Re:Space Shuttle vs. Buran
by Animats on Saturday April 09, 2016 @05:20PM
(#11463401)
Buran was a neat system. Although it looks like a copy of the US shuttle, it wasn't. Buran was a payload, with no engines.
Because Buran was designed after the Shuttle, the designers had the benefit of knowing US mistakes. Buran's thermal protection is better. The Space Shuttle tile system was a huge headache; not only did it cause one crash, even successful flights required excessive maintenance of the tiles. The US tile system could not handle rain; Buran could.
The US shuttle had autoland.[1] The astronauts didn't want to use it. Post-Columbia, the shuttles did get full unmanned landing capability, so that, in some emergencies, a shuttle could be returned from the ISS with nobody on board. This was never used.
Because Buran was designed after the Shuttle, the designers had the benefit of knowing US mistakes. Buran's thermal protection is better. The Space Shuttle tile system was a huge headache; not only did it cause one crash, even successful flights required excessive maintenance of the tiles. The US tile system could not handle rain; Buran could.
The US shuttle had autoland.[1] The astronauts didn't want to use it. Post-Columbia, the shuttles did get full unmanned landing capability, so that, in some emergencies, a shuttle could be returned from the ISS with nobody on board. This was never used.
[1] http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/194