Javascript bytecode

[Rob T]

On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 21:24:46 UTC, David Gileadi 
wrote:
> I had the same question, and Google found me a 2003 article
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03l.html
> which in the wake of Columbia is largely about safety but also 
> about efficiency. Interestingly the article claims that the 
> shuttle flaws were largely the result of a) the desire to carry 
> large payloads along with astronauts (as Walter mentions) and 
> b) the choice of fuel, which led to several other expensive and 
> dangerous design choices.

As always the answer is never as simple as it seems (just as it 
is with bytecode if I'm to attempt to stay on topic). One of 
subgoals of the space shuttle was for it to be able to return not 
just people back, but also to capture and return back to earth an 
orbiting payload. It also carnied along instrumentation such as 
the Canadarm, a very expensive device that you normally would not 
want to throw away. The arm was used for deploying the payload 
and also for performing repair work. It is hard to imagine a 
throw away rocket booster approach meeting all of these design 
goals, and I'm leaving out other abilities you cannot get from a 
simple return capsule approach.

A mistake would be to use the shuttle for purposes that it was 
not suitable for, such as situations that did not need its unique 
abilities and could be done more cheaply.

--rt