On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:33:32 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

NASA NEVER WANTED to cut their workforce, most upgrades would of meant
cost savings which equal fewer workers.

Not particularly. Most would have meant faster turnaround (more
flights) with the same workforce, which is what NASA wanted for the
Space Station era. Look at non-toxic OMS/RCS, for example. You still
need all the people working OMS/RCS but with non-toxic propellant,
that work can be done without evacuating everyone else from the pad,
etc. It was argued at the time that Liquid Flyback Booster would have
required a larger workforce than SRB.

Thats why a shuttle
replacement never got built it really wasnt wanted because it would
cost jobs....

Facts not in evidence.

Sadly the safety boards ordering the end of shuttle was the only way
to get the agency movbing and even then pork ruled which got us
constelation.

The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said
NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level
if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010. And even that was only
a recommendation, not an order.

NASA says that the Return To Flight effort meets the criteria of the
recertification recommendation.

Brian