Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: TexasGator

No, because it was later thought unpractical. But I remember the original NASA broadcasts in the 70’s, just after the final Apollo mission. It was supposed to be a true “space plane” that would take off and land like an airplane. But the difficulties in doing that resulted in the ugly space truck that we got.


24 posted on 01/24/2022 11:17:46 AM PST by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Telepathic Intruder

“But I remember the original NASA broadcasts in the 70’s, just after the final Apollo mission. It was supposed to be a true “space plane” that would take off and land like an airplane.”

Updating your memory cells:

In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and space station, as well as the capabilities to launch, service, and retrieve satellites. The report also created three classes of a future reusable shuttle: Class I would have a reusable orbiter mounted on expendable boosters, Class II would use multiple expendable rocket engines and a single propellant tank (stage-and-a-half), and Class III would have both a reusable orbiter and a reusable booster. In September 1969, the Space Task Group, under the leadership of Vice President Spiro Agnew, issued a report calling for the development of a space shuttle to bring people and cargo to low Earth orbit (LEO), as well as a space tug for transfers between orbits and the Moon, and a reusable nuclear upper stage for deep space travel.[8]: 163–166 [5]

wiki


25 posted on 01/24/2022 11:23:42 AM PST by TexasGator (UF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson