To: Red Badger
It’s just like the Apollo era command module. Isn’t this a step backwards?
CC
2 posted on
06/13/2014 2:08:13 PM PDT by
Celtic Conservative
(tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
To: Celtic Conservative
"It’s just like the Apollo era command module. Isn’t this a step backwards?" Frankly, yes it is.
The Space Shuttle was a fantastic flying machine and another newer, safer design for another Shuttle should be implemented.
3 posted on
06/13/2014 2:14:08 PM PDT by
StormEye
To: Celtic Conservative
Exactly. We did this in the late 60’s.
4 posted on
06/13/2014 2:16:03 PM PDT by
Rebelbase
(Tagline: optional, printed after your name on post)
To: Celtic Conservative
ya , back to spam in a can
5 posted on
06/13/2014 2:17:13 PM PDT by
molson209
(Blank)
To: Celtic Conservative
All things old are new again.
9 posted on
06/13/2014 2:28:16 PM PDT by
coon2000
(Give me Liberty or give me death!)
To: Celtic Conservative
"It’s just like the Apollo era command module. Isn’t this a step backwards?" Perhaps, but then, the shuttle turned out not to be cost effective. A reusable "do everything" vehicle simply can't compete with simpler, cheaper, specialized yet "cookie-cutter" equipment designed from the ground up for one particular type of mission (such as a low orbit taxi for astronauts).
11 posted on
06/13/2014 2:34:09 PM PDT by
Da Bilge Troll
(Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
To: Celtic Conservative
It’s just like the Apollo era command module. Isn’t this a step backwards?They have gone back to the teardrop shape due to reliability reasons and experience with the shuttle, but at least Spacex puts legs on it and has it return powered.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson