🚀 go-pugleaf

In <72527@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,
>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,
>  and is the second most-powerful booster every made in the U.S. It is
>  also one of only two man-rated systems presently in use.

All of which is irrelevent.  The Shuttle's design goal was to reduce
the cost of space transportation.  Its size, reuseability, etc. were
features decided on to meet that goal.  But instead of reducing costs,
the Shuttle increased them.

It is a failure.

>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>  system. 

I see you've graduated from the Gary Coffman School of Historical
Revisionism. :-)  The Shuttle was not designed as a technological
demonstrator, but an operational vehicle.  If there was a technology
demonstrator for the Shuttle program, it would be the X-15 or X-24.

>  That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
>  market is beside the point. 

Yes, to "failure-oriented" managers, the fact that a project failed
is always beside the point.  (After all, don't we expect every
project to fail?)