Dell sucks, don't buy one.
20th February 2005
46 and 2, are just ahead of me
23rd September 2004
Wow...you are kind of wrong with the "crappy" part.:uhoh: I believe the number of missions is 81, and only 2 have failed? That isn't crappy, that's pretty good. Space flight will never be safe, and this kind of "safe travel+no risks" ideology is :bs: However, i'm guessing a lighter, reusable space shuttle will be built. Essentially, the X-33
Phantom of the Forums
19th August 2003
Yeah I really wouldn't call the shuttles "accident-prone" just because 2 missions went wrong. And yes, I think they've been working on new designs for the space shuttle.
7th December 2003
I'd also go with Russian technology. The last few months the international space station would have been screwed if it wasn't for reliable Russian equipment.
A Man among humans
4th May 2005
Gustav GravesWell, what will replace the accident prone "shuttle". Any ideas?
A great big sling shot and a heat-resistant steel garbage dumpster.
The last few months the international space station would have been screwed if it wasn't for reliable Russian equipment.
2.5 years =)
29th January 2005
I don't see that it's accident prone or crappy. They'll never make a fool-proof one, there are always going to be crashes or explosions everyonce in a while. Over 80 launches, and only 2 accidents. The two pictures posted above (One from the Americans, the other from the Russians) could be the likely candidate, but are being made mostly for efficency, since the current one uses too much fuel.
30th January 2004
VentureStar X-33, if they ever decide to revive it's dead program.
I don't see that it's accident prone
The fact that it uses tiles which require replacements makes it accident prone, which we saw with our shuttle buran.