The Space Shuttle is an engineering marvel,
but it is also inherently a human peril...Launch and reentry
can best be described as both inherent and statistical near-death experiences for its occupants...and 14 of them fell victim to
its perils.
It's lethal nature makes commercial/military options politically
unpalatable.
The Ariane V has the advantage of a wide degree of flexibility.
(1) It can be upgraded to park 50 metric tons in LEO.
[When was the last time a rocket was capable of this?]
(2) It can be manrated or remain unmanned.
(3) It can serve science, the military, or commerce.
Yes! It's not as 'sophisticated' or as complex as the Shuttle;
but who cares?
It's more complex than the Proton, or Long March, but that doesn't offer advantages one way or another.
More often uber-complexity ADDS UNNECESSARY COST.
Your pride in the Shuttle's complexity and sophistication
is meaningless unless it translates into a comfortable margin
of safety [1 failure per 1000 launches would have been 'statistically' acceptable].
Space/Science » in reply to re: Ariane 5 - Nothing Special
But!
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- Re-usable Launch Vehicles - coming to a space port near you.
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- A very complicated question with no simple answer.
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: The Necessity and Eventuality
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
