On Monday, 8 January 2018 11:21:17 UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
RichA wrote in
:

On Friday, 5 January 2018 16:54:50 UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy wrote:
RichA wrote in
:

On Friday, 5 January 2018 00:40:20 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On getting back into space:

http://www.wmfe.org/nasa-closer-to-l...tronauts-from-
u-s -once-again/81979

John Savard

What is the point of the Starliner? It can only carry 7
people and next to no cargo. Is it that much cheaper to
build/launch than the Shuttle was?

That would be the entire point, yes, to be cheaper than the
shuttle was. That is, in fact, Musk's entire business plan: to
be cheaper than the shuttle. So far, he's been pretty
successful at it.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

You comparing the crap that egomaniac puts up to the Shuttle?
HA!

People who actually know what they're talking about seem to feel
that SpaceX's rockets are something of an advance over previous
designs.

You, on the other hand, appear to be a childish idiot wracked with
jealously.

In any event, Musk's rockets are operating now, and the shuttle is
not. And it's $2,500/pound currently, expected to go down, versus
$8,000 (not adjusted for inflation) for the shuttle.

FU. Who CARES if it's a few thousand cheaper? The Shuttle was 100 TIMES more versatile than these ancient 70's era rockets.
But it's moot since the U.S. is still forced to going to RUSSIA to launch humans.