3 ms·
In your example the replacement technology is demonstrably better and more capable. We don’t have replacement technology for the moon lander or even the shuttl
by IanDrake 9y ago
In your example the replacement technology is demonstrably better and more capable. We don’t have replacement technology for the moon lander or even the shuttle.
Though I suppose you could argue sending robots instead of people is better?
- labster 9y agoI can only guess that you're being downvoted because you want a replacement technology for the Space Shuttle. That's still a pretty divisive issue, as the some people blame the shuttle for NASA not developing new launch vehicles for 30 years, as they spent so much effort maintaining the shuttles. I think the SpaceX approach is working better, at least for now, where you attempt reusability, but not for a long time. It's like a Harbor Frieght tool -- use it like 3 or 4 times before it's toast. But SpaceX hasn't yet had the fun of launching passengers, so it's really not a fair comparison.
- IanDrake 9y agoWell if that’s why, it’s ironic because I’m a huge fan of privatizing space travel and competition which has ensued.