I'm gonna take a stab at this one..
If you watch NASA TV when there is a shuttle mission taking place, you get the map showing where the craft is in relation to the world, you can track it bezzing around the globe at a hell of a rate (someone may be along shortly to tell me how long it takes for the shuttle to complete one orbit I have a feeling it isn't much over an hour), the problem with trying to take something out of orbit is that you need to slow it down enough for it to start dropping.
For those of you who don't understand how 'orbit' works, think of firing an air pistol at 90 degrees to the ground, the pellet leaves the gun, gradually looses velocity and drops to the ground... move up to an air rifle and it fires a bit more forcefully and it drops further away from you.. now work your way up through things that fire more and more forcefully, and eventually (given a huge amount of US government hand-outs) you'll get something that never drops to the ground as it follows the curvature of the earth, thats 'orbit'..
Now when something is in 'orbit' it is hauling some serious ass (if you ever follow a re-entry you hear 5 figure mph speeds quoted even after it has started to re-enter), to make it drop towards earth again requires slowing it down, by quite a lot..
To slow it down enough to make it 'drop' as mentioned in the thread starter, would require a LOT of opposite thrust (possibly a dangerous amount in G forces, and once you've started the craft will begin to drop and the thrust engines may have less effect once you are out of the outer atmosphere), meaning you would need to burn a lot of fuel, which you'd have to carry through the launch and during the mission. Every gram of weight is crucial when it comes to launch and anything extra costs more and would lead to smaller payloads being taken up each mission, which may lead to the whole program being a waste of time.
I think that sums it up...
"It'll be alright mate"