Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
LOL, I forgot that in your imaginary world, being correct is "misdirection".

Being correct is something the Geek hardly ever is.

Listen to what the nut is trying to tell you.

He is basically claiming that it was much "cheaper" (and more "efficient") to DESIGN, TEST and USE the space shuttle, rather than to use a rocket that had already been designed, tested and proved (was it really proved?) and that everyone already knew, could carry some 5-7 times the payload of the shuttle, that they were about to design.

What would you do?
What would be cheaper?
What would be more efficient?

Choice A) Design, test and eventually use a totally new space vehicle (the shuttle),... OR,...

Choice B) Use an established design (the Saturn V) that you knew could carry some 5-7 times as much into orbit, as the vehicle you were about to design.

Only a group of total fools (NASA and ImagingGeek) would have chosen choice A.

So, why did NASA go with A?

ImagingGeek pretends he doesn't see any problem here,... move along folks,... nothing to see here,...

And yes, ImagingGeek is trying to mislead you.
Earth formed from a collision

Plate-tectonics is wrong