John Doe wrote:

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.

Submarines, which have equally stringent quality and safety
requirements, have many mechanisms onboard unchanged since WWII or
shortly after. They have a few unchanged from before WWI.

In real world engineering 'works and is well known' is far more
important than 'advances the state of the art'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL