In article ,
"John Mullen" writes:
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET
and the SRBs.

Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
have their advantages, and their risks.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
any safer than the STS.

I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while
they were ahead.

More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
booster)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster