Not saying it was a total waste of money or a complete failure...of course we learned from it, and gained technology wise in the process. The question is was the amount of gain worth the money spent? I personally don’t think so.
BTW, the whole concept of the shuttle’s value as a ‘reusable’ platform is very silly, given the cost to return it back to ‘flight ready’ status after a mission. That albatross had to be stripped down and almost completely rebuilt every time it flew. Not efficient at all.
The shuttle had its’ place, and did have some value. But it was obsolete very soon after it started flying. It should have been more transitional, and should not have lasted as long as it did.
The original article says it was a total waste of money and a complete failure.
Again the deficiency in the shuttle ties to the early budget. The only way to get it made with the budget they had forced a higher maintenance design. It’s a classic example of saving money early so you can spend more later. Nixon didn’t like NASA, it was too associated with Kennedy and he had too much loathing of all things Kennedy. They presented multiple idea for a reusable craft to bring them into the future, he told them to proceed with the cheapest but to do it for even cheaper. He opted for a space program in name alone. But that’s still better than no space program.