Slashdot Mirror

The Russians had a better solution than the SRB's, LRB's. I refer, of course, to the Energia Vulkan. It is an Energia rocket, the one they used for their shuttle, the Buran, but with 8 Zenit boosters, rather than just 4. It could deliver almost 200 metric tonnes to orbit.

If you use LRB's, the weight savings and flexibility would enable you to make a scalable solution. Energia, for instance, could scale from 20 metric tonnes to the gigantic 200 metric tonnes, all using the same parts. Even the LRB's are used as standalone launchers by Sea Launch. Our Atlas V and Taurus II rockets both use elements borrowed from the Energia system.

Here are pictures and information about the Energia configurations:

http://www.k26.com/buran/html/energia_variants.html

Wikipedia has a better list, it seems. Most likely candidate is orbiter 2.02:

At the time of the halting of the Buran-Energia program, Buran 2.02 was under construction on the factory floor at the Tushino Machine Building Plant just outside of Moscow. Her level of completion was estimated between 10-20 percent.

With funding gone, Buran 2.02 remained unfinished on the factory floor for a number of years. Recently she has been dismantled and moved outside to the back of the premises. She now lies exposed to the elements. Many of her tiles have since been stripped, such as those shown below can now be bought on the internet.

The Buran was destroyed, but there are more "Burans proper" (actually orbiters); in various stages of completion (first one on the list below was almost completed)

http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-modele-102.php
http://www.buran.ru/htm/2-01.htm
http://www.k26.com/buran/Future/2.02/space_buran_2_02.html

And you know, pretty much all vehicles we use in space can be qualified as spacecraft / spaceships... I'd argue that things like Apollo, Soyuz, Progress, Shenzou or ATV (not to mention all deep space probes) are actually much fuller "honest to god space ships". They were designed and built with greater focus on the actual spaceflight, often have missions lasting around half a year, plus Apollo and Soyuz travelled beyond LEO.

We don't need such construction vehicle when the modules can rendezvous independently. That said, I agree it will probably remain for a looong time the most impressive looking vehicle (with the possible exception of mentioned Buran (have you seen the plumes from its engines?), but yeah...not only flew only once, but in heavy cloud cover ;/ )

The Energiya booster is configurable to 400,000 lbs, and that exceeds the 285,000 lbs orbital lift capacity of Saturn V. This is not surprising, given that Energiya was designed decades later and was using the latest technologies.

There were only two flights of Energiya, compared to 32 of Saturn V, and it is not manufactured any more. However its technology is not only up to date, it is being actively used in other boosters. So if anyone wants to lift 175 tons to the orbit, it can be done. It only costs money. See here for available configurations.

If you really need to launch anything that heavy, it would be cheaper and smarter to pay for manufacturing of Energiya rather than for redesign and manufacturing of Saturn V, and you get more bang for the buck at the same time. Engines of that power that are time-tested and proven to be OK are invaluable.

Guess which is the highest-payload rocket in the market right now? That is right, the 10 ton Ariane 5 ECA.

Really? I could have sworn that was the Atlas V Heavy with 25000 kg to GTO. The Delta IV Heavy comes in next with 13,130 kg to GTO, leaving the Ariane 5 in third with 10,500 kg to GTO.

Russia's past experience with Buran TPS was allegedly less than stellar, with the thing returning with a lot of tiles blown off and the chassis warped from the temperatures at reentry.

*cough*Bullshit*cough* That was a rumor started on Usenet years ago. It has since been tracked down and squashed.

This will most likely need a new rocket,

It will use the Zenit booster.

new launch facilities

Is there something wrong with the Russian Cosmodrome?

and then you will have to put a winged vehicle on top of a rocket

<sarcasm>No!</sarcasm>

which to the best of my knowledge no one has got working yet.

You know, the Space Shuttle didn't just appear out of nowhere. The idea came from the Dynasoar program which was able to trace its roots back to the original German rocketry done during WWII. No one has yet used inline wings because of reentry problems with the vehicle, not launch problems.

You're correct about Ukraine. It was Kahzakstan that the loan was obtained from in exchange for the shuttle.

Neither US, nor any other country pumped any significant $$$ into Russia.

Nonsense. Ever heard of Boeing Sealaunch? (Zenit 3SL boosters.) How about Proton launch services provided by Lockheed? Not to mention all the Progress and Proton flights that the US has paid for in the construction of the ISS.

There is PLENTY of US money being shunted into Russian space ventures.

We can save a lot of money and time by re-using the Energia designs for a direct shot, instead of puddling round for years making a new launcher.

http://k26.com/buran/html/energia-mars.html

Well, it's an interesting idea anyway, and it would be great to see the Energiya booster reused.

But of course that would make less money for the precious aerospace companies.

1) it doesn't have solid rocket boosters (ala Challenger). Hoever it can use them if so desired.

2) it isn't covered in foam (Columbia)

3) it was orbited by the Sov's unmanned (its only space flight)

However the shuttle disasters were all caused by the boosters - and Engergia seems to address the problems that have (so far) led to disaster. This is not to say it doesn't have problems of it's own: it well might.

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/A_Comparison/a_compa rison.html

And the Soviet Union before that... check out the photos of the Polyus weapons platform.

The USSR actually DID have a series of manned military space stations that orbited during the 1970s. It was known as the Almaz project (more info here). In addition to reconnisance equipment on board, they also carried anti-satelitte weaponry.

The USSR also had some other scary space plans for military space stations. I mean, it even LOOKS sinister, painted black and all...

Not quite. The Zenith first stage was meant to be retrieved by parachutes + retro-rockets, as well as the second stage. While the second stage was never recovered using this mechanism, the engines of the second stage, below the main tank, were recovered in one of the test flights for inspection. But it seems the whole thing was uneconomic.

See more information here and here. Quote:

...By contrast the RD-170 engine for the booster stage was a purely Soviet design and experienced a slow and difficult development program. These were exactly the kind of closed-cycle liquid oxygen/kerosene engines that Glushko had opposed developing in the 1960's. In addition the TTZ required that they be reusable for ten missions...

...The Block A 11S25 booster stages were the responsibility of KB Yuzhnoye in the Ukraine, F Utkin, General Constructor. They were to be reused ten times, and were therefore fitted with parachute containers. Solid fuel soft landing rockets in the parachute lines provided a soft landing downrange. It's not clear how the 35 tonne boosters were to be transported back to base for reuse...

http://k26.com/buran/Future/Mars/_energia_to_mars. html

There are several other sites as well. http://k26.com/buran/ and http://www.buran.ru/ are the two I have visited so far.

Sadly Buran only flew into space once:

http://k26.com/buran/Info/1st_Flight/the_flight.ht ml

Or just one Vulkan/Hercules, probably with plenty of space leftover...

Also a quote from the same site (a little biased, but what the heck - this is slashdot...): "Some people say revive Saturn-V, well this is a 40 year old rocket design! The costs of reviving this rocket would also be prohibitive. Besides NASA apparently lost the plans! In any case, Saturn V is dead and buried."

Or just one Vulkan/Hercules, probably with plenty of space leftover...

Also a quote from the same site (a little biased, but what the heck - this is slashdot...): "Some people say revive Saturn-V, well this is a 40 year old rocket design! The costs of reviving this rocket would also be prohibitive. Besides NASA apparently lost the plans! In any case, Saturn V is dead and buried."

b) Sealar *did* get off the drawing board, and was an attempt to prove Sea Dragon. It failed. Not due to lack of funding, but because of catastrophic failures of its main tank during testing led to little lack of enthusiasm for continuing the project.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have any links to back this up? All I can find is that the SEALAR "got some funding from the Navy". And not very much at that.

Did you ignore what I wrote about the decline in market for heavy lift?

No, I didn't. I'm saying that manned space travel needs a paradigm of heavy lifters. We need A LOT of materials up there. "Smaller" doesn't do it. There's a decline in payload for the commercial satellite market, which is a different beast than we're discussing.

Because we want to *reuse it*?

Like you reuse a paper cup. The shuttle has to be rebuilt and certified after every flight. That's where the economics of it broke down. It's such a complex machine, that it's very expensive to "reuse". For the cargo the Shuttle is sending, It would be cheaper to use anything from a Proton to a Titan IV.

Besides, when you state "~29 metric tons of cargo, plus another 104 metric tons for its own orbiter weight", that is disingenous in that it makes it sound like it's dead weight. It's not. Most of that is things like the fuel tanks, engines, turbopumps, frame, and whatnot that would have had to be included in any upper stage rocket (the orbiter is, after all, the uppermost stage).

It gets to orbit, therefore it's payload. The fact that we're sending up 104 metric tons of orbital glider is irrelevant. The Russians were able to learn from us when they built the Buran. Instead of putting all the engine components inside the orbiter, they simply strapped a vehicle with no engines to a BDB, and lit her up. Total dry mass of the orbiter? 82-87 metric tons. The payload capacity was even slightly higher than the space shuttle!

Even then, there's no reason to fly a cargo ship like that, when there's no need for the cargo to come back. It would be cheaper to strap the cargo to a Proton rocket, then fly the crew in a five person orbiter launched on the back of another Proton booster.

Bullocks back at you - look at the numbers. Energia had an 88,000 kg payload to LEO. Launch cost was 774 million in 1985 dollars. That's 8.8k$/kg in 1985 dollars. Even many types of US rockets are cheaper than that, when you adjust for inflation, let alone other Russian rockets, Chinese rockets, and Indian rockets.

Do you have a link for those numbers? The only link I could find states the launch cost at $3000-$5000 per kg. Using these rocket cost figures and the maximum weight to LEO on Wikipedia, a "small" Delta II costs about $9000/kg to LEO. ($45m / 4971kg to LEO) A Proton is *cheap* with a cost somewhere in the $1750 - $3500 per kg to LEO range.

A very interesting thing, is that the above link lists Energia launches at arounf $110 m per launch. Since only the 4 booster configuration flew, we must assume that is what the cost figures are for. According to Wikipedia, the maximum mass to LEO in a standard configuration was 100 metric tons. 100 metric tons at 110 million per launch, leaves us with a cost of $1100 per kg to LEO. Consider that the entire ISS could have gone up on only two such launches, and almost the entire station to date would have fit in ONE Vulkan launch (175 metric tons according to Wikipedia).

Now a Long March 3 can lift 4.8 metric tons to LEO, and weighs in at a cost of 33 million per launch. That works out to ~$6800 per kg to LEO. Nowhere near as cheap as the Russian solutions. The Long March 3B was also the rocket that officially

here

Not as cheap as China. Chinese launch costs are 1/3 to 1/2 of US launch costs, and slightly cheaper than Russian launch costs.

False economy. If it's not what we need, why spend the money on it? And the only reason it's cheaper is the same reason that a China made DVD player is cheaper: exchange rate. If China develops the technology we need, they'll also have a stronger currency.

You know, they attempted to build a scaled down version of Sea Dragon, called SEALAR. It was a complete failure. It turns out that when you try and build a rocket like you build a ship, it doesn't work well.

Sea Dragon, Excalibur, and SEALAR all attempted the same goal. I have never heard that any of them were "a complete failure". They simply didn't get much funding because the US didn't want heavy lift vehicles. Without the heavy lift abilities, the concept is pointless. The very core of Sea Dragon, was that the cost of the rocket is not dependent on how large it is. Thus the idea is to build a Really Big Rocket(TM) that could take advantage of those economics.

But what could we do with 500 metric tons to orbit? It's an extreme overkill for manned flight. So it wasn't funded. Fast forward to the twenty first century, and we find that dozens of shuttle flights have been made to put up a space station that weighs 1/3 the cargo capacity of the Dragon.

Energia's launch costs weren't even theoretically that cheap compared to what's out there.

Bullocks. More mass in one launch means that it's cheaper getting tonnage to space. Energia Inc. also had plans on the board for a reusable version of the rocket. (more info) The Energia Zenit boosters still live on as the Boeing Sea Launch system. Seems they were pretty well designed. :-)

The market for heavy lifters has been steadily on the decline; that's why the ESA cancelled plans to increase Ariane's payload.

The moment we consider doing anything more than sending a person into orbit is the moment that the need for heavy boosters increases. As I mentioned about the space station, we could have sent it up in ONE launch if we had a heavy lifter. But the heavy lifter abilities were killed with the Saturn V, only to be revived as a weird space dump truck configuration (i.e. the space shuttle). The Shuttle has amazing booster technology capable of putting massive amounts of tonnage into space. Most of which it wastes on putting itself into space. Is this making any sense to anyone else?

Meanwhile, China's rocket payloads are on the increase.

The largest payload I've heard is 5 metric tons. In comparison the space shuttle can lift ~29 metric tons of cargo, plus another 104 metric tons for its own orbiter weight. This gives a grand total of 133 metric tons to orbit. China is nowhere close.

Or, why not Energia?

P.S. I just found this link but this guy had to have done it as a joke- it would be about as likely as trying to sell a Saturn V.

I remember seeing a documentary when I was a child that said that the Soviet (this was coldwar times) Energia-Vulkan rocket could power a mission all the way to mars and back. Apparently Energia Vulkan was scrapped for Energia Buran (the launch rocket for the now defunct Russian shuttle), but Energia Vulkan's design is an Energia Buran with a total of 8 boosters . . . Apparently its not that different from from the Energia Buran (built to launch the now defunct Russian shuttle). A few details here

A Buran Energia could lift up to 170 tons into orbit. If we could more than double that capacity, it would be enough to lift this boring machine and a nuclear reactor to power it into orbit. While in flight, we could use spent fuel from the reactor to sterilize everything before we plonk it on Europa. The Europan ice is only a few miles thick, less thick than the length of the Chunnel, so this is the best, most realistic way of finding out what's down there. Then we can go ice fishing with a great view of Jupiter.

*giggle*

Take a look at this site -- it's really well done and informative.

That's a fact. Indeed, the craft managed to land in 30 mph winds, 6 feet from the center line on the runway. NASA won't even attempt a shuttle landing under those conditions.

A more detailed account here

Suffice to say, had the will been there, they could have flown the Buran again.

I haven't seen any links to the russian verison of Shuttle Buran. Here is the link

Buran may be an interesting design, but by the time the program collapsed it cost even more than the Shuttle.

The problem, IMHO, is wanting a fancy new revolutionary next-generation hi-tech design for the shuttle replacement - NASA's guilty of that several times in the past, including the original design of the Shuttle itself, the failed Venturestar project, etc...

The next step should be an evolutionary design - like the evolution from Mercury through to Apollo, or the whole Russian space program. The next Shuttle should be pretty much the same concept as the current Shuttle, but with every element redesigned to take advantage of current technology (not still-not-invented next-generation pushing-the-envelope technology) and lessons learned from the first shuttle, as well as Russian's Buran/Energiya system - for instance, by making the heavy-lift system separate from the person-carrying shuttle, so that large components (like space station components) can be lofted without lugging up the whole shuttle and crew as well.

It's not as glamorous to work on a new, improved design that'll end up looking largely the same as the current design, but it will be far more effective than trying to reinvent the wheel in a single go and ending up with a system as flawed as the current shuttle. Apollo was ambitious and it aimed for the moon before even sending up a man - but it still worked in an evolutionary fashion. They built Mercury and Gemini and several iterations of the Saturn rockets before they built the vessels that got us to the moon.

It would have belonged to the russians if Buran had not run out of money.

Reposted because "/." ate my last post.

It would have belong to the russians if their Buran hadn't run out of money.

And you know that one was a scale-model mockup?

The full-scale model is now a restaurant at an amusement park.

The Buran was a better design overall. It was cheaper, easier to fix and maintain, safer thanks to ejection seats and the Russians didnt use O rings a la Challenger. It had more reuseable parts, but it was also built after out shuttles were, so they had the benifit of learning from our mistakes. The Buran should have become the international standard but politics and the "evil empire" myth means that the Buran today is nothing but a statue in a Moscow park and we are still flying the Shuttle.

It is not quite as bad as this poster states. The original Buran the one to fly two orbits is safely stored at Baikonur. The second one, which had been scheduled to dock with Mir, in 1993, is 97% complete, and is also safely stored at Baikonur. The one in the Moscow's Gorky Park, was a full-scale mockup, like the American shuttle Enterprize.

Yes, the "evil empire" nonsense is a great shame. I think it is really in our interests to employ the aerospace and defense researchers of the former Soviet Union. If you click on the link for the Gorky Park shuttle, you will read that the author paid a few bucks for a security guard to give him a pre-opening tour. He writes that the security guard had formerly worked on the Buran's design team. Working as a security guard paid more than working in aerospace.

I am going to repeat something Dennis Tito said, in his press conference, after his return to Earth. You all remember that Tito was the first Space Tourist, getting a lift to the space shuttle aboard a Russian vehicle. At the time the idea of space tourism was so new, and shocking, that all kinds of commentators were commenting on how wasteful it was to spend $20,000,000 USD on a vacation, when the world faced problems of poverty, and threat of war. It was the first question Tito was asked at his press conference. Tito's answer was something like:

You are completely correct, that $20,000,000 should have been spent helping the poor. And it was. Do you know the average monthly wage of a Russian aerospace worker? About $100 USD per month.

This is a great answer. It earned my respect. Soviet researchers were highly skilled, and it is a tragedy to have their training and experience go to waste.

But it not just the talents of Soviet aerospace researchers we need to make sure don't go to waste. I would feel the world was a more secure place if former Soviet defense researchers were getting grants from Western institutions, to lift them out of poverty. Visiting fellowships? Send Western students to go learn from them on exchange programs? I believe it is strongly in the West's interests to give these guys and gals jobs that use their talents and preserve their dignity.

Face it, who is going to be more tempted to sell their skills on the black market, or help smuggle out Fissile material? The researcher who has had his dignity restored with a good job, research facilities, and a living wage? Or the researcher who is starving in poverty?

The Buran was a better design overall. It was cheaper, easier to fix and maintain, safer thanks to ejection seats and the Russians didnt use O rings a la Challenger. It had more reuseable parts, but it was also built after out shuttles were, so they had the benifit of learning from our mistakes. The Buran should have become the international standard but politics and the "evil empire" myth means that the Buran today is nothing but a statue in a Moscow park and we are still flying the Shuttle.

It is not quite as bad as this poster states. The original Buran the one to fly two orbits is safely stored at Baikonur. The second one, which had been scheduled to dock with Mir, in 1993, is 97% complete, and is also safely stored at Baikonur. The one in the Moscow's Gorky Park, was a full-scale mockup, like the American shuttle Enterprize.

Yes, the "evil empire" nonsense is a great shame. I think it is really in our interests to employ the aerospace and defense researchers of the former Soviet Union. If you click on the link for the Gorky Park shuttle, you will read that the author paid a few bucks for a security guard to give him a pre-opening tour. He writes that the security guard had formerly worked on the Buran's design team. Working as a security guard paid more than working in aerospace.

I am going to repeat something Dennis Tito said, in his press conference, after his return to Earth. You all remember that Tito was the first Space Tourist, getting a lift to the space shuttle aboard a Russian vehicle. At the time the idea of space tourism was so new, and shocking, that all kinