In article dcdf2f03-ac1c-4cd5-ad69-
, says...

On January 28, 1986, challenger was lost after the O ring failure.

Now lets consider a different NASA path. it became all too clear the
shuttle had no launch boost escape.

So nasa still resumed flying but did a general shuttle redesign.

They moved away from the solids, and designed a compatible liquid
flyback booster with more power. One of the uses of more power was a
jettisonable crew compartment. giving the shuttle what it should of
never flown without, launch boost escape. Other redesigns would of
included elminating the APUs that used hydrazine. All those would be
great to have, and saved big bucks on processing. Eventually upgraded
TPS, going to blankets rather than individual tiles. Plus changes to
extend the shuttles life in orbit. Upgrading tires etc. Shuttle C
cargo would of been a natural outgrowth of the upgrades and a larger
more powerful flyback booster could of covered heavy lift

The costs of operation could of been cut enough to pay for the
upgrades. Plus perhaps additional new orbiters could be built slowly
over time. Keeping the design fresh. Older orbiters could of been
retired to museums as they were replaced.

The big mistake was freezing the basic design after challenger.

The shuttle could of been a safer much more capable vehicle if it
wasnt starved for cash......

NASA didn't have the tens of billions it would have required for the
"redesign" that you propose for an alternate history. Your premise is
invalid, so your alternate history is fantasy.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer