Several years ago nasa tried to create the next generation space shuttle, and had two competing designs. One involved a verticle cone shaped rocket that went up straight and came down straight with a soft landing by using its engines to slow down its descent. The other design, the one they eventually commited to, cost billions and in the end wasn't succesful. *WHY* didn't we go with the simpler cone design, does anyone know? Their prototype of the design was so sturdy that when its tanks actually blew up it was still able to land succesfullly. I loved this design, and was very angry when they chose the alternate design. A private company, rotary rockets, made an alternate version of the cone design but in the end ran outa money. I think, had we gone with the right design, we may have been using the NEW space shuttles and this disaster would not have happened.