Replies

And you are showing your poor attempt as being superior.

I'm sure you meant to type "at being superior." ;-)

The point is that the missions were flawed to begin with. Does the ability to land like a plane REALLY help our space program? It's overly complex for no true benefit.

You've now changed your argument -- which is good, because your last attempt was technically ignorant.

And this one is, too, come to think of it. I'm sure that with a bit of thought you can begin to see that the ability to land like a plane -- and the reusability that such a capability provides -- does have some rather significant potential benefits, even if those benefits were not realized by the Shuttle.

Compare that to something like, I don't know, giving us a system that can get us to a lagrange point? You know, the thing that MUST be done to truely advance Human space flight?

Hmmmm. The technical aspects of going to a Lagrange point aren't particularly challenging -- vehicles have already been sent to various Lagrange points around the solar system already. The main issues with human space flight have to do with the effects of long-term stays, and various systems to sustain life for long periods. For those sorts of studies, it's far cheaper and easier to send people to the ISS than to send them to a Lagrange point.

The point you are missing is that the distance from Earth has EVERYTHING to do with continuing the advancement of human space flight.

Not yet, it doesn't.