Apollo, SpaceX, this, that, the other thing.
Re: Apollo on steroids: A lot of people make this comparison in error. Remember that, engineering and aerodynamics-wise, there's one certain set of shapes which are most efficient for reentry vehicles, of which the classic "cone" (Apollo) is one. You only need check out proposed manned reentry vehicles from ESA and the xUSSR:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tks.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/esaacrv.htm
And, here's some good old images depicting some early concepts for the original Apollo crew-return module from circa 1960ish:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolol2c.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollom1.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apocular.htm
They are _not_, in fact, using "Apollo-era technology", but are returning to a more efficient shape for a crew-return module. The underlying technology is "modern", but they're attempting to return to a launch vehicle/crew-return system which had been proven effective in the 1960s. We'd be in far better shape now, with a heavy-lift booster and crew-return capability as good or better than Soyuz, if we'd stuck with Saturn/Apollo and, as with Soyuz, continued to improve incrementally instead of chasing after the Holy Grail of a reusable boost-glide spaceplane which turned out to be an overpriced "flying brickyard" with all the attendant launch and heat-shielding issues that come with it -- not to mention not having a goddamn' _escape_system_, f'crissake.
Re: SpaceX: Would this be the same SpaceX whose boosters have been blowing up on a regular basis?
And, just to quickly wrap up, as I'm supposed to be working now:
http://thespacereview.com/article/1188/1
...and never mind the concept art. Cool, dramatic lighting rendering, but it makes it look as if all the people at the base of the "crawler" should be praying to the rocket...