Well, what is the loss value which is acceptable on a development vehicle?
Seems to me that what has in fact happened since Apollo is that the cultural
acceptance of the danger Astronauts face, has changed. In many ways, the
small losses in Apollo were almost a matter of luck.

Now though, the people, and Government want to make flying to space, almost
commonplace and 'normal'. So, you have a vehicle who's roots are in the old
culture, trying to achieve the requirements of the new.

Of course, nobody has told Nasa and it seems, nobody made the money
available since the Shuttles came on line, to make anything else either.

OK, so the Shuttle was never able to meet the high, some would say,
unrealistically high, flight rate and at a reasonable cost. However, this is
as much about learning lessons as any other form of research, surely?

So, it cost a lot more and still is, than some people thought, but maybe it
had to be done.

So, what to do? At present, i cannot see any alternative but to fly with
people untill some other way is found to get people up there. OK rework the
Shuttle into a cargo truck, but for missions like Hubble servicing, what
choice is there? Can you do it with a Soyuz?

I still think that a Shuttle derivative is required, but it may be a luxury
nobody wants to fund.

As for reusability, I'm sure that will come if space tourism is going to
happen, but while its purely research and no doubt military,, if Bush gets
back in, it will be the throw away cheap option.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03