Ultimate Buu wrote:

You guys just don't get it, do you? All technical and engineering
analysis will say that the Shuttle is generally safe and logically
speaking it makes more sense to keep the Shuttle flying for as long as
needed.

I do not agree to this statement. There are several flaws in the shuttle
system,making it unsafe, which could only be solved by a complete
redesign. (Eg. Tank isolation, hydrogen fuel lines which leak every few
launches)

However, politicians and the U.S. public aren't on the same
frequency with engineers. Their call for a Shuttle replacement is
purely based on the subjective feeling that the Shuttle is unsafe and
is tainted. Yet, these are the people that decide wether the Shuttle
will be replaced or not. Conclusion: the Shuttle will be replaced with
a decade. As soon as the OSP is flying, I'll bet you that NASA will
present a plan to take the remaining Shuttles out of service.

Do you really think NASA will be able to build OSP, or any other manned
craft? Considering their performance in the last two decades, I really
doubt OSP will succeed, rather than being scrapped midway because of cost
overruns and underperformance.

The US should put the remaining shuttles into museums, maybe after some
last missions like launching ISS-parts which cannot be done otherwise.
However, the shuttle was a try at building a low cost manned launcher
which did not succeed, and rather than fix what cannot be fixed the US
should build one or more successors incorporating the lessons learned.

Robert Kitzmueller