[_Jim]

Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle

How exactly does this change the fact/the physics that A) you have to get into space and B) you have to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, preferably via non-powered flight (like the shuttle - little cost in extra required fuels, etc.)?

What's plugged in back there in the electronics bay and doing control of the flight surfaces is rather irrelevant - if it gets the job done.

Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away

Riddle me your answer on the re-entry 'phase' - do you have a better material or re-entry method in mind rather than the present scheme that requires heat tiles as presently used (a cite, a paper, a web site would do your arguments good too).

Evolution is the technique nature has used to 'solve the problems' of life in various life forms, yet man thinks he can can create techically comparable miracles from scratch? Ha ha ha ha. Even innovation in industry doesn't work that way (witness Jack Kilby's invention of the IC for instance).

Come to think of it - wasn't the shuttle the result of 'clean slate' throw-out-the-huge-non-resuable launch vehicle thinking too? Ans where has it gotten us ...

[Travis McGee]

Having "breath on them and they break" fragile tiles a few yards from the boosters tons of frozen insulation, which has a habit of breaking off at mach on liftoff is stupid, just a very poor design concept, a gun pointing at the head of the crew Russian roullette style. "Do you feel lucky today" is not the best we should strive for!

Whatever the insulating material, it must be PROTECTED on the way up, to ensure that it is pristine for reentry!

That is where the "Big Dumb Booster" excells. The small crew only reentry vehicle is totally protected on launch, Apollo style.

What is the point of bringing down enormous EMPTY payload bays, and trying to land like a glider? Why not use huge CHEAP boosters to get the payload to orbit, and have a purpose built capsule for the crew?

One shot boosters would be cheaper in the long run than what we are spending on shuttles...and safter too.

[Hodar]

You stated that limiting the arguement to equipment was lame. My view is that limiting the equipment to a specific design is a poor way to conduct business. Different shuttle design, for different missions. As faster processors can not only detect and process information faster than humans, they can also simulate issues before they happen, and thus avoid problems. Add to this the fly-by-wire technology that would prevent an astronaut from making an over-correction.

We had a set back, and this should be a chance to re-energize the space program. Pump money into it, and investigate ideas/designs that have occurred in the last 40 years. Functionality will remain the same, but the way that things happen will be safer, cheaper and more efficient. The way an automobile engine works today is similar to the way it worked 30-40 years ago; but the improvements are in the details.

http://www.vidi.com/experts/bobspage/shuttles/shuttles.html