/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8320495

NASA goal was to get someone to the moon and back, not to be a transportation company.

Half the reason Apollo existed was to prove that such a thing was possible. And to call Apollo a failure is a huge disservice to the billions that went into developing it. The fact that it wasn't followed up upon in a satisfactory way (despite otherwise having the capability to do so) is a mark against NASA, but not against the Apollo Program. Additionally, the idea that something could be "incrementally upgraded" or "modular" makes building any individual device far more complicated as it is expected to preform tasks the designer himself did not envision it doing. This is immensely difficult when you factor in that said device has to actually get up 100 km at 8 m/s. This "incremental upgrade" stuff is how the Shuttle manged to get greenlighted all the way through development.

The problem with NASA is that they tried to do exactly what you are suggesting: be a transportation company. This was exactly, EXACTLY, the logic behind the shuttle as it would be like an airliner and could be used and improved upon as such. That's why NASA didn't ditch it even in the early 90s when it was clear that it couldn't go to the moon like they had wanted it to.

If you want to be asshurt, that's your problem. But don't suggest things that are patently stupid and wildly incorrect.

>capitalizing x

>>3659003
Things want to exist because of natural selection.
'Everything' is unique, and thus not the result of an evolutionary process.

>>3607809