[wretchard]

This disaster will almost certainly mean more money for the shuttle replacement. The existing shuttle fleet is becoming too old and small to continue for much longer. That replacement has long been in the works, but has been repeatedly delayed by budgetary starvation or NASA incompetence, depending on who you listen to.

There is blame enough to go around. Both the former President and former Congresses should have known this day would come. How many of us drive twenty four year old cars (if we could do otherwise)? As matters stand, it will take the better part of a decade to get a new vehicle up and tested.

[liberallarry]

How many of us drive twenty four year old cars (if we could do otherwise)?

The "car" was 21 years old when W. became President, 13 years old when Clinton took office. How old is too old? Should we have shut the program down because it was too expensive?

[TankerKC]

How many of us drive twenty four year old cars.

How many of us maintain our cars the was a shuttle is? C'mon, the military is flying aircraft built in the early sixties. Why? Great maintenacne and safety standards. The age of the vehicle (by itself) is a non-issue.

[ffusco]

Flawed argument. Airframes have a much longer service life than a car. Everything from seats,avionics, engines, and landing gear can be upgraded until the platform shows signs of metal fatigue. With scheduled refits, the B-52s are expected to serve until 2025.

[Sparta]

Agreed. Clintoon and the Congress are to blame for not funding the replacement for the shuttle.

[ladyinred]

Although the shuttle was older, it had been revamped so many times that it was in essence new. NASA would not send a shuttle up if they didn't think it was in tip top shape. Accidents happen! Old or new would not matter in this case.