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

My opponent states that due to the wording of the resolution, he wants to argue not just about the Soyuz but also other Russian spacecraft that operated during that period, I accept his terms.This means that I will consider other Russian spacecraft besides the Soyuz that operated between 1972 and 2011 which was the period the space shuttle operated in, which was a little less than 30 years. However my opponent's argument on fatality rate is erroneos and I will explain why when I touch upon that point at the end of the debate.A brief overview: I will list the major spacecraft that the Russians have planned, constructed and wasted money on, from 1972 to 2011. I will be talking about the Soyuz spacecraft, the Progress spacecraft, and the Buran program which was Russia's response to the Space Shuttle program. In cases where a direct comparison with the Buran program cannot be made, I will compare the Shuttle to the Soyuz. The Russians spent 20 billion rubles [3] which was over US$700 million [4] on the Buran program and there was only one mission which was in 1986 [5]. Now that I gave an overview of my argument, I will continue with the debate.My Responses to Con's rebuttals1) ReusabilityIf an average Soyuz mission costs around $114 million, and an average shuttle mission costs $1.2 billion, what exactly is the advantage of the shuttle being reusable?Firstly the Space Shuttle costs $450 million to launch according to NASA's website [2]. My opponent's statement is incorrect as well as unsourced. I have no idea why he thinks it costs $1.2 billion. Secondly, my opponent provides no sources on his price for the Soyuz mission. 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.2) ComfortI provided sources to show why the shuttle is more comfortable. My opponent points out delays (no sources) and safety which is a separate point that I am going to argue and is not relevant to comfort. He therefore conceded the point about comfort. The Space Shuttle does provide a more comfortable ride.3) Payload CapacityMy opponent conceded the point on payload capacity and agreed that the Shuttle was better in this regard. Whether the payload capacity was put to good use by servicing the international space station is a point I will argue later. 4) Impact ForceThe difference between 3.5g and 5g is not insignificant. My opponent says "The spacecraft that would have replaced the shuttle, Ares, would have reverted to the same re-entry procedure as the Soyuz uses. Hence NASA clearly do not see this minor difference as significant." Ares is the rocket that would have launched the Orion Spacecraft. The landing of the Orion is different because it splashes down on water [1] whereas the Soyuz lands on the ground. So, the difference in the impact force is not insignificant to NASA as my opponent says, so my argument still stands. My opponent's case1) Internation Space Station was a waste of moneyMy opponent says that the Shuttle's highest profile achivement is servicing the ISS and then argues that the ISS is a waste of money. The problem with this logic is that the Shuttle was used for many purposes including servicing the Hubble Space Telescope and conducting health sciences studies to enable human presence farther from Earth than low earth orbit, where we are now [6] and not just for the ISS. Secondly, the Russian spacecrafts Soyuz and Progress have also docked with the ISS and helped construct it so I could just as easily argue my opponent's own point against him. The ISS is an International Space Station and its expenses were distinct from those of the Space Shuttle. 2) Usage of Payload & Cost of missionsCon makes an argument for which he provides no sources. He says that Space Shuttle did not fully use its payload capacity but does not have hard facts to back up his claim. Neither does he give any sources to prove that the Soyuz, Progress or Buran fully used their payload capacities.My opponent has not proved that the average Russian spacecraft cost more than the Space Shuttle. Here I prove that the Buran actually cost more than the Shuttle. Over 700 billion US dollars [3][4] were spent on the Buran for just one mission and it was a massive failure. It only lasted for one mission. This furthers my point that the Space Shuttle was far more sucessful than Russian spacecraft during its time.3) Resolution, Failures and fatalities(a)The resolution was "....(The Shuttle) was safer, more technologically advanced and more reliable than Russian spacecraft that operated during the same period as the space shuttle did." The Soyuz, Progress and Buran were Russian spacecraft that operated in roughly the same time period that the Space Shuttle did. It is therefore appropriate to do a side by side comparison of the Shuttle and the Soyuz (and Progress and Buran too, if you wanted). 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. (b) My opponent concedes that the Soyuz had a higher failure rate compared to number of missions.(c) I already explained that the higher fatality rate was not because the Shuttle was less safe but because it could carry more number of people. Both Shuttle and Soyuz had only 2 failures. There simply hapenned to be more people in the Shuttle on the failed missions. Since fatal failures are equal and overall failures for the shuttle are less, this shows that the shuttle was safer and more reliable than the Soyuz. The higher payload capacity, lower impact force, reusability and comfort proves that it was more technologically advanced than the Soyuz. Sources[1] http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...[2] http://www.nasa.gov...[3] http://www.astronautix.com...[4] http://www.google.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.signonsandiego.com...