I formed a low opinion of the New Scientist right back in the 1960s, because of its dishonesty in reporting the Vietnam War. It's sad that Britain has no serious science publication; New Scientist and Nature are both solidly corrupt. I haven't checked the ownership/ editorial information recently, but odds are on the usual suspects.
The piece linked to is
Farewell, shuttle: Now the space race takes off again - 06 July 2011 by David Shiga
IF ATLANTIS launches as planned on 8 July  it will be the last shuttle flight in the US fleet's 30-year history. The country that put the first man on the moon four decades ago will be forced to bum rides on Russian Soyuz vehicles to reach the International Space Station (ISS). It's quite a comedown, and you could be forgiven for thinking the sun is setting on US space flight. Yet for the private ventures breathing new life into space exploration, it could be the start of a golden era.
Sounds like taxpayer-funded corporations to me because of the risk - if NASA's billions couldn't do it, how could some relatively tiny company? I wonder how the money is fed to them; how is it done?
Here's New Scientist trying to survey 30 years of the alleged Space Shuttle. Thirty years of space flight 'in pictures'
12 images (and an advert). All from NASA. They are called 'images' rather than 'photographs' (or 'videographs') perhaps in unconscious recognition of their dubiousness.