(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in message . ..
You try to sell sub-orbital the same way Nixon sold the space shuttle. You
seem to be saying, "If we cancel the existing program and replace it with a
new, more primitive program, we can reduce costs and improve the space
program."

then again, I support a far more technologically primitive program
with bolder objectives. (I think a multi-destination, smaller capsule
is a hundred times better than the narrow-mission clunker shuttle.)

Tom Merkle


While I am inclined to agree with you, I think if I could turn the
Wayback Machine to the time period of 1972-1986, most of us would be
pushing mighty hard for the shuttle (myself included). Yes, we would
miss the Apollo/Saturn system, but I think most of us would miss it
like an old Model T Ford while a brand new shiny 1970's Corvette sat
in the driveway.

Only later, in the post-Challenger era did most space enthusiasts
realise what was thrown away when we ditched the Apollo/Saturn
infrastructure. I think we all understand that Apollo/Saturn system
should have been allowed to mature. While I have no data to back this
up, I feel that an Apollo/Saturn system allowed to mature and improve
for 40 years would have cost the same or less to operate than our
current shuttle and with more capability to boot!

Gene