That's the title of a press release I received from the Space Frontier Foundation:

Los Angeles, July 14 ? The Space Shuttle system should be retired, and all further investments in the Shuttle ended, argued the non-profit Space Frontier Foundation today.

?A growing consensus in Congress and the space community affirms that the Shuttle system is hopelessly inadequate to our needs and cannot be made safe or affordable,? stated the group?s founder, Rick Tumlinson. ?It?s time for the venerable Space Shuttles to make way for the improvement in safety, innovation, and competitive pricing that would occur if the private sector were to be given the chance to do for space travel what commercial aviation has done for air travel.?

The Foundation points out that while NASA spends billions maintaining and flying the Space Shuttles, a new generation of privately funded commercial spaceship firms has sprung up to fly people on sub-orbital flights, conceivably for mere hundreds of thousands of dollars per ticket. Rather than continuing to waste taxpayer funds, the group believes an era of commercial orbital space flight could be in the making, if the government would nurture it using the money currently spent on government-only space systems.

?NASA should not be in charge of designing, building and operating what is essentially a glorified space truck/bus,? added Tumlinson. ?Imagine if the government had done the same thing with an airline. With no competition it would never get cheaper, better or more efficient?and no one would be able to afford to fly on it. That?s the socialist monopoly we have in space flight. It has not improved safety or access and wasted billions of tax dollars.?

To begin the hand off to the private sector, NASA should be banned from developing any replacements, and should be made to examine every alternative to safely end the Space Shuttle era, including ending Shuttle flights upon completing the international ?core? of the International Space Station (ISS); flying the Shuttle using its remote control systems in the meantime; and/or mothballing the ISS until commercial LEO transportation becomes available.

?None of the Shuttle?s capabilities are indispensable,? argued Tumlinson, ?and the ISS should not be used as an excuse to keep flying it at the risk of more astronauts? lives. If needed, the Russians can keep it going, or it can be mothballed until it can be taken over by a private Space Port Authority, and then operated, serviced and expanded by private spaceships and cargo vehicles. Now is exactly the right time for a change that can eventually open space to the people who have paid for it all.?

I agree generally, but as usual, I disagree with the part about the "risk to astronauts' lives." I've no problem with risking astronauts' lives, nor do the astronauts, as long as it's in a worthy endeavor. Shuttle and ISS, at this point, may or may not be, but the real risk of continuing to fly Shuttle is losing more orbiters, not losing crew. We somehow have to change this bizarre mindset that space can be made risk free.

Also, as Burt Rutan says, one of the reasons we don't make much progress is that we don't kill enough people (i.e., we aren't pushing the envelope enough, and too much resources are going into safety, instead of cost reduction and performance).

I'm referring to the people who have signed up to be pioneers, of course, not third-party innocents on the ground, which is why I support AST's launch licensing procedures (as long as they don't attempt to get involved in certifying safety for crew and passengers).

Please clarify.

If the orbiters are to be replaced what is the difference if a few more shuttles are lost prior to the day of reckoning (assuming a worthy endevour or automated flights). Are you worried about the public relations disaster? I wouldn't think that would stop the private launch industry much, it might even help. What am I missing?

It doesn't make any difference in that scenario, but it also doesn't make any difference if we lose the crews as well.

My only point was that if we were going to continue flying it, it's the fleet that's the issue, not astronauts.

But those that might read their letter might find loss of humans more importent then loss of an orbiter. They don't want to come off like one of us heartless capitalist engineers. If you know what I mean :-)
People outside the industry don't really understand what risk is or how to deal with it. If you are talking to someone outside you need to use ideas and words they understand.
"..Hero's get killed in stupid shuttle, that is bad, shuttle unsafe like 1970's Pinto.."
and
"..shuttle too old and stupid to be made safe.."
and
"..People are making stuff in their back yard that is better then the stupid old unsafe shuttle, let us use new stuff that is better.."
they might understand.

Yes I get tired of watching the space tech shows on discovery and when they bring up Mars they always jump the subject to: *aussie accent*DANGER DANGER DANGER!! The solar radiation, the micro meteors, the weightlessness, the time table, there is to much peril.

Well I for one think about the ancient cultures that had people that knew something was out there and the spirit to discover overrode the instinct that going on such an adventure would be completely lacking in any guarantee that they would return home safely. Matter of fact I think that all the people that climbed aboard a balsa wood boat and set out across the pacific knew they they were never coming back. Yet they found there Mars on Easter island and they rose their flags in the form of statues.

In my mind thought I think that any government doesn't want to open up space for private venture because the fearless leader's of the world tremble at the idea that a civilization of people could climb aboard space ships and leave the Earth to escape current controls and build a new society. Most logically on the Moon for starters. To them it would be as if a bunch of Puritans had a crazy idea to jump on a boat and sail across the ocean to the New World. We're being kept in and around terra firma for our own "safety" you see.

One of the reasons I dislike the idea of a quick and dirty manned mars mission is the likelyhood of a mission failure. Sure its possible to accommplish, but if there was a failure, the public/gov would likely lose all interest in Mars and would never be willing to try it again.

If the goal on the otherhand was a massive colonization effort, loss of people here and there would just be considered an unfortunate accident not a total setback.