard civil airports; they should have windows so people could take photographs. Such vehicles require a new design approach: up to now only military and research vehicles are built. For space tourism, vehicles specifically designed for passenger transportation are required, as well as some super-heavy vehicles (space trucks) for transportation of construction materials, hotels assembly, etc. Expendible parts of the trucks could then be used as construction materials for the hotels. Space-fairing governments must agree on some basic laws and create a global space agency, authorized by the United Nations.

William Gaubatz (Universal Space Lines, USA) gave an overview of sub-orbital flights that enter space but do not go into orbit; the flight is shorter but also easier to achieve with existing technology and therefore also cheaper. Despite not being able to reach orbit, there are clear benefits to a sub-orbital approach: passengers could fly any distance around the planet in one hour. However, there is one catch: the flight is ballistic and cannot be diverted!

According to the situation described above, it appears very unlikely that an RLV will poke its nose out of the athmosphere before fifteen to twenty years. Instead of embracing the vision of opening the space frontier, I observed that the whole space community is on the defensive, and not just during the conference. The Congress also approached the problem of the risk in human space flight. Such an insistence on concentrating on the costs and risks of space reveals an extreme poverty of political and even philosophical thought. The current philosophy or, if you prefer, the current public opinion, sees this planet as a safe place and space as a dangerous place. According to the same vision, to live on the planet is cheap, and space is expensive, not to mention the so-called "ethics" that constantly wonders if humanity has the right to settle in the solar system, modifying the environment of some lifeless planet.

As to any of the above statements, anyone could see how they are false. In fact this planet is not safer than space, and space is not expensive. In terms of safety, if Schumaker Levy had stroked Earth instead of Jupiter all our troubles would have been ended in few minutes, while an artificial house in orbit could quickly move away from the course of any killer comet. And in terms of cost, the absence of gravity makes transportation costs much cheaper. Large amounts of materials can be moved from earth orbit to lunar orbit with the same amount of fuel used to keep a satellite in its orbit.

But showing the reality and potential of space to people is a matter of philosophical and not just technological education -- something that was quite neglected, even by this Congress. If we gave the public correct information, our main concern would quickly change from "how much does it cost?" to "how soon can we get started?"

Continue Reading: