[Nowhere Man]

We need to stop putting people up there in 40 year old equipment.

It’s expensive, worthless and most of all, dangerous.

There. Fixed it...

I don't think that's quite the problem. The Soviets/Russians still use Soyuz, which was first fielded in 1967 on top of an SS-6/7 rocket booster that was developed in 1957. For using 1950's/1960's tech, the Russians have done very well although they had their share of mishaps too. We should have stayed with Apollo however, I think the shuttle's replacement is a capsule that is very similar to Apollo.

[supercat]

We need to stop putting people up there in 40 year old equipment.

I don't think that's quite the problem. The Soviets/Russians still use Soyuz, which was first fielded in 1967 on top of an SS-6/7 rocket booster that was developed in 1957. For using 1950's/1960's tech, the Russians have done very well although they had their share of mishaps too

Are the Russians using 40-year-old designs, or 40-year-old equipment? Nothing wrong with old designs. Nor even necessarily with old equipment if it's well-maintained and kept in a suitable environment. The Space Shuttles, though, are subjected to considerable stress and are apt to suffer from the effects thereof.

[null and void]

Good point. The shuttle’s MISSION was designed by congress.

They wanted a Ferrari Dump Truck, with parts made in every congressional district.

[ReignOfError]

We should have stayed with Apollo however, I think the shuttle's replacement is a capsule that is very similar to Apollo.

There are at least two new systems in the pipe -- one is likely to be an Apollo-like system with a heavy, disposable booster rocket for heavy cargo and interplanetary travel, and the other a reusable, much smaller craft for crew transport and light cargo. Neither will arrive any time soon -- NASA is still entertaining proposals, and the first weld hasn't been made yet.