/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12175230
>was deemed too expensive in the short term and was rejected.
That was due to the small budget given to them. I don't know why they were given that, but I guess it was a combination of NASA overestimating its abilities, and Congress wanting to cut the space budget as much as possible. Imagine if both sides had the foresight to put more into development.

>>11994952
>Now you're thinking like a Max Faget.
Fixed.

>>11923037
The shape reminds me of another spacecraft.

>>11731212
>which was why the shuttle ended up having the double delta-winged shape that it did, rather than looking like a manned Energia Core with stubby X-1 style wings
Bring back the Faget wings

>>11728044
>could've developed on any of the reusable rocket concepts since the 70s
>never do
>expect them to suddenly try to innovate rather than stick their heads in the sand
My guess is that alot of the non-US space agencies would just ban the use of SpaceX rockets for payloads from their country.

>>11385410
>>much harder
Depends on how you define harder in this case. Winged boosters are easier to land since they're just a glider, but they're harder to implement in a rocket as they require the entire rocket to be designed around being winged. Propulsive landing boosters are trickier to land, but don't require much in the way of design to accommodate it.

>>more dangerous
Not really. Both winged and propulsive landing boosters would be landing in places far from people.

>>less efficient
No. While propulsive landing boosters need to hold some reserve fuel for landing, winged boosters have higher dry mass overall.

Aesthetic af.

>>10839969
Shuttle NAR A, NASA.
http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttlenara.html
This one is my favorite picture out of the bunch.