What are some reasons why NASA's space shuttle program was eliminated (besides for the cost)?

Because a bunch of sleazy 'commercial enterprise' billionaires paid their lobbyists to get congress & the prez willing to trash out the ONLY way we had to get up to our (MOSTLY !!) space station - so that private enterprise could do the job.. so much cheaper !! Well, that is costing us BIG BIG bucks. The private enterprise' people want US to give them $$$ and we have been paying Russia BIG money to get a lift up to ISS - NOW the Russians want MORE $$$ They raised the carfare !!

This was a real tragedy for America. A HUGE mistake. What we should have done was build a bigger, better shuttle - like the original plans called for. The shuttle we had was a cheapened version of the much, much better one that congress slashed.. Now, we can't EVER go up to update and repair the wonderful Hubble Telescope.

The original plans for a shuttle, updated with 21st century electronics - would be MUCH cheaper to fly, and safer. The old shuttle was safe enough - BUT ! The way it was managed and maintained, 'on the cheap' - is the VERY reason the shuttle had the accidents !!!!!...Show more

The shuttles are becoming outdated and could be retired faster or later. Their retirement has certainly been pushed forward from 2010. aside from that, they have been project to numerous risk-free practices concerns, maximum quite mess ups like Columbia and Challenger. in addition to, they are fairly costly and take up a large component to NASA's small budget. ultimately, regardless of the undeniable fact that, they have fulfilled their project. The ISS is done and we've found out plenty from our experiemnts in Low Earth Orbit on the return and forth. optimistically, we are able to proceed to discover and at last deliver human beings to Mars, an asteroid, or return to the Moon. The plan is to try this at the same time as having inner maximum agencies take over the greater recurring initiatives of ferrying issues to LEO, allowing NASA to learn and strengthen out into area, ultimately sending human beings to Mars or asteroids. not having to fund the gap return and forth will help unlock money for such initiatives. New commerical spacecraft are being developed and examined, and NASA is working on the Multi-purpose Cew motor vehicle (MPCV) for opertions previous Low Earth Orbit. till those new automobiles are deemed risk-free to hold human beings, the US will count on Russia's Soyuz to deliver astronauts into area....Show more

I agreed with Century2's opinion.
When I worked on Space Shuttle program at Downey, we went through all this.
Privatization of space program, so far, is not being effective.
Shuttle C, along with the brain child of next generation of shuttle, were also canceled.
The one who signed the order might not be the one who knew Space Shuttle.
Best of luck to your debate and presentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-C...Show more

1) They were very unreliable on account of their complexity. Launches were frequently scrubbed due to minor irregularities, which meant they couldn't be counted on to deliver any payload on schedule. By the 2000's, NASA was back to using simpler, more conventional designs like the Delta and Titan family of launch vehicles to boost most of its payloads.

2) They were getting old, and airframe fatigue is a harsh mistress. The existing fleet simply did not have many flights left in it.

3) The side-slung launch configuration was unsafe. There was no means for crew to evacuate the craft during launch. Foam and other bits could and did fall off the main fuel tank and strike the orbiter. One such case resulted in the loss of Columbia with all crew on account that its re-entry shield had been damaged on launch.

4) The claimed benefits of reusability never emerged. The shuttles were hangar queens, requiring an intense rebuild between flights....Show more

It was too big ;)...Show more