I recently read an article on MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.com/news/968307.asp
The title: Capsule's likely to replace shuttles... the reasoning "we have a lot of experience flying capsules." Last time I checked, the United States has a lot more experience flying the X-15 and the Shuttle into space than capsules. But, the failure rate is higher, we lost 3 winged vehicles to 1 capsule. Of course, the Russians are a completely different story as it is all relative. As by you all probally know by now, the capsule design has a higher gee loading because it doesn't have as much lift on re-entry. You also know that the your cross range landing accuracy is a helluva lot better with winged vehicles as well - since runways are generally a lot harder to land on for a capsule (instead of 100 miles away). Personally, I see no reason why not to develop the best of EACH- winged and capsule. You have two completely independent vehicle designs. If one should be discovered to have a flaw and the entire fleet grounded, you still have an alternative. If both designs are compairable in cost - build 4 each and make everyone happy. As is the goal of the project that development costs would be minimal - and since each vehicle produced would probally be unique - it appears to be at least a feasible means of increasing reliable access to space. Justin S. McFarland _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
