In article 7b3b675b-0bdb-48c9-b987-2a174ece6b01
@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On
Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. *The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

ISS assembly was cut short because there wasnt time to launch all the
modules, some unflwn ones are in storage...

You make it sound like these modules are ready to fly. They're not.

For example, the CAM module fell victim to cost overruns and schedule
issues. It is currently a partially completed aluminum shell sitting
outside in the elements, which I would not consider to be "in storage".
The HAB module suffered a similar cancellation, but its shell was used
for ground based research, which isn't exactly "in storage" either.

So, what ISS modules truly are "unflown" and "in storage"?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer