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

Since this is the last round, I will attempt to summarize most of the main points brought up as well as answer my opponent's questions.1) ReusabilityI pointed out in my opening argument, TIME magazine's analogy between the Shuttle and the Soyuz: If the Shuttles were business class and the old Apollo was coach, the Soyuz is a little like hiding in the wheel well for a coast to coast flight. [1] I never said that the Shuttle was cheap, just that it was reusable. An astronaut would prefer a reusable business class flight (even if slightly more expensive) than the Soyuz which is an extremely uncomfortable flight. This is not just TIME magazine's opinion but something I have proved throughout the course of this debate. Even my opponent concedes that the Shuttle is a more comfortable ride. Not to mention that the Space Shuttle has a much higher passenger and payload capacity. Bigger and better vehicles cost more than little ones.2) Comfort"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"Safety is a separate issue from comfort which I argued under a separate heading and will argue again in a separte point. As for comfort, there is no getting around the fact that the Shuttle is more comfortable.3) Payload Capacity & Cost EffectivenessThe Soyuz can reliably carry 6300 lbs to low earth orbit (LEO) [2] whereas the Shuttle can carry 53,600 lbs to LEO [3]. I did not confuse lbs with kgs. This is 8.5 times as much as the Soyuz. My opponent also concedes that he never said that the payload is not utilized to its full capacity. He instead uses the word "potential" which is very subjective and cannot be proved with facts. I ask that the voters disregard that point. He also blames the Internation Space Station and did not address the fact that both Shuttle and Soyuz serviced the ISS and the failures of the ISS must not be blamed on the Shuttle but insists that they are. The ISS is also not a failure as I will prove later. "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. "I've proven that the stats given by opponent are incorrect while agreeing that the Shuttle is slightly more expensive than the Soyuz because it was better. Here is my answer to my opponent's question: The Shuttle comes with the added benefit of the crew being able to perform in-flight experiments and safely bringing them back to earth. No other spacecraft can carry both cargo and personnel while simultaneously conducting microgravity experiments or repair and maintenance operations. Other launch vehicles are optimized to perform one task, which significantly reduces cost, but with the space shuttle, it is versatility that makes it more expensive than Russian spacecraft [4].4) Impact ForceThe Soyuz slams onto the ground with a force of 5g's whereas the Space Shuttle smoothly lands with a force of only 3.5g's. My opponent tried to say that it doesn't matter since NASA's new Orion is going to use a Soyuz style landing. However, when I pointed out that it actually lands on water much like the Apollo, my opponent conceded this point entirely and says that because of safety and cost, this issue is irrelevant. I already said that these are separate points, but there is no doubt that the Shuttle had a more advanced landing system than the primitive Soyuz which used parachutes as opposed to landing like an aircraft. While the Buran landed like the Space Shuttle, it was hugely unsucessful having been retired and destroyed after only one mission. 5) Failures and FatalitiesKeeping things simple, it is quite obvious that both the Shuttle and the Soyuz had two major fatal failures in a similar number of missions. I fail to see how having the failures while the Shuttle was still in development makes the Soyuz a safer spacecraft. It had two fatal failures while the Shuttle was being planned and developed. The Shuttle later took off and two failures of its own. My opponent's argument is based more on semantics than actual consideration of safety. More importantly, my opponent himself concedes that overall failures (fatal and non-fatal) are more for the Soyuz. This makes the Shuttle safer. The Soyuz has a hard ground landing which poses a higher risk to astronauts. The Shuttle also has a better a more comfortable better landing procedure.6) Achievements of ISSSince my opponent challenged me to tell him what the achievements of the ISS are, here is my answer:(a) The ISS allowed humans to live in space for the long term [7]. If my opponent wants to put a man on Mars and send humans to Titan and Europa, he must first learn what the effects of long term space travel are to humans. These places have already been explored by robotic craft and the next step is to put humans there which cannot safely happen without the ISS. Travelling to Mars, Titan and Europa is not the same as travel to the moon which took a much shorter time period. (b) Nearly 150 experiments are currently under way on the station, and more than 400 experiments have been conducted since research began nine years ago. These experiments already are leading to advances in the fight against food poisoning, new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells and the development of more capable engines and materials for use on Earth and in space [5]. (c) NASA won the prestigious 2009 Collier Trophy for the ISS which is considered the top award in aviation. (d) It did what Russian Space Station serviced entirely by Russian Spacecraft couldn't do. Russia launched Salyut 1 in 1971, which orbited Earth for less than a year due to a series of equipment failures [7]. (e) Studies on Humans: According to HowStuffWorks, "During the last eight years, occupants of the station have studied human bone loss during extended time in microgravity, radiation levels in space and how to protect against them, different techniques for doing in-space soldering to repair equipment, and countless other experiments, repairs, space walks and robotics innovations. "[7](f) It also marked a significant collaboration between the US and Russia to advance space exploration. What was a competition earlier now bacame a more collaborative enterprise. Note that I am arguing for the Space Shuttle, not the ISS but since my opponent won't budge, here is the proof that the ISS is acheiving something and not a "complete waste of money" as my opponent says that "could have been used to go to Mars, Titan and Europa. " The ISS is actually helping us go to those places. Since my opponent insists on linking the ISS to the Shuttle, I propose to the voters that if they buy my opponent's argument that the ISS is part of what the Shuttle did, that the benefits of the ISS be considered as achievements of the Shuttle as well.7) HubbleMy opponent entirely concedes this point and agrees that the Hubble is a great achievement by the Shuttle. Add it to the already enormous list of achievements by the Space Shuttle. ConclusionI have proved that the Shuttle was a much better spacecraft in many ways than the Soyuz as well as other failed Russian spacecraft. It was the more technologically advanced and versatile spacecraft with a comfortable ride and features that no other Spacecraft could match such as being able to conduct experiments while carrying passengers as well as cargo. It has a numerous list of achievements and the Shuttle era was truly a golden era in space exploration and will be sorely missed. Helium-Flash, it was wonderful debating with you and I urge the Voters to vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://tiny.cc...;[2] . http://bit.ly...[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] . http://1.usa.gov...[6] . http://1.usa.gov...[7] . http://bit.ly...