[cogitator]

Interesting analysis. The Space Shuttle was the end result of a desire to make a space vehicle "reusable" to ostensibly save money -- I think Griffin is right that it was a bit too cutting-edge for the existing technology at the time, resulting in its inherent vulnerabilities now. The problem is that the stresses on the spacecraft require advanced engineering solutions. The Space Shuttle was a great leap forward, rather than an incrementally improved design. It should be noted that it has allowed some great science missions (UARS, Hubble, Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, SRTM off the top of my head).

While there may be some small amount of science derived from the Space Station, the cost of maintaining a human presence in Earth orbit is so high (due to high launch and payload costs) that it doesn't seem worth the substantial effort to do it unless there is a more substantial science and technology benefit.

[narby]

I think Griffin is right that it was a bit too cutting-edge for the existing technology at the time, resulting in its inherent vulnerabilities now.

I think the problem with the shuttle was it cut corners. The original design was for liquid boosters in place of the SRBs (the cause of the Challenger loss, and probably contributed to the foam problem in the Columbia loss).

In the initial design, I think they also considered air launch, but didn't want to spend money on an ultra huge launcher aircraft, because the requirement was to lift very large payloads.

The "shuttle" should have been merely for human and modest resupply launches and designed for very quick turn arounds. Plus occasional of the Saturn V for unmanned large payloads like space stations and such to satisfy that requirement.