/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12394486
>NASA doesn't have the foresight or care to do something like that
To be fair, NASA has stunted the development of multiple launchers and spacecraft that has been seen as an existential threat to the then current managerial regime. It's the core reason why the shuttle continued flying and all alternatives like the HL-20 and Shuttle-C were utterly dismissed. Hell if you wanted to go full conspiratorial you could argue that VentureStar wasn't given it's fair chance due to the regime at NASA not wanting to shake up the then current Shuttle administration

>>12363092
Is the Spiral the ultimate shape a spaceplane can take? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 others that have tried to use it

>>12304054
based

>>12224107
NASA has a pretty long history of cancelling any project that challenged the Shuttle until Columbia. Either because A) Like you said something like the Shuttle-C might make manned flight redundant or B) Shuttle contractors getting worried that a smaller cheaper manned craft might make the Shuttle redundant

>NASA shot down any viable attempt at a manned spacecraft between the 80's and 90's because it might endanger those sweet shuttle contracts
feels bad man