【, and】 is unnecessary?

[dodonaomik]

A newly developed jumbo rocket, which is expected to
carry the United States into its next phase of space exploration,
will be able to deliver a heavier load of instruments into orbit than the space shuttle can, and at a lower cost.



Question: In my opinion, the sentence may be not wrong , but at the same time 【, and】 is unnecessary,
even the sentence is better and more concise if 【, and】 is cut.
Is my opinion right?


Sincere thanks to dear teachers!

[5jj]

In this particular sentence, the 'and' emphasises the lower cost.

[Tdol]

The original is fine IMO, and the way it is written turns it into two clear points. You can remove , and if you like.

[MikeNewYork]

A newly developed jumbo rocket, which is expected to
carry the United States into its next phase of space exploration,
will be able to deliver a heavier load of instruments into orbit than the space shuttle can, and at a lower cost.



Question: In my opinion, the sentence may be not wrong , but at the same time 【, and】 is unnecessary,
even the sentence is better and more concise if 【, and】 is cut.
Is my opinion right?


Sincere thanks to dear teachers!

I don't know when this sentence was written, but if it was written after July, 2011, the word "can" should be changed to "could". The space shuttle program has ended.

[5jj]

I don't know when this sentence was written, but if it was written after July, 2011, the word "can" should be changed to "could". The space shuttle program has ended.

Clues such as 'is expected to carry', 'next phase' and 'will be able to deliver' suggest pretty strongly that the space shuttle program was alive and kicking when that sentence was written.

[MikeNewYork]

Clues such as 'is expected to carry', 'next phase' and 'will be able to deliver' suggest pretty strongly that the space shuttle program was alive and kicking when that sentence was written.

Those phrases apply to the new jumbo rocket, not to the space shuttle.

[5jj]

Those phrases apply to the new jumbo rocket, not to the space shuttle.

No, but they appear in the same sentence as 'the space shuttle can'. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the writer knew his/her times, tenses, and the state of the space shuttle program.

ps (a little later): The sentence appears here, in a post written in 2009. It probably appears elesewhere, but that' good enough.

[MikeNewYork]

No, but they appear in the same sentence as 'the space shuttle can'. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the writer knew his/her times, tenses, and the state of the space shuttle program.

ps (a little later): The sentence appears here, in a post written in 2009. It probably appears elesewhere, but that' good enough.

I agree. If the sentence was written in 2009, it is correct as stands. Had it been written after July 20011, it would have been incorrect. Good research!

[5jj]

IHad it been written after July 20011, it would have been incorrect.

Whenever the words were said or written, 'can' is correct grammatically unless the speaker knew that the space shuttle program had ended and mistakenly thought that 'can' can be used for past time. I really don't think our members benefit very much from this sort of conjecture.

[MikeNewYork]

Whenever the words were said or written, 'can' is correct grammatically unless the speaker knew that the space shuttle program had ended and mistakenly thought that 'can' can be used for past time. I really don't think our members benefit very much from this sort of conjecture.

I disagree. I think learners benefit form learning anything that affects the accuracy of the use of verb tenses. Even in this case, I think the learner has learned something.