-> ->> I don't remember all the limitations of SpaceShipOne but it
-> ->> is/was very much in the hobbyist category and not a
-> ->> full-blown design that NASA could make use of right now. 
 
I'll grant that but it did match and exceed the air forces
Bell X-craft program in some respects. 

-> WC> Oh I'd expect huge changes but there certainly needs to be
-> WC> an infusion of novel ideas and a more simplified approach
-> WC> to orbit. 

-> SpaceShipOne focused all of it's synergy on achieving maximum
-> altitude and nothing more. I may be niave but just that one
-> goal seems rather easily attainable if you have the money/time? 

I'll credit them with getting it up and back down in one peice twice
as well.
Recall the first launch had the ship rolling on ascent in such a way
that would have destroyed the shuttle, it didn't phase SpaceShip One.

-> WC> The shuttle never lived up to what was sold to Congress. 

-> I only vaguely remember what was 'sold' at the inception of the
-> shuttle program but I seem to recall talk of huge payloads and
-> the ability to easily maintain/repair satellites in orbit. NOT
-> sending arbitrary human passengers (a high school teacher?) up
-> there to do a five minute experiment with some worms (the only
-> survivors of the failed re-entry).                                

The shuttle was sold as a cheap manned flight to orbit 
reusable vehicle.
The costs per flight were estimated at 1/10th of reality.

-> WC> ITMT a independent corporation inspired by Burt Ruttan's
-> WC> design and success is shooting for for profit private space
-> WC> flights around the moon by 2008 - 20010. Cost a mere 40
-> WC> million. 

-> I sense a bit of P.T.Barnum in those 'headlines' but even if it
-> is doable I would again point out the foolishness and
-> pointlessness of doing this. 

As long as there are people with more money than brains...
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5