>>1480290If we apply your arguments, then "rocket scientists" at NASA, with no other influences other than the virtue of it, decided that the US had no need to put crews in space after 2010. That decade, a longer period of time than the Apollo program lasted, is a length of time that proves that "rocket scientists" think human spaceflight isn't worth anything, and that not putting humans into space is better than a Moon landing.
By my arguments, the same system that failed to fill this gap with anything other than delays is the same system that produced the STS, and which did so for the same reasons with the same level of competence.
>The fact that the Shuttle was used for three decades despite that is a testament to its utility.The NASP, the NLS, the ALS, and other would-be successors have been mentioned repeatedly. Not that you know what any of those are.
NASA never protested to have the STS extended past 2010. They did not make any new orbiters after 1990. When discussing replacements and future directions for the manned spaceflight program, no one proposed resuming shuttle use, building a better shuttle, building another spaceplane, or building anything reusable at all (except SpaceX). The shuttle's direct successor (in terms of technology) is the Space Launch System, fully expendable. Mostly expendable rockets carry crews and cargo to the ISS and into space. That the entire concept was shelved without protest or successor (which can't be said for the category of expendable heavy lift vehicles) speaks volumes to what the STS says about reusability. The shuttle, and anything like the shuttle, are dead ends.
