Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Chris Adams said:

> >I think the Shuttle program showed quite well that returning craft do
> >NOT need parachutes for re-entry.  Capsule-types (Apollo, Soyuz) do,
> >but since you're talking specifically about shuttling between the Earth
> >surface and an in-space location, why not make it a space-plane that
> >can take off and land like an airplane?
> 
> The Shuttle showed that you can lose a large chunk of your launch mass
> carrying wings and landing gear and such (parachutes and a simple heat
> shield are much lighter), and if anything goes wrong, you are screwed.

If something goes wrong, you're screwed either way.  Heat shields can
fail, parachutes can fail in several ways, etc.

> We are a long way from any technology that would allow a vehicle to take
> off like an airplane and make it to space.

That is merely a question of engineering, not science.  We HAVE the
technology, just not the will due to cost.  I'd bet that any of us here
could sketch out the basic design criteria of such a craft and with the
proper engineering to make it real, it would work.  It might cost a
couple billion dollars at first and be the size of a 747 or C5, but it
would work.

> The only significant advantage to the Shuttle was that it could return
> large payloads from space, but that turned out to be an expensive
> option.

I just think that NASA is taking a giant step backwards with their
current plans on the eventual replacement of the Shuttle.  We SHOULD be
using self-contained and fully reusable spaceplanes by now to get to
and from orbit.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

Tips for the Evil Henchman:  5. Learn where the trap door is in Evil
Overlord's audience chamber. Avoid standing there, especially when bad
news is brought to the Evil Overlord.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32