Soyuz is still the best rocket

[CombatPilot-1]

The Soyuz rocket family is still the best rocket for orbital spaceflight or ISS crew/cargo missions, change my mind.

[BeastHunter]

I am not an expert on this topic but Dragon can carry more crew, launches on a reusable rocket allowing for more frequent launches, and doesn’t spring leaks connected to the ISS.

[Codraroll]

It can't reach southerly orbits, so the ISS had to go in a specific orbit just so the Soyuz could reach it. Soyuz can't visit the Chinese space station, for instance, and probably not the successor station to the ISS either.

It's awfully cramped, so in itself it can't be used for any meaningful orbital activities. Astronauts are stuffed in there, and have to sit tight until arrival at a space station, landing on Earth, or worse. Forget stretching one's legs, or doing any science inside the Soyuz itself.

For every building-sized stack of rocketry manufactured and transported to the launch pad, only a part the size of a camping tent comes back down intact (if all goes to plan), and it's too singed to be reused.  Every single part of a new rocket has to be manufactured over again for the next mission.

Never mind that the Shenzhou does practically everything the Soyuz does, but better, because the Chinese actually managed to make improvements to the design.

Oh, and politics. Let's leave it at that.

[SunlitZelkova]

It's the best for the people who actually use it, it's the worst for people who have their own rocket.

Asking what the best rocket for orbital spaceflight is is like asking what the best car for driving is. The answer is going to change if you are making a run to grocery store, trekking across Africa, or chasing down a thief.

[DDE]

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It's awfully cramped, so in itself it can't be used for any meaningful orbital activities. Astronauts are stuffed in there, and have to sit tight until arrival at a space station, landing on Earth, or worse. Forget stretching one's legs, or doing any science inside the Soyuz itself.

The OM does bring it to a comparable habitable volume to Orion and Dragon. More notably, it had done free-flying orbital missions, even contemporaneous to the Salyut program.

[Vanamonde]

Looks like Soyuz has made 154 flights  with 17 considered failures and 4 in-flight deaths? Given the difficulty of what it's doing that seems to me like a respectable record. 

[CombatPilot-1]

19 hours ago, BeastHunter said:

I am not an expert on this topic but Dragon can carry more crew, launches on a reusable rocket allowing for more frequent launches, and doesn’t spring leaks connected to the ISS.

Agreeable, that's probably the best choice after the Soyuz for me, I still think the Soyuz is better because it's dirt cheap and being older it is more reliable. On the ISS accident, yes accidents happen especially when it's the most USED rocket to get to the ISS.

18 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It can't reach southerly orbits, so the ISS had to go in a specific orbit just so the Soyuz could reach it. Soyuz can't visit the Chinese space station, for instance, and probably not the successor station to the ISS either.

It's awfully cramped, so in itself it can't be used for any meaningful orbital activities. Astronauts are stuffed in there, and have to sit tight until arrival at a space station, landing on Earth, or worse. Forget stretching one's legs, or doing any science inside the Soyuz itself.

For every building-sized stack of rocketry manufactured and transported to the launch pad, only a part the size of a camping tent comes back down intact (if all goes to plan), and it's too singed to be reused.  Every single part of a new rocket has to be manufactured over again for the next mission.

Never mind that the Shenzhou does practically everything the Soyuz does, but better, because the Chinese actually managed to make improvements to the design.

Oh, and politics. Let's leave it at that.

Those are all good points (except the politics one because that's irrelevant in space).
On the matter of reaching orbits, that's just because the launch region is different for every country. Being cramped is an issue that could be solved quite easily but currently is the main downside of the rocket. Not being re-usable is not that big of a deal since most reliable, tested rockets have that same issue. And yes the chinese did it better, because it's literally just a Soyuz but modified, making it technically part of the rocket family.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It can't reach southerly orbits, so the ISS had to go in a specific orbit just so the Soyuz could reach it. Soyuz can't visit the Chinese space station, for instance, and probably not the successor station to the ISS either.

It's awfully cramped, so in itself it can't be used for any meaningful orbital activities. Astronauts are stuffed in there, and have to sit tight until arrival at a space station, landing on Earth, or worse. Forget stretching one's legs, or doing any science inside the Soyuz itself.

For every building-sized stack of rocketry manufactured and transported to the launch pad, only a part the size of a camping tent comes back down intact (if all goes to plan), and it's too singed to be reused.  Every single part of a new rocket has to be manufactured over again for the next mission.

Never mind that the Shenzhou does practically everything the Soyuz does, but better, because the Chinese actually managed to make improvements to the design.

Oh, and politics. Let's leave it at that.

