I was reading an article on TIME magazine and the name of the article was "Returnig To The Moon," and the writer, Jeffrey Kluger confused me with his writing. In the article it talks about how we will return to the moon and the design of the shuttle.

First of all, the shuttles to the moon, from what i know, are a one time use. The current space shuttle is designed for multiple use and to save costs.
And as for its uses, the shuttle tries to be as effiecent as it can.
The new ships to the moon are still using the old rules but with a technological makeover.

Do you think the space shuttle should be changed?
Instead of a multiple use shuttle should there be a fleet of one-timers?

I wonder, would a top-mounted crew vehicle have survived an explosion like the Challenger explosion? Would a wingless CEV be safer from falling foam?

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Probably, with suitable safety equipment (eg. launch escape facility). I seem to recall some fairly positive statements that the Challenger crew survived the explosion, although not the fall from altitude. By design, since the foam wouldn't hit it.

And it failed miserably at saving costs - it is FAR more expensive per launch than a comparable disposable rocket

maybe we could keep the shuttle in space it's a good work platform. and use disposibles to get us there and back. The shuttle can do things in space that the disposibles can not. if we have it might as well use it

__________________
echo the sound of silence

yeah, lop the wings off them and attach them permanently to the space sation.
the cargo bay would make a great outer space patio for barbecues and what not.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

you bring the meat i'll bring the sauce

__________________
echo the sound of silence