"william mook" wrote in message
om...
"Anthony Garcia" wrote in message
m...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...s/gidefinl.pdf

Here's some information on what goes into reusable spacecraft
design.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm

Here's a picture of an alternative to the Shuttle, that in my
estimation would have been better than the Shuttle's present delta
wing.

An even better version would have been a slender cylinder with
straight wings deployed at subsonic speeds. Think of a tomahawk
cruise missle. This was proposed for the Russian PKA
[snip]

How are these alternatives any better?

They're less costly and safer.

Are they truely safer and less costly? How do we know this?

[snip]
There are no free lunches. You had it right the first time. Cross
range is reduced with the proposed wing structures. The footprint of
allowable landing sites from a given deorbit burn is reduced as a
result. So what? We have the ability to precisely control orbital
parameters of the deorbit burn and hit the landing site even with
reduced cross range. So, the issue is, should we keep cross range far
in excess of what we need to accomplish the mission, or reduce the
size of the wings and improve all the factors you mentioned?

The choice is clear, we should reduce cross range and make a smaller
less expensive and safer vehicle capable of carrying more payload.

I do see your point. Perhaps if one presumes that the deorbit burn can
provide a large component of the cross range requirement then yes, you
have a very good point.