"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
I chose the Space Shuttle over the Soyuz simply
because the Space Shuttle is more flexible.

Er... If it's flexible, then why is that it's the Soyuz that is
currently keeping the I.S.S. manned?

It should be noted that the R-7 family (used for Sputnik, Vostok,
Voskhod, Soyuz, Progress, Molniya, and so on) has been in service for
around more that four decades, and it has been used for many things,
both for manned applications and unmanned applications.

Anyway. If the minimum of rocket designs are only applied to the ones
used by U.S.A.'s space program, I don't think that the Soyuz is even
an option to cross out, since it belongs to the Russian space program
(and also the China space program). And if the minimum of rocket
designs are applied to the designs used by the whole world, what make
you so sure that the rest of the world would settle with only the
offers offered by companies that had their HQs at the U.S.A.?

As for the Space Transportation System, it's actually can be quite
flexible provided one eliminate its depency to the Orbiter's engines,
something like Energia is quite flexible since many types of payload
can be attach to it (the proposed Russian Mars design even had a
saucer attached to it). Though I don't know if I agree on it carrying
LOTS of liquid hydrogen, they should have just use hydrocarbon
(kerosene).


As for minizing on certain designs.

I don't know if one should minimize on certain current designs, but
there are certainly some needs for certain tasks.

Light, medium, and heavy manned crafts to L.E.O..

Light, medium, and heavy cargo crafts to L.E.O..

Light, medium, and heavy cargo crafts to G.S.O..