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

1) Reusability The shuttle costs $450 million to launch, the total average mission cost is $1.2 billion (although recent analysis of the shuttle's lifetime has suggested the price of an average flight is closer to $1.5 billion). The Soyuz costs $69 million to launch, and $114 million for the average mission. Russia is offering the use of Soyuz to the US government at a price of $50 million per seat, i.e. three seats, $150 million for the mission, which is still immensely cheaper than a shuttle mission even with the Russians taking profit from the deal. http://www.astronautix.com... http://www.space.com... http://www.newscientist.com... Without getting bitchy, I would like to point out that I have posted links supporting these claims already and yet you have accused my claims of being 'unsourced'. Since you stated, "Therefore my opponent failed to prove the average Soyuz mission costs less than the Shuttle and my point about reusability of the Space Shuttle being an advantage still stands", I assume now I have clearly sourced these claims my arguments regarding the reusability of the shuttle can be reinstated as valid? Additionally, I would like to restate the fact that the shuttle is not entirely reusable, only the orbiter. Crucially, with the amount of maintenance required between trips for the orbiter, as well as the safety concerns that dogged it throughout its lifetime, the shuttle was earthbound for a considerable amount of time between missions. So I ask again: what is the great advantage of reusability, if its intended benefits did not come to fruition? 2) Comfort You say I have conceded the shuttle was more comfortable. I agree, it was. I concede this point. However you have not commented on whether one would prefer a more comfortable trip into space if the cost of that comfort was a loss in safety and reliability. This is far from a separate issue. 3) Payload Capacity Regarding the payload, I would like point out that you stated: "The space shuttle had a payload capacity of over 50,000 lbs [5] whereas the Soyuz only had a capacity of 7,000 lbs [4]." This is incorrect. The payload of the Soyuz is 17,100 lbs. I would guess that you have confused pounds and kilograms, as Soyuz's payload is 7,800 kg. http://www.astronautix.com... This represents a substantially smaller increase in payload size from Soyuz to shuttle. Plus, you again neglected to comment on my argument. The shuttle's payload is a little under 3 times the size as the Soyuz's payload, yet the cost of the mission is around ten times the price. Hence the Soyuz can put more than 3 times the amount of payload into orbit for each dollar spent. 4) Impact Force This is essentially the same argument as with comfort. You say its 'better', I say being 'better' at the expense of safety, reliability, and at a cost of an order of magnitude greater, negates the benefit. 1) "Internation Space Station was a waste of money" The problem with the ISS isn't so much that its a complete waste of money. With all the money in the world to go to Mars, the Moon, Titan, Europa, etc etc, then it would be great to have the ISS as well. However in terms of its scientific return for the money invested, considering the real-world issue that is limited funds, it truly is of tremendously poor value. Soyuz has docked with the ISS, but has done so much more cheaply, i.e. the Russians have wasted less money on this lame duck. I note you have failed to cite any beneficial science wrought of the ISS. Furthermore, since the ISS was constructed and maintained using the space shuttle, and since the ISS project was conditional on the existence and use of the shuttle, the ISS is hardly a 'separate issue'. The shuttle has not really achieved anything in its own right, it is merely a transport. It hasn't actually done any 'exploration' of space, simply gone back and forth to low Earth orbit. Hence 'what it has done' in Low Earth Orbit is key in considering the success of the unit itself. The Hubble is truly the shuttle's only great achievement. So, we can mark up one great achievement for the shuttle there. 30 years and $196 billion, and one great achievement. 2) Usage of Payload & Cost of missions I didn't say the shuttle did not use its payload to full capacity, but to its full potential, i.e. this awesome payload was used primarily in the service of the ISS. The ISS has produced little to no beneficial science, hence while the shuttle had a large payload it was utilised to little effect. This does not require technical sources, it is an opinion. An opinion shared by Michael Griffin and many others in the astronomical community (see references sourced in the previous post). Furthermore, the claim that Buran cost $700 billion is utterly absurd. It cost $16-17 billion, and died a death for the simple reason that Russia ran out of money (for unrelated reasons). You bring up the budgetary miscalculations of Buran in an attempt to emphasise the failings of the Russian space program. These are the figures for the space shuttle's projected costs, and actual expense: "NASA had estimated that the program would cost $7.45 billion ($43 billion in 2011 dollars, adjusting for inflation) in development/non-recurring costs, and $9.3M ($54M in 2011 dollars) per flight. Early estimates for the cost to deliver payload to low earth orbit were as low as $118 per pound ($260/kg) of payload ($635/pound in 2011 dollars), based on marginal or incremental launch costs, and assuming a 65,000 pound (30 000 kg) payload capacity and 50 launches per year. The actual total cost of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, is $196 billion.[4] The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 is about $450 million per mission." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.k26.com... 3) Resolution, Failures and fatalities "The Shuttle's time frame is 1972 to 2011. The Soyuz's time frame is 1967 to 2011 (maybe longer). They both completed roughly the same number of missions with the Shuttle doing slightly more. The Shuttle had two fatal failures in 1986 and 2003. The Soyuz had two fatal failures in 1967 and 1971. It is obvious that the Shuttle and the Soyuz had roughly the same number of fatal failures. My opponent's logic to not include the Soyuz's failures is weak and is an example of cherry-picking data. He also accuses me of being unfair when it is clearly he who attempted to pick and choose the data that he wants to present." Again, I don't wish to get all bitchy up in here, but this position is very intellectually dishonest of you. For one thing, you have (deliberately or otherwise) compared the period in which the space shuttle program was in development AND operation (1972 - 2011) with the period that the Soyuz was actually operational (1967 - 2011). You can surely see that this is a clear example of cherry picking the data, a charge that you ironically lay upon me. I say again, you stated: "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." The space shuttle 'operated' between 1981 and 2011, so we are clearly comparing Russian spacecraft that operated during this period. This being the case, Soyuz has had a lower failure rate, and a non-existent fatality rate, during this period (see previous post). Finally, I would like to ask: 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 the US government retired the shuttle, and provisioned for the use of Soyuz?