[Will_Zurmacht]

I enjoy reading these threads because there are people here at FR who obviously know what they are talking about. I am not one of them. That being said, from my amateurish take on the situation, couldn't this vehicle have been designed better?

Using thousands of extremely fragile tiles to dissipate heat and protect an extremely fragile aluminium body seems very odd to me, but I am surely no scientist. I figure it all has to do with weight and cost, but it strikes me like we built a balsa wood car with pillows for bumpers. Granted, it's a stupid analogy, but riding a rocket is dangerous enough, why increase the risk to save a few bucks?

Prayers for the crew and folks on the ground....

[_Jim]

That being said, from my amateurish take on the situation, couldn't this vehicle have been designed better?

Sure ... break out the Lego or Tinker Toy set and have a crack at it ...

Most people have difficulty changing their car's oil or installing a relatively simple CD player (and FORGET upgrading their PC!) -

- yet, they think the space shuttle can be radically redesigned in favor of safety with no performance or payload carrying penalty!

THAT amazes me ...

[NormsRevenge]

The challenge in here is not to believe the "experts", it is to disprove them. The problem here is, a lot of folks in here are dead nuts on as they do know their stuff. I struggle to keep up with a lot of folks in here so don;t feel alone.

The key benefits of the shuttle design was its ability to deliver a good sized payload and or crew into orbit and then be able to re-use the vehicle.

Unfortunately, it hasn;t performed like a PeterBilt or Mack truck, tho it has been a workhorse for a lot of years. But we do need a new approach and better vehicles if we ever hope to travel further out into the solar system.