It's interesting how similar their shuttle looks to the American version. I wonder if that's because they intentionally copied ours (not a terrible idea, since that design was already known to work), or if they started on their own and that just happened to be the optimal design for a reusable orbiter, given the technology available at the time. Probably the former.

Mostly column "A", but a bit of "B". Wikipedia entry

-- Steve also regrets the abandonment, but in light of the Shuttle's not quite meeting its initial expectations* it was a reasonable decision to make.

* Shuttle alas never did realise the "cheap access" goal, because it took so much effort to refurbish an orbiter after every mission that the labour and part replacement costs ate up the savings over an expendable launcher. Pity, but them's the breaks.

It's interesting how similar their shuttle looks to the American version. I wonder if that's because they intentionally copied ours (not a terrible idea, since that design was already known to work)

Or perhaps a fairly terrible idea, since the Space Shuttle program had substantial financial and technical issues. It was ridiculously expensive to launch, the notion of being able to turn the craft around with fast and efficient maintenance wound up catastrophically underdelivering, and it wasn't a very reliable machine, being the vehicle for fourteen of the eighteen deaths that have ever occurred in spaceflight.

Considering that is a super busy spaceport. It's, AFAIK, the busiest spaceport in the world, just beating out Cape Canaveral. Imagine if there was a massive abandoned hangar at the Cape with some Ares I rockets lying around like that. That would be strange.

Not so strange after all. Old article from 2012, but still there were units at the KSC that sat vacant. It's not even a new problem; lots of Gemini and Apollo facilites are abandoned too.

-- Steve thinks the only reason Pad 39a (launch pad for the Moon landings) isn't a museum is that NASA leased it to SpaceX for the cash.