On 18 Nov 2009 at 20:40, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > Considering the fact that the only two "loss of vehicle and crew" > events NASA has ever had to deal with that actually involved going > into or coming back from space (not counting Apollo 1 in that, as it
Both were directly caused by problems on-launch... > the RCC leading edge of the wing -- and since the spaceplane design in > question does *not* include any abort options from liftoff to the !??? What spaceplane design do you think I'm talking about? I am not refering to any single design, and never have been. >I'd have to question why putting crew on top of a rocket is >"insane". Because both failures on launch are related to strapping huge rockets to the crew section, and then taking off vertically, maybe? > a lot of ways. About the only thing Ares I/Ares V can't do is... ...Is retrieve the decades lost while NASA messed arround with the shuttle and ISS? Oh, and let's not forget "launch affordably", "be reuseable", "have a sensible turnarround time", "use safer hybrid fuel systems"... AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
