But of course, STS-1 was just a test-flight meant to test the shuttle and find problems. The shuttle did have lots of faillures early on in the program and probably shouldn't have been considered an operational vehicle, but that was because it was still new. There were a few really close-calls early in the program, but the failure rate at least slowed down as the shuttles aged and more work was done on them.
This was the case indeed. But the deficient communication between several NASA centers, disregarding safety concerns, and not documenting updates on the Shuttles very well, were significant issus which turned out by the STS-107 investigation. The fleet also definitely is aging and the decision to retire the program, based on the STS-107 investigation, is a rational one. The concerns our Admin expressed are rather valid, and I guess also based on knowledge.
Of course NASA likes to tell the public that each Shuttle was designed for 100 missions (initially even for more than twice as much). They like to tell how amazing everything is that they do. And of course it certainly is amazing. But there is more than just flying colours. Most significantly, NASA stands for much more than just for manned space flight. The manned program of NASA is a minor one scientifically speaking, which a lot of people are not aware of because the unmanned and earth-based part is
just boring to a lot of people, although it's the bigger part of NASA. People mostly like to hail NASA and just repeat glorious facts and figures of the manned program.
NASA put twelve men on the moon and did it very quickly, and flew the most complex vehicle ever made by man 132++ times.
I'm personally intersted in both, the flying colors but also the framework of NASA and its programs, which causes a different view than just to glorify NASA facts and figures.
It's not NASA's fault the ended up the way they are. They work for the government.
NASA is no less to blame than the government. NASA suffers from structural issues and mismanagement, which had been demonstrated once more by the Constellation program.
As for the Shuttle program: STS-51L was NASA's fault. NASA also is to blame for STS-107. I won't go into details at this point as it would be too many, but I mention that almost 50% of the STS-107 investigation report is about mechanical issues on STS and management issues inside NASA.
Space X has also made alot of grand promises. So far all we have is one unmanned launch.
SpaceX and NASA are two different kind of things while the only thing they have in common is that they launch rockets. Trying to look to SpaceX or another company or agency who launches rockets is no excuse for NASA issues.
As for the unmanned launches: SpaceX has a launch record of 6 which includes 3 successes (the last three launches). Falcon one was launched twice into low earth orbit, carrying one test payload and one commercial payload into low earth orbit. Falcon 9 already was a success on its first launch.
Space X and Falcon too depend on the government for funding.
Not quite. Their proposed ISS missions depend on funding (COTS program).
Look behind Space X's curtain and you might be suprised what you see. They are only doing what NASA did 50 years ago.
SpaceX is a privately funded company which works quite efficiently and different to NASA. With only 800 employees (while they started with much less) and less than 400 million USD development costs, SpaceX has designed and build a launch vehicle that has a payload capability of almost 10 tons. SpaceX has made the biggest commercial contract in space flight history (almost 500 million USD) shortly after the successful Falcon 9 test flight. They will carry the Iridium satellite constellation into orbit.
