FSS ???? Years ago I proposed a "Double-Shuttle" (effectively: 2, belly-to-belly, only 1 to orbit -- at that time the Enterprise could still be rigged for such suborbital use. About 2-to-3 times the cost of a single launch for 6+ times the cargo).<br /><br /> I figured 2 crawlers, etc, but do you know of more Limits it would violate?<br /><font color="blue"> - - - - - - - </font><br /><br /> Now that I've asked you to cut down my (probably obsolete or impossible) Baby, let me give you my opinion of the post-SSTO/NASP Ideas:<br /><br /> <b> Forget Solids ! </b><br /><br /> - - their shaking breaks the Cargo. The military ABSOLUTELY ruled out (big) Solids when they cancelled the Titan, choosing the Delta BECAUSE they did not want <br /><br /> "another Solid"<br /><br /> . . . but the Budget Office (OMB) changed the enlarged Delta into a Mostly-solid monstrosity.<br /><br /> The 3 half-Super-Delta tests, 2 losses & a grossly low orbit (due to Srb fuel being expelled in chunks as is apparent from the early overthust), showed that even though we now will avoid explosions that are visible by thickening the casing), the Wacky "Slumping of the Fuel" explanation is Garbage, & all the measures taken to curb this nonexistant threat cannot stop Combustion Instability, just hide it.<br /><br /> Why don't they put back the Inside Sensors that showed <font color="yellow"> <b> LOCALIZED TRANSIENT OVERPRESSURES </b> </font>when used on the first Titan IV SRMU test before it blew up ?<br /><br /> When you forbid people to LOOK, you know there HAS to be something there.<br /><br /> So either give up Solids or accept them breaking & shaking the Cargo. But Don't PRETEND.<br /><br /> Frankly, I recall an early 1976 Proposal for a "Downrated Shuttle" (No Srbs, Rp-1 tank under the ET & an RP/Lox engine that the astronauts could detatch & pop into the payload bay, on orbit)).<br />Looking again at that might be better.<br /><br /><br /> The fact