I do believe that the Shuttle has multiple landing sites. For one,
there's
the alternate site in California. Then there's a number of abort
landing
sites.

I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the names
of these sites so I can do some research.

Who knows? Maybe with all of the budget cutbacks due to Bush's "vision"
thing for the Moon and Mars, they may have mothballed the California site.
But I doubt it. In the event that the Shuttle HAS to land, but the Cape
site is socked in with weather, I would think they need the secondary
California site for safety sake.

As to the abort landing sites, I believe there's one designated in Spain and
another one in northern Africa, at the very least. Again, this is a safety
precaution in the event of an ascent abort, so I wouldn't think they'd do
away with them.


The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.


The Shuttle can indeed launch interplanetary missions, within certain
size
restrictions. As an example, if I recall correctly, the Galileo mission
was
launched from the Shuttle. It had to use, I think, two modified IUS
motors
(or was it an IUS and Star) instead of the Centaur upper stage once
planned
for the Shuttle, but nonetheless it got there.

Are solid motors still allowed to fly in the shuttle??. Additionally,
their is no such limitation with the soyuz launcher.

Unless they're only planning from now on to use the Shuttle for on-orbit
maintenance, research, ISS supply, etc, then I would think solid motors
might still be allowed. But you could be correct.
True, Soyuz has no such potential limitation for using solid upper stages,
but I'll bet you won't see one launching with both a solid upper stage AND a
live crew!



The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

Not with people aboard continuously.

Argh I missed the significance of that, research shows than many of
the long term soyuz missions are related to salyut spacestation
operations. Although doesnt it make soyuz more flexible than the
shuttle, in that you can dock soyuz in space for long periods in
some cases almost a year it seems.

Thanks for your response. After reading alot of books I'm trying to
learn more about space and I've learnt something from your data.. None
of this suggests any aspect in which the shuttle is more flexible than
soyuz so I will make the assumption that the original poster wanted
only US spacecraft on his list.


I think that both the Soyuz and the Shuttle have their specific niches.
There are some things that Soyuz is better suited for, while the Shuttle is
better suited for others.