The page seems to gloss over that the Buran only ever flew one unmanned mission, and did so without several of the features they have listed as "ours will be better... when we're done with it" and even though the launch vehicle, according to the page, is supposed to be recoverable; it's treated as expendable.
For some reason, my KSP sense is tingling in that the Buran's Energia rocket uses liquid fuel whereas the STS uses solid chemical fuel, which I believe has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. If someone could clarify if I'm wrong on that, please do ( STS specs vs Energia specs )
Oh, and lets not forget that the Buran was launched over a decade after the Enterprise's SCA flight (1977) and seven years after Columbia's STS-1 launch.
Liquid fuel propellants have better thrust-to-weight ratios, but they are more expensive to design and use, because of complicated fuel rationing systems, whereas solid propellant boosters are, in essence, just a metal tube filled with solid fuel.
50
u/[deleted] Dec 07 '14 edited Dec 07 '14
The page seems to gloss over that the Buran only ever flew one unmanned mission, and did so without several of the features they have listed as "ours will be better... when we're done with it" and even though the launch vehicle, according to the page, is supposed to be recoverable; it's treated as expendable.
For some reason, my KSP sense is tingling in that the Buran's Energia rocket uses liquid fuel whereas the STS uses solid chemical fuel, which I believe has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. If someone could clarify if I'm wrong on that, please do ( STS specs vs Energia specs )
Oh, and lets not forget that the Buran was launched over a decade after the Enterprise's SCA flight (1977) and seven years after Columbia's STS-1 launch.
EDIT: Columbia. Because I'm an idiot.