sewelch@watdragon.UUCP (Stephen E. Welch) (02/17/86)
I recently read about the plans for a british "spaceplane" called HOTOL. Do the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. have similar plans for a "spaceplane". Also, doesn't it make more sense to not build another shuttle, but instead design and build a spaceplane which would (seem to) be a lot safer.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/23/86)
> I recently read about the plans for a british "spaceplane" called HOTOL. > Do the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. have similar plans for a "spaceplane"... The US is certainly studying the idea, under various names. The USSR presumably is too. By the way, there is no commitment to HOTOL; it is merely a proposal right now. > Also, doesn't it make more sense to not build another shuttle, but instead > design and build a spaceplane which would (seem to) be a lot safer. Rather than buy the terminal you typed that on, Waterloo obviously should have waited ten years to buy a bitmapped graphics terminal. It would have been so much better to use. Of course, that does mean that you'd have a little trouble typing in any news for the intervening ten years. That is the sort of tradeoff you are proposing. Still think it's a good idea? By the way, the idea that the spaceplane would be safer is curious. What makes you say that? If anything, it might be less safe -- getting into orbit without any staging or drop tanks is difficult, and is at the very limit of practicality. That means rather small margins. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry