A space plane or a capsule? Meanwhile, the only reusable ship we have ever built is being retired.
Yeah, I can agree that the shuttle is a bad design. Even back in the day (1970′s), in Downey, California, (where the space shuttle was designed and built) engineers were arguing that the space-tile approach was the wrong thing to do. I personally knew some of them, they were my neighbors (La Palma, CA). However, that doesn’t mean that you abandon the concept because of a faulty design decision in the first article.
A true shuttle is cheaper to operate (per lifted ton) than using throw away rockets. But you have to have a true shuttle. The US shuttle is a hybrid, not a true plane and not a pure rocket either. The proposed EU/Russian space plane will be a smaller version of the same thing, with a separate payload launch for cargo. What is sad is that Hypersonic SCRAM jets point the way towards a true orbit capable space plane technology and everyone is cutting funding for research there.
That out of the way, they are taking a step backward on the moon-mars thing too. Proposals, from the 1970′s, were to start building interplanetary exloration vessels in orbit, after a space station was built. These would be multi-mission craft capable of being refitted between missions. They would be built in orbit and never see the surface of a planet. Their whole purpose would be to transport material between orbital venues. Overall, this is a whole lot cheaper than the Apollo 2.0 approach that NASA is proposing now. Yes, the one-time cost may be more but spread over 10-15 missions, a real reusable interplanetary space ship is a lot cheaper, as you only have to build it once.
However, politically, reusable craft make it harder for the politicians to back out of any future missions and most people understand sunk-cost recovery at an intuitive level. The good part is that reusable vehicles are a legacy going forward, helping to ensure future activity.