Ever wonder about the lesser known reasons for NASA scrapping the shuttle program?

Why did NASA take a huge step backwards by going back to rockets with capsules? Why did they opt to go back to using technology that is nearly a hundred years old? Combustion tech goes back to the early 1900s. The first successful rocket flight occurred in 1926 (http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/rockets/history.html). Even the space shuttles were based on this same old tech. Was that why it was scrapped? The replacement for the shuttle indicates the answer is no. Was it the cost? I cannot deny that was a factor. Was it the dangers made evident by the two accidents? Again, I cannot deny that was a reason too. Was it reason enough to completely move away from the shuttle paradigm rather than refining and modernizing it? I'm not so sure.

Let's take a step back from focusing on the shuttle and look at the bigger picture. I'm sure you've noticed the giant leaps we've made in electronics and computing technology over the past hundred years. We also made great leaps in the medical field; though much has been suppressed. Suppressed medical technology includes Royal Rife's mortal oscillatory rate which can kill cancer cells and a myriad of viruses without harming healthy cells. He successfully used that tech in 1935. So, why hasn't there been significant progress in propulsion and space craft technology over the same length of time? I'll admit Blue Origin's rocket that can safely land upright is pretty cool, but it still uses 100 year of tech.

Is it possible that we have made incredible progress in propulsion and space craft technology and it's just not in use by NASA and such yet? If so, why? This audio documentary explains the probable reasons. It's a real awakening.

+Rhys Taylor​ and +Bill Davidsen​ - Please listen to this audio documentary with an open mind. It's quite believable if you give it some serious thought. 
Shared publiclyView activity