Against a night sky, the Space Shuttle Endeavour heads toward Earth orbit and a scheduled link-up with the International Space Station. Liftoff from the Kennedy Space Center's launch. Click here to see a larger image.

Different Approaches, Equal Results
By Michael Hammond

The two ships that service the International Space Station show that there's certainly more than one way to reach a goal.

As work on the station's construction continues, the two countries spearheading the 16-country effort–the United States and Russia–rely on bulwarks of their own space programs. The United States uses the space shuttle to fly to the station, while Russia has long used its Soyuz rocket. The two differ greatly, but each has proven capable of transporting crew and supplies to the station.

The Shuttle and the Soyuz: Structure and Design
Many structural and design differences exist between the shuttle and the Soyuz. First, the shuttle is the "world's largest glider," making it more like an airplane than a rocket (though it does stand vertically at launch). On the other hand, the Soyuz is based on Cold War ballistic missile technology that's been in use by the Russians for more than 40 years. Second, the shuttle can carry a large payload–up to 60,000 pounds–and a crew of seven, while the Soyuz mainly carries cosmonauts (a maximum of three) and minimal supplies.

The Space Shuttle Endeavour flies over Cook Strait, New Zealand, as it approaches the International Space Station during STS-113 rendezvous and docking operations. Click here to see a larger image.

Shuttle flights have been on hold since the Columbia shuttle tragedy in February 2003. (The next shuttle mission is tentatively scheduled for March 2005). Since then only the Soyuz has traveled to the space station.   Because the Soyuz can carry few supplies, the Russians use a remote-piloted spacecraft called the Proton rocket to supply the station.

The Shuttle and the Soyuz: Flight and Construction
Another important difference between the shuttle and Soyuz is their construction and consequent flight patterns. Only three shuttles remain after the loss of Columbia. Though they are reusable, the shuttles are extremely large and expensive to operate. The much smaller Soyuz is not reusable, so Russia makes 10-15 of them each year.

The two also reenter Earth's atmosphere in vastly different ways. The shuttle lands much like a jet in an assigned landing place (preferably the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, though other sites are available). The Soyuz, though, makes a difficult landing using parachutes, and its landing site is not easily controlled. The Soyuz must also land on a soft surface, usually sand or snow, to minimize the impact.

A Soyuz spacecraft approaches the Pirs docking compartment on the space station. Click here to see a larger image.

Different Ways of Exploring Space
The differences between the shuttle and Soyuz exemplify the two countries' different philosophies of space exploration, says Ron Ernst, aerospace education specialist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. This difference extends from how missions are carried out (American shuttle missions are more tightly choreographed, while Russian flights are more loosely planned) to the safety precautions taken at the launch of space vehicles (the nearest person to the shuttle at launch is 3.5 miles away, whereas people are in the immediate vicinity at a Soyuz launch).

It looks like those different paths will continue. The Russians have no plans to make major changes to the Soyuz or to design a new primary space vehicle. NASA, meanwhile, plans to phase out the shuttle by the end of the decade once the space station is completed. One idea NASA is developing is the crew exploration vehicle. Check it out at http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/constellation.html .

Despite the different styles of space travel, the American and Russian space programs have been able to operate well together. American astronauts train in Star City in Russia before ISS space station missions, while Russian cosmonauts prepare at Kennedy. Says Ernst, "The cooperative effort is definitely working."