On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:04:14 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called
a shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Only by your definition, and that of others who share your narrow
viewpoint.

Aha! Already starting the ad-hominems?

No. You, like many, apparently don't understand the nature of an ad
hominem argument, which is to say that someone's position is invalid
because of some personal feature that is irrelevant to their stated
position. If I'd said you're a known liar and have smelly armpits,
so we shouldn't pay any attention to anything you say, that would be
an ad hominem. But I'm describing your particular belief on the
subject at hand, and those who, in their ignorance, share it, which is
not an ad hominem.

Pray tell: why do you think it was called the Space Shuttle to begin with?

They had to call it something. But it could have been called many
other things, in which case people like you would apparently
illogically insist that all space vehicles henceforth must be called
that thing. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn't
require us to perpetuate them ad infinitum.