I think the Shuttle Program should stop.
The Shuttle geting to old and the risk is to high. So as soon they have something new they should start it again.
I was watching the first start on tv and it was so impressive.

I don't think the U. S. will hand space over to the Russians, so I doubt that the U. S. will stop sending ships into orbit.

The Russians have enough trouble hanging on to their own regions on Earth without worrying about space. The UN treaty against space based weapons effectively killed of the space race, which is why few people seem to care anymore. The Yanks put a flag on the moon which is about as effective a claim to ownership as if I dropped a flag into the ocean and claimed the seabed as my personal empire. Space is pretty much bunk and will stay that way until life on Earth gets really unpleasent, or someone invents a genuinely useful propulsion method, or a large meteor hits and scares the bejesus out of everyone.

The third option is more likely to happen first, by the way. One large enough to level a city hits once every 100 years or so. The last one was in 1917. With 24 hour rolling news the next one should make quite an impression.

1908, sorry*

Octavious: The U. S. never ratified that treaty, despite Russian, etc. pleas for it to do so. Instead, it is actively attempting to militarize space.
As for the Tunguska explosion, its not really definite what caused it. The meteor may be more than 2 years overdue.

The US may or may not have ratified it, (to be honest I haven't kept track of UN treaties the US has backed away from... there are far too many of them. Sometimes I feel the US should follow the lead of the free world from time to time) but have largely stuck to it anyway. There are no overt US space based weapon platforms. The US military are pushing to get some, but they are pushing to get a lot of things and rarely do.

Satellite-based missile platforms aren't space weapons?
Here is an article I found by using Google Search to spell-check that last sentance: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=3796.

There are no satellite based missile platforms. That article is pretty much agreeing with me

Here is a more up-to-date article, from a day ago: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/russian-generals-want-their-space-weapons-too/.

That first article says that the U. S. hasn't desgned the treaty and thet the Pentagon is investing millions of dollars in space research.

They need that new ship type... aren't they developing something to replace the shuttle?

WE MUST keep going!

To boldly go where no man has gone before, remember? I STILL believe those Vulcans are landing around 2052 are so... so we need to get cracking!

More: "The Pentagon used to turn to the Space Shuttle from time to time to deliver spy satellites into orbit. But the Shuttle is about to be retired. Enter the X-37B — an unmanned, smaller-scale version of the reusable spacecraft." -- http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/secret-space-plane-likely-an-orbiting-spy-not-a-bomber-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

These ships are more akin to airplanes than the shuttle. It just gets people dragged into that murky subject of where Earth ends and space begins. Using current definitions it is possible to get to space in a balloon, which just shows you how silly those definitions can be. Non of these projects, real or imagined, come close to anything that could be described as a space program in any real sense.

obiwanobiwan: As mentioned, the military is.

Octavious: The article is very clear in saying that the X-37B can go in orbit. Also notice from that last article: "Repairing (or screwing with) satellites in orbit would be tough — 'not many existing operational military satellite components will fit in the X-37B cargo bay,' the report notes." Third party sources know of "operational military satellite components".

I'd be willing to bet there's a secret black-budget military space program that's 30 years (at least!) more advanced than anything we see on TV. Hence the lack of urgency in developing a shuttle replacement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH3VFxLafOU

One can but hope.

that that is not true

These two Russian articles talk about Russia's ability to defend itself from space weapons:
2 April: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100402/158414990.html
13 May: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100513/159003853.html

Notice the change in mood between these articles, but also note that Russia has been concerned about U. S. weaponization of space for years.

Tolstoy: Interesting video, there. Do you beleive it?

Well, I certainly don't believe that was two snowflakes in space (as NASA claimed). As for whether that was a UFO being shot at by some earth-based projectile or something else (like a weapon attempting to destroy a target drone that was equipped with some advanced propulsion system) I have no idea. In either case, human space technology is undoubtedly far more advanced than we're led to believe. As the story goes, after this NASA no longer maintained the live video feed from the shuttle which produced this footage.

That is curious. But perhaps it's just U. S. (military) space technology, not human space technology in general.