The Space Shuttle was better than Russian Spacecraft during the same period.

Reusability Reusability is not an end in itself, but is desirable because after one large initial investment you have a low cost vehicle. In this the shuttle failed. A flight was projected to cost $54m, and in reality cost $1.2 bn. The other intended benefit of reusability was that the shuttle could be sent into orbit more frequently. Again the shuttle failed. It required such an extensive amount of repair and maintenance between missions that the orbiter was grounded for months at a time. Indeed the shuttle was grounded for fully 6 of its 30 years in service as a result of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. The anticipated advantages of reusability never came to fruition. The shuttle was treated for its entire life like a test craft flown by test pilots. Shuttle missions never became regular and routine, and I don't believe my opponent has adequately dealt with these points of logic. Comfort It is obscure that my opponent has made comfort such a central theme of his argument. Nevertheless, while the shuttle was undoubtedly more comfortable, the overall shuttle design which enabled this comfort was fatally flawed in terms of safety and reliability. Physical comfort is of little consequence to an astronaut that is terrified about making it home alive. My opponent says "Safety is a separate issue from comfort", yet has not actually 'argued' this point beyond stating that 'it just is'. I suggest that you could make a wonderful shuttle, with comfy sofas, a jacuzzi and a holodeck, but if it only makes it home 50% of the time comfort is of little consequence. 3) Payload Capacity & Cost Effectiveness "The Soyuz can reliably carry 6300 lbs to low earth orbit (LEO) [2] whereas the Shuttle can carry 53,600 lbs to LEO [3]." My opponent astonishingly reasserts his original mistake. The Soyuz payload ranges between 15,100 and 17,200lb, the latest model being 17,100 lb. The Soyuz puts more payload into orbit for each dollar spent. The link that he uses in support of his assertion, http://en.wikipedia.org... refers to the Soyuz-1, a proposed design for a medium class version of the Soyuz rocket that is not in fact in operation. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has confused (deliberately or otherwise) the details of this proposed Soyuz-1 rocket with the actual Soyuz craft in operation. Given the preponderance of sources on Google and wikipedia citing the Soyuz's payload in the 15,000-17,000 lb range, I am suspicious that my opponent has deliberately gone trawling for a link to support a false claim. My opponent also states that the shuttle is only "slightly more expensive". The difference between $114m and $1.2bn is not trivial. Furthermore, I accept that "Bigger and better vehicles cost more than little ones" is a fair argument with regard to the initial cost of the shuttle. However its reusability was intended to bring the cost down dramatically for subsequent flights. This is the main reason why NASA built a reusable space shuttle. It was estimated that each flight of the shuttle would cost $54m. In reality it cost $1.2bn per flight. 'Bigger and better vehicles' may well cost more to build, but it is not indicative of them being 'better' that they then cost such an inordinate amount of money to actually launch. The excessive mission cost speaks to the shuttles failings: its safety concerns, its susceptibility to damage, its excessive maintenance requirements. Impact Force My opponent argues that "The Soyuz has a hard ground landing which poses a higher risk to astronauts." I wonder at how my opponent has estimated this risk, since the Columbia exploded on re-entry with the loss of all crew, while no injuries or fatalities have ever been incurred in a Soyuz landing. Failures and fatalities "My opponent's argument is based more on semantics than actual consideration of safety." My argument is not based on semantics, but on my opponent's own words: "However, I feel that it was safer, more technologically advanced and more reliable than Russian spacecraft that operated during the same period as the space shuttle did." We are not discussing Russian spacecraft that preceded the space shuttle, but Russian spacecraft that operated during the lifetime of the shuttle - 1981-2011. For some reason my opponent thinks we are comparing the shuttle with anything that bears the name of 'Soyuz', whether it flew in 1967 or hasn't even come into service yet. We are clearly not debating this, as my opponent's own words testify. The Soyuz rocket comes in seven different variants: * Soyuz 1 - 1966-1975 * Soyuz-L - 1970-1971 * Soyuz-M - 1971-1976 * Soyuz-U - 1973 - present (payload 15,100 lb) * Soyuz-U2 - 1982-1995 (payload 15,100 lb) * Soyuz-FG - 2001-present (payload 17,200 lb) * Soyuz-2 - 2004-present (payload 17,100 lb) Comparing Russian craft that operated during the shuttle's lifetime, we are concerned with the last 4 of those 7 models. The very reason why Soyuz is widely considered reliable is because the craft has been heavily modified to eliminate failures. The Soyuz U2, FG and 2 have never suffered a major failure. The Soyuz U, the oldest model in service during the shuttle's lifetime, suffered one major failure in 1983. This was non-fatal. Russian spacecraft have unquestionably been more reliable during the shuttle's lifetime. ISS I find my opponent cherrypicking his comparisons. He says the ISS has achieved what Russia was 'never able to do', as the Salyut space station orbited Earth for less than a year. Russia's Mir station orbited Earth from 1986 -2001, i.e. 15 years. It held the record for the longest uninterrupted time for an astronaut in space, at 3644 days, until this record was broken in 2010 by the ISS. I point out that 3644 days is far longer than any mission to the Moon or Mars would be and the ISS' achievement in this regard is simply unnecessary. The study of prolonged space on humans has now been studied extensively on Skylab and Mir and the ISS has added little if anything new. Plus no experiments have been performed aboard the ISS that could not have been performed under simulated conditions on Earth. With regards to the 'prestigious' Collier Trophy, I would point out that this is an American award for American achievements in space, granted by the NAA. This was awarded in recognition of: "the design, development and assembly of the of the world's largest spacecraft, an orbiting laboratory that promises new discoveries for mankind" Note it only 'promises' new discoveries and is yet to make good on this. Hubble My opponent states that we can "Add it to the already enormous list of achievements by the Space Shuttle." I have argued that the ISS is no such great achievement. Aside from Hubble I have not seen my opponent cite any other of the shuttle's supposed great achievements. In Conclusion The shuttle is brash, sexy and expensive. However it was enormously more expensive than it was intended to be, failed more times than the Russian craft that operated during the same period, and continued losing lives long after Russian engineers had entirely eliminated fatalities from their space program. The Soyuz has robustly done the job it was intended to do, with an impeccable safety record at very low cost. The shuttle serviced the ISS, which was Reagan's pointless attempt to compete with Mir. The last Apollo mission was in 1972, since when all of the real 'exploration' of space has been conducted by robots and telescopes. NASA's great achievements of the last 30 years are Spirit, Opportunity, Cassini, Voyager, Galileo, Messenger, Kepler, WMAP... None of which were launched by the shuttle. I ask again: If the shuttle was "safer, more technologically advanced and more reliable than Russian spacecraft that operated during the same period as the space shuttle did", why has NASA retired the shuttle and provisioned for the use of Soyuz?