Launch orbits is an question of launchpad not the rocket. 
Yes its cramped on launch and return, good enough in space as you can use the orbital module. 
Non reusable is true for any rocket except falcon 9 at this point. Now the Soyuz rocket is very old and probably not that efficient compared to more modern rockets. 
And like the Shenzhou better as its an upgraded Soyuz, larger orbital module. How is the return module 6 m^3 compared to 3.5 m^3 with Soyuz? and only 700 kg more for the stack who is nice. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)#/media/File:Spaceships.svg
One weakness with the Soyuz is the low internal volume in the return module, here cargo dragon helped a lot. 
Without dragon, I assume you could use an 2 crew or unmanned Soyuz for return samples. 

[CombatPilot-1]

11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It's the best for the people who actually use it, it's the worst for people who have their own rocket.

Asking what the best rocket for orbital spaceflight is is like asking what the best car for driving is. The answer is going to change if you are making a run to grocery store, trekking across Africa, or chasing down a thief.

Good points!

10 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Looks like Soyuz has made 154 flights  with 17 considered failures and 4 in-flight deaths? Given the difficulty of what it's doing that seems to me like a respectable record. 

Exactly!

Just now, magnemoe said:

Launch orbits is an question of launchpad not the rocket. 
Yes its cramped on launch and return, good enough in space as you can use the orbital module. 
Non reusable is true for any rocket except falcon 9 at this point. Now the Soyuz rocket is very old and probably not that efficient compared to more modern rockets. 
And like the Shenzhou better as its an upgraded Soyuz, larger orbital module. How is the return module 6 m^3 compared to 3.5 m^3 with Soyuz? and only 700 kg more for the stack who is nice. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)#/media/File:Spaceships.svg
One weakness with the Soyuz is the low internal volume in the return module, here cargo dragon helped a lot. 
Without dragon, I assume you could use an 2 crew or unmanned Soyuz for return samples. 

Absolutely agree, thanks for sharing!

[Mr. Kerbin]

Soyuz is neat. Pretty good for the ol’ thing.
Shuttle had 2 out of 135 failed flights (Buran is better tho)

@Shuttle@is@Still@cool

Edited March 25 by Mr. Kerbin

[Codraroll]

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

I still think the Soyuz is better because it's dirt cheap and being older it is more reliable.

Considering only the design, perhaps its reliability is higher in theory, but its manufacturing standards appear to have had some nasty slips in recent years. An old, reliable rocket doesn't suddenly start spewing coolant all over the ISS in ways it never did before, without something having changed for the worse. Its costs per crew member delivered to the ISS is certainly higher than that of Falcon 9 + Dragon too.

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

On the matter of reaching orbits, that's just because the launch region is different for every country.

The capabilities of the rocket also matter. With more delta-V, one could compensate for the higher-latitude launch region.

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

Being cramped is an issue that could be solved quite easily but currently is the main downside of the rocket.

If it is the main downside and could have been solved quite easily, why isn't it? The Soviets, and later the Russians, have tried since the 1980's to replace the Soyuz, but the camping tent-sized capsule is still the only crew vehicle they have flying. There have been many projects "just around the corner" since then, however. And it's not because the design is perfect already (its lack of space is a major downside, as noted).

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

Not being re-usable is not that big of a deal since most reliable, tested rockets have that same issue.

Not a big deal until it suddenly is. Once, there was no real need to have engines on ships either, because sails worked just as well. Once they didn't anymore, the sailship yards could only try to build better sailships, but they didn't sell and couldn't compete.

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

And yes the chinese did it better, because it's literally just a Soyuz but modified, making it technically part of the rocket family.

Or a knock-off, if you will, but one that actually turned out superior to the product being copied. That might be praise to the designers of the original, seeing the potential their design was capable of evolving into, but not to those who decades later still only build the unevolved version. In a similar vein, Hydrox sandwich cookies are still around after being copied by Oreo back in 1912. Most of their marketing consists of feeble insistencies that they were the first and original dark chocolate sandwich cookie. Oreo still surpassed them and left them in the dust, though.

5 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

(except the politics one because that's irrelevant in space).

It is completely essential in space, but not allowed on the forum.

[Nuke]

its the vw beetle of space flight. that's not necessarily a bad thing, its not really an exceptional thing either. to be clear the space shuttle is the ford pinto in this analogy.

[CombatPilot-1]

17 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Considering only the design, perhaps its reliability is higher in theory, but its manufacturing standards appear to have had some nasty slips in recent years. An old, reliable rocket doesn't suddenly start spewing coolant all over the ISS in ways it never did before, without something having changed for the worse. Its costs per crew member delivered to the ISS is certainly higher than that of Falcon 9 + Dragon too.

Blaming one of the most used rockets in human history for a single fault is not, to me, relevant. That's like saying the Space Shuttle was absolutely horrible because 14 people died in it, while one cannot call it that because it built half the ISS alone. Yes the Soyuz is not perfect, and yes building flaws exist, but they're not as prominent as you seem to think. Also yes the Falcon is reusable but it is the only one so far. to do actual work.

17 hours ago, Codraroll said:

The capabilities of the rocket also matter. With more delta-V, one could compensate for the higher-latitude launch region.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's cheaper to move the ISS temporarily than to launch a significantly bigger rocket in order to reach it in any orbit.

17 hours ago, Codraroll said:

If it is the main downside and could have been solved quite easily, why isn't it? The Soviets, and later the Russians, have tried since the 1980's to replace the Soyuz, but the camping tent-sized capsule is still the only crew vehicle they have flying. There have been many projects "just around the corner" since then, however. And it's not because the design is perfect already (its lack of space is a major downside, as noted).

After 1991 Russia has been in complete economic downfall until 2000 (using GDP graph as measurement). It has been rising since, but not for long enough to be financing new rocket designing. The "around the corner" projects are more than justified to not be ready yet in a country that was almost killed economically just 25 years ago.

18 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Not a big deal until it suddenly is. Once, there was no real need to have engines on ships either, because sails worked just as well. Once they didn't anymore, the sailship yards could only try to build better sailships, but they didn't sell and couldn't compete.

Good point, but right now, by that reference, we're early in the transition era: Most ships are still driven by sails and there are a few steam boats occasionally. Translated into actual terms, every rocket but the Falcon 9 are not re-usable, so I don't see the rush to develop a re-usable Soyuz (yet).

18 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Or a knock-off, if you will, but one that actually turned out superior to the product being copied. That might be praise to the designers of the original, seeing the potential their design was capable of evolving into, but not to those who decades later still only build the unevolved version. In a similar vein, Hydrox sandwich cookies are still around after being copied by Oreo back in 1912. Most of their marketing consists of feeble insistencies that they were the first and original dark chocolate sandwich cookie. Oreo still surpassed them and left them in the dust, though.

I agree, in this case the knock off is better than the original, but as I said since it is developed from the Soyuz it is technically a Soyuz itself proving that this rocket family is still the best.

18 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It is completely essential in space, but not allowed on the forum.

I have a lot to say on this topic but since it's not allowed I won't.

14 hours ago, Nuke said:

its the vw beetle of space flight. that's not necessarily a bad thing, its not really an exceptional thing either. to be clear the space shuttle is the ford pinto in this analogy.

In car terms I'd compare the two as Soyzu being a Toyota land cruiser and the Shuttle as a Range Rover. The second one may be better in most aspects but the first is more reliable.
Note that I have limited knowledge in cars, I may be wrong.

[magnemoe]

21 hours ago, Mr. Kerbin said:

Soyuz is neat. Pretty good for the ol’ thing.
Shuttle had 2 out of 135 failed flights (Buran is better tho)

@Shuttle@is@Still@cool

Buran has one benefit, you can use it as an heavy lift rocket, downside is that you loose the engines, but think that is worth it. 
Shuttle had one main feature who would be  impossible to extremely hard to do today.  Service missions to stuff like Hubble space telescope and building the IIS.
So if you replace the Shuttle with Buran and treat it as an special reusable payload I think you are better of. 

[Nuke]

20 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

In car terms I'd compare the two as Soyzu being a Toyota land cruiser and the Shuttle as a Range Rover. The second one may be better in most aspects but the first is more reliable.
Note that I have limited knowledge in cars, I may be wrong.

im not really a car person either. i picked these two because of the histories of the vehicles. the ford pinto was notorious for its exploding gas tanks which had a habbit of roasting anyone alive who got into a car wreck in it. the vw beetle has a far more storied history, having been requested by a certain german chancellor who shall not be named, a people's car for the then new autobann, and was actually designed by ferdinand porche. it then stayed in production through the hippie era where it became a symbol of the counter culture at the time and stayed in production well into the modern era (i think you can still get them).  the longevity of the original model is the parity i was trying to make. the pinto reference is obvious.

i am habitually wheelless having never bothered to get a drivers licesns or a vehicle in 40+ years of existance. so the modern reference is as alien to me as the '70s one is to you.

Edited March 27 by Nuke

[CombatPilot-1]

21 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Buran has one benefit, you can use it as an heavy lift rocket, downside is that you loose the engines, but think that is worth it. 
Shuttle had one main feature who would be  impossible to extremely hard to do today.  Service missions to stuff like Hubble space telescope and building the IIS.
So if you replace the Shuttle with Buran and treat it as an special reusable payload I think you are better of. 

I like the Buran and the Shuttle equally, but I'd like to point out that those missions you described can be done by other spacecrafts quite easily. Especially ISS construction, yes the Shuttle had a huge role in it but it accounts to only half of the pressurized modules, while other countries contributed without using the Shuttle meaning this role is not exclusive to it.