As much as everyone will probably hate me for saying this-
It's about time.
The shuttle fleet was old; it was driven primarily be political requirements (in some ways)......and wasn't quite as cost effective for lifting mundane systems, like satellites and telescopes, into space on a regular basis. While it may have been intended to be a workhorse, IMO, at least, it simply didn't quite live up to the hype. Using an expendable booster would probably have been cheaper for quite a lot of tasks the Shuttle has been used for.
That being said, it's still a bit of a sad time to see it go. The Shuttle was an engineering marvel (albeit a somewhat overcosted one), and it was, for its time, quite momentous.
Oh, and just my $0.02:
When I think of "space", I think of space-stuff. Not space programs. When I do think of space programs.....well, then I think of the Moon missions, Apollo, and the experiments and thinktanks with nuclear propulsion and interstellar probes.
Not the Shuttle program.
WRT spaceflight pickup......I wouldn't bet on it. The current launch limits are around some 30-50 launches per year, IIRC. Development of radically new boosters simply isn't cost-effective. The boosters we have will continue to be refined in design, yes.....but not radically, unless we get some kind of technology breakthrough. The boosters in current use are quite simply perfectly adequate for current launch needs.
focusing on that stupid space station and spaced based telescopes while ignoring the real priorities.
I'm going to take great offense at this, for the simple reason that "that stupid space station" is a far more vital reason for humans to go into space at present than anything else. "space based telescopes" are also quite important; they give us clear pictures of the universe, which are vital for astrophysics research.
And it's a real good idea to know where you're going before actually getting off the ground.
