Which spacecraft was better Mercury or Vostok

[Pawelk198604]

I think Vostok was better because Russian achieved the orbit first.

[TheCardinal]

That is a somewhat silly question especially because of your reasoning. Both did what they were designed to do so both were as good (or bad) as the other. The fact that Russia achieved the orbit first has nothing to do with this comparison.

[Kryten]

Vostok was certainly more capable though, especially considering what was done with the same basic design later (i.e. Voskhod). I'd like to see someone try to fit three people into a mercury capsule...

[Nibb31]

Vostok couldn't land. The cosmonauts had to bail out to survive the landing. That makes it an inferior spacecraft in my book.

[NASAFanboy]

Mercury was safer than Vostok, and alot more "modern" too. I mean, having to bail out of the spacecraft everytime means no OSHA compliance, and of course, less advanced than a spacecraft you can sit in throughout the entire spaceflight.

[zekes]

Vostok. Its cooler re entry (ejection out the side)

[Rune]

As an engineer, my final answer is pretty simple: better for what?

The answer could be either, depending on the requirements you set. So it's kind of an impossible question to answer, impartially. Of course, since we are all speaking english here, I kind of guess which one will come out ahead.

As a biased personal opinion, I will point out that variants of the booster used for Vostok are still in use today, and to carry US crews to the ISS no less.

Rune. Good 'ol R-7 Semyorka, Soviet engineering at its finest.

[Xeldrak]

As Rune said: Better for what?

But I completely agree with him - the fact that Vostok-derived parts are still in use today is quite impressive and speaks for its design.

[Kryten]

Never mind the booster; derivatives of the actual spacecraft are still flying. One of them was launched yesterday.

[Tiberion]

I would say the remaining ties between the Bion-M and the old Zenit satellites (which were derived from Vostok) are.. tenuous at best.

Vostok and Mercury were both pretty rudimentary and exhibited how little we really knew about orbiting (both the US and Soviets) and they were both quickly replaced by much more capable (and safer!) spacecraft.

Seriously, none of us would want to experience re-entry in either craft.

[Holo]

I prefer the Mercury capsule because it has better thrusters so you can aim it for reentry and you can land on Earth in one.

[hugix]

Mercury could land on it's own.

[Pawelk198604]

Vostok and Mercury were both pretty rudimentary and exhibited how little we really knew about orbiting (both the US and Soviets) and they were both quickly replaced by much more capable (and safer!) spacecraft.

A safer, I would not say that.

Apollo capsule three person crew death and serious accident in lunar mission which another crew was almost stranded in space

Soviet Soyuz capsule, cosmonaut deaths due to parachute accident, death three more cosmoauts as a result of valve failure which led to the depressurization of the capsule in orbit.

[Tiberion]

So you would be willing to say that Vostok is safer than Soyuz, based on that?

I think every astronaut ever would laugh at such a notion.

[Pawelk198604]

So you would be willing to say that Vostok is safer than Soyuz, based on that?

I think every astronaut ever would laugh at such a notion.

Maybe, you right. it's a bit silly comparison

But we should not forget, that Apollo program have 3 fatalities, Space Shuttle have 14 and soviet Soyuz have 4.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Pawelk198604

[The Jedi Master]

Vostok, because it was the one which actually got into orbit first.

[supermap]

as rune said... best for what

(Vostok 3KA / Mercury)

Lighter: (4730kg / 1935kg) Mercury kicks ass

Capsule dV: (155m/s / 370m/s) Mercury Again

Endurance: (10 days / 1.5 days) Vostok comes back

Landing: (Ejection and parachute separately on land / Parachute and splashdown) Vostok is easier to recover since its on land, and i actually feel safer parachuting down than landing on a tin can

Visor: (Large Vzor / Tiny window) If youre gonna go to space at least enjoy the pretty view right?

[Endeavour]

Maybe, you right. it's a bit silly comparison

But we should not forget, that Apollo program have 3 fatalities, Space Shuttle have 14 and soviet Soyuz have 4.

Do you know how many incidents each one had? Counting fatalities is a bit skewed when the crafts have different crew sizes.

[Rune]

Do you know how many incidents each one had? Counting fatalities is a bit skewed when the crafts have different crew sizes.

You mean averaged over number of flights too, right? Because Soyuz has some amazing launch stats, it's the most launched rocket and capsule in history, and likely to remain so for a long, looong time.

Edit: I just saw this:

Third Soyuz launch in a week bolsters Glonass system

This is what I mean by the success of the venerable R-7. Three launches in a single week with the same booster. That's how you perfect a launch vehicle. How many (of all variants) does that make? They must be getting close to 1,800...

Rune. Now that looks like a serious space program.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Rune

[Rune]

Whoops. Can somebody delete this?

[macintux]

This is a pretty good question, both spacecraft had their advantages and disadvantages.

Mercury was smaller, lighter, and more advanced than Vostok.

Vostok was larger, heavier, but had a longer endurance period (two weeks vs two days), and was roomier on the inside.

[orbitalguy]

I would have to say Vostok. It could last longer than mercury and was modified to support up to 3 crew, that was the Voskhod. Mercury, however, barely lasted a day and a half, and it was safer. The only real reason the USSR could do it was because the nukes they had where so heavy they needed extremely powerful ICBMs.