On the one hand, we tend to think of the space shuttle as cool and futuristic. And the fact that it is “reusable” sort of fits with the whole green thing. But what if you look at its design rationally? This article…

A Rocket To Nowhere

…asks some interesting questions:

Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands. Why was such a powerful rocket used only to reach very low orbits, where air resistance and debris would limit the useful lifetime of a satellite to a few years? Why was there both a big cargo bay and a big crew compartment? What kind of missions would require people to assist in deploying a large payload? Why was the Shuttle intentionally crippled so that it could not land on autopilot? Why go through all the trouble to give the Shuttle large wings if it has no jet engines and the glide characteristics of a brick? Why build such complex, adjustable main engines and then rely on the equivalent of two giant firecrackers to provide most of the takeoff thrust? Why use a glass thermal protection system, rather than a low-tech ablative shield? And having chosen such a fragile method of heat protection, why on earth mount the orbiter on the side of the rocket, where things will fall on it during launch?

Looked at from the perspective of the article, the design of the system looks crazy. Where did the craziness come from? And what does it tell us about the design process? It’s a pretty interesting article.

Having read it, you look at this video in a new light:

[See previous MYT]