According to the latest news also, they are even using a material for the
heat shield that is very similar to the old version used back then.

Admittedly thety could use something else down the line, but it still seems
odd when, as you say, they are designing a very strange manned launch
vehicle when many existing ones could, presumably be made man friendly at a
lesser cost. I still think the heavy lift version would use the legacy
Shuttle stuff, but why keep on with it for manned use. Everyone knows the
only reason the Shuttle used them is basically to lift the full tank! I hope
it works for their sake, but it will be a rough few minutes I'd imagine.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote:
There still seems something wrong in my view to returning to the capsule
way of getting back to earth. Its undignified, inconvenient and I'd have
though rather unnecessary with what has been learned on the Shuttle.

Unfortunatly, science and technology needed to make a reliable/cheap
shuttlecraft do not exist yet. NASA has had much egg thrown at its face
with a number of failed X projects to replace the shuttle.

Being faced with a need to replace the shuttle and a desire to have a
high propability of actually have something usable (instead of another
cancelled project), they were forced to go with something old, simple
and not too complex that can use technologies developped last century.

And despite using all old technology, there are still doubts that the
rocket will work.

What I find a real shame is that in the late 1990s, that they didn't
build one or two "new" shuttles that would have incorporated all of the
improvements NASA knew it was capable of making. It would not have been
revolutionary in terms of reducing costs, it would have been
evolutionary. But it would have advanced the "state of the art".

Going back to Apollo doesn't really advance the state of the art.