Warbird Information Exchange

No, he means launches. Columbia was mortally damaged by the debris coming off of the external tank during launch. It was a problem that occurred since the beginning of the program that was never resolved. It's a problem specific to a sidemounted vehicle. Columbia would have reentered just fine had it not occurred exactly when it did.

"versus the Shuttle disintegrating twice in 135 launches." (quote)

Which shuttle program was this? Can't find any history or data on 2 shuttles disintegrating during launch. Found information on 1 NASA shuttle breaking apart during launch in 1986 and 1 breaking up during re-entry in 2003.

A "Launch" in English has come to denote any complete space flight, since the launch was traditionally the most critical phase
A "Sortie" in English has come to describe any military mission, but is derived from the French only for the departure. Most pilots would agree that the return is the more important part.
A "Flight" in English describes a complete aerial activity, even though the flight portion is easy, it's the takeoff and landing that has the most danger.

To argue the semantics of the word 'launch' in the face of overwhelming data is to intentionally disregard the posters very valid point that the Soviet/Russian space program has been vastly more successful using 'clunkerski' rockets, than the shuttle was.


Part of the reason, I believe, is that the Vostok rocket is a production item, made like any other airframe, in a factory to known standards, rather than treating each one as some special prototype enshrined in it's own uniqueness. Air travel grew on solid workhorses like the DC-3, not 'technology demonstrators', and spaceflight will only advance with that same philosophy.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.