It now appears that the next generation of space vehicles will look, well, like the first generation of space vehicles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html

I guess the concept is simple and proven. If nothing else it will allow us to get back into space quickly and cheaply, in terms of research costs.

Makes sense, at least for short-term. Use variations on off-the-shelf tech, and build big dumb boosters that may not be sexy, but they will git'r'dun.

Thing is, the principal objection to the BDB remains: Chemical rockets have a helluva lot of parasitic weight vs. their payload. I brought up laser launch systems earlier in this thread. Results of a hasty search on Google:
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/newsletter.html
http://yarchive.net/space/exotic/laser_launch.html

It makes a nice near-term bridge-to-magcat launch system. Jerry Pournelle described a large-scale man-rated version in Exiles to Glory in 1977, creditiong the concept to AVCO Everett. Take one humongous nuclear power plant. Plug in a big honkin' laser array. Train it on a target inside something that looks a lot like the combustion chamber and bell nozzle of a rocket motor. Light that sucker off. Your reaction mass is the ablative material loaded inside the "combustion chamber" plus the surrounding air and/or reaction mass you bring along. May not be as elegant as the magnetic catapult, but whatthehell, you're going to need a humongous power source for your cat system anyway...

The fomer Soviet Republics have dozens (hundreds) of old ICBMs. They are rugged and reliable (notoriously so, Russians have launched in blizards), and best of all, cheap. With only minor retrofits, we could have an operational fleet of launch vehicles. Plus Russia is paying people to do it's space work for it. As for a launch platform and location, I suggest using a mobile platform based on a modified oil tanker. It would be easy to carry the fuel needed for launching as well as the launch vessel to an equatorial latitude for launch. This means we'd need less fuel to put things in geosynchronous orbit. The tanker is also big enough for fabrication and repair facilities to be loaded on board.

Light that sucker off, something goes wrong... it all goes down with the ship, launchpad and all.

One misstep and you kiss your cost effectiveness goodbye.

Remember the word.

Redundancy
Redundancy
Redyndancy

IF you're piling people into a rocket, redundant safety systems to save them. Redundant control systems to attempt to save the mission ( and money) ... Redundant facilities in case one takes a catastrophic accident.

There's redundant safety systems even in our civilian motor vehicles.

Plan all the good stuff, but never forget to plan for the crap. Because we're human... and shit happens.

Ah, but you usually don't send people up with the rocket to deliver a satelite.

And you don't strap a multi-million dollar electronic device to a rocket that falls apart the moment a screw pops out... that's just bad business, and loses you funding REAL quick.

I say, we should focus on improving the technological equipment. What you develope and test fly, can turn into sources of revenew when converted to use in other industries. Look at combat flight simulators... and the latest Ace Combat 5 game...

Practical use research while attempting to advance technology.

If our long term goal requires X technology to achieve... then if our short term goals are building towards better and safer technology to reach Tech X. Every piece of new equipment developed in this process has potential in other areas. Never forget that. And that potential would then translate into profit potential. And profits = funding. And you're more likely to get initial funding from businesses, if there is the potential for them to profit by you. Sad fact about the state of business, but true.

Our short term goals have to dangle a carrot in front of mules... because out long term goals look like Aurthor C. Clark quotes...