On the face of it throw away seems wasteful but the space shuttle has been hugely expensive to run and as so few where made never benefited from economies of scale. The original shuttle design was to be fully re usable and cheap it failed both those. NASA should have seperated cargo and people. Heavy lift rocket (Saturn V) for cargo and booster launching a reusable component for people which is what they are now going for and its all stuff that was available thiry years ago. The obsession with the partly re usable space shuttle was a dead end.
Most forms of travel become safer as time passes, US space travel is the only one that went the other way.
>I'd hardly call it "dead-end". It HAS been going for decades now. Alright, a bit creaky and primitive (covered in polystyrene insulating tiles :-) but has served its purpose (is there only one left now after the 2 disasters?)
>
>The Saturn/Apollo launches were a bit wasteful of materiel, with their ejected stages (mind you, the fuel tank that the shuttle dumps isn't exactly just a cellophane wrapper). Are you suggesting they should have carried on with multi-stage launches, as Europe and Russia still do? Personally I think they should have originally followed the Chuck Yeager X-1 route. That was shelved, wasn't it, for the cheap and nasty rocket soln., just so the US could put one over the Russians - cold was space race.
>
>>Its alright the US goes down technological dead ends at times. look at the space shuttle . Their space program would have been enormously more efficient of they had evolved on from Saturn/Apollo instead of ditching it all. I stiil remember footage of the astronauts doing gymnastics in skylab.
>>
>>>>I have to disagree with your assessment for reasons too numerous to point out here.
>>>>
>>>>The Harrier technology was/is of limited value in limited situations and was not pursued greatly by the US. I don't know the terms of the technology transfer but I hardly think it was a giveaway.
>>>
>>>I didn't say it was given away. But it's a marvellous piece of technology and we farmed it off, no longer able to take advantage of it. Why the f---? Did you ever see the Terminator series? Well there are several examples of futuristic hovering aircraft that look like they've been developed directly from the Harrier. The US already has SF looking craft and I wouldn't be surprised if such the technology is being progressed as we speak.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>OTOH, Britain can be it's own worst enemy on emergent technologies.
>>>
>>>TOTALLY agree with you. Innovation is seldom backed by investment and ends up in US hands. Remember the so-called "brain drain" of our scientists in the 60s-70s? They couldn't get any decent meaty work here so went where the money and opportunities are.
>>>
>>>>I don't recall the details but someone in England came up with a great HOTOL / SSTO plan in the 1980's and then was forced from developing it because of the British bureaucracy who stamped it Most Secret and refused to allow the technology to be developed.
>>>
>>>Typical!
>>>
>>>Look at the following:
>>>
>>>
http://www.answers.com/topic/british-space-program>>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3388535.stm>>>
>>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A430903>>>
The first Black Knight was launched into space on 7 September, 1958. After the ninth launch, the remainder were built as two-stage rockets. In the end, 22 Black Knights were launched between 1958 and 1965, all of which were successful, making the British Space Programme the most efficient in the world.>>>
>>>
The British government had financed all of these launches. In 1971, it decided to stop all research into this extremely profitable business. This decision was made despite the fact that demand for satellite technology was on the verge of rapid expansion, especially within the realm of international telecommunications satellites.
>>>There is at least ONE satellite still in orbit from the 1950s project.>>>
>>>Now do you see why I weep! ?
>
>...
