<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't think so. The Space Shuttle was still new in 1986. Too much money had been invested in the program, and although flaws had become apparent, there would have been little support for replacing this still-futuristic reusable winged glider with an "old-fashioned" capsule. It would have meant the end of the ESA Spacelab cooperation, for example. Ending shuttle would also have meant the admission of a massive national technology failure, which wasn't an option in the midst of the Cold War during the Reagan administration. <br /><br />- Ed Kyle ]<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IIRC, there were "many" studies, as well as big R&D programs (X-30, X-33, etc.) aimed as Shuttle replacement since the mid-80's. I think X-30 started more of a DARPA/ Air Force / DoD needs rather than as a Shuttle replacement, but then NASA got in on the JPO and talks started as a potential shuttle replacement. If anyone recalls, the program "NASP" unofficially stood for "Not Another Shuttle Program" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There was also a study initiated by then JSC Director, Jay Greene, for Liquid Fly Back Booster (FLBB). The FLBB was one of the original Shuttle concept but was scrubbed due to funding cut. <br /><br />The Air Force had a doctrine then, from Gen. Mooreman's study which eventually evolved into the EELV program, that is NEVER EVER to share a same launch vehicle program with NASA again! Because Air Force was "promised" by NASA that the Shuttle could launch ALL of its payload, its ELV fleet (Atlas II and Delta II) were shutdown during the Shuttle programs and had to rush to reopen the production lines after the Challenger.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>