>>1477060>Ignoring hundreds of deaths is perfectly fine in order to say "gotcha!"The comparison is
>>1477030, to Soyuz, NASA's choice of rocket after 2011. The N1 and the various ICBMs have no relation to the likelihood of a loss-of-crew event on a Soyuz rocket.
>Subsidized and cannot carry as many astronauts as STS. STS can carry 5 more tons into LEO than Falcon 9. >subsidized >as opposed to the STS Sure, for hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars more per launch, you get three more seats and slightly more payload. Great deal.
>Like Apollo leftoversNASA wanted to continue with Apollo, Congress didn't. NASA is also currently working on another heavy lift vehicle.
Not even NASA wanted an STS 2, and no one has any plans to build one, though the success of SpaceX has led to increased interest in reusability.
To get back to prototype/concepts, concept for the National Aerospace Plane from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report.
