>Nope There he goes again. The one word non-reply.
>>1479930>Not going to "refute" your biased sourceA source being biased doesn't mean its information is wrong. NASA is biased, but if they say the capital of Russia is Moscow, that is still true.
>Then why are you railing against the Shuttle again?Because the shuttle is more than anything the bastard child of those groups. If you gave NASA engineers in 1972 the budget they wanted, they would not have produced the STS we got. All the compromises to reduce development costs at the expense of later performance meant that it never achieved the launch tempo needed or a reduction in costs. Knowing what we do, the US would've been better off developing an expendable heavy life vehicle and a separate expendable crew vehicle, with the priority then going to an early modular space station. Instead, we got a dead end that will have no impact on the future other than being a cautionary tale.
>I'm right too>literally never ever has sources >every post is just more assertions >You're really hung up on Nixon.Because he was the one who approved it, and it was under his administration that NASA's course for the rest of the twentieth century was set. You can't understand anything about the STS without understanding what happened from ~1967- 1972 in US space policy.
>OpinionIt's a factual statement. Would love to see evidence stating otherwise.
See pic in
>>1474931, from a NASA document.
>Each Shuttle orbiter was designed to experience up to 100 launches and returns. From NASA's shuttle basics page
> Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.>I'm talking about the Shuttle.It's clear to all that you know nothing about it other than the PR stuff they gave out to elementary schoolers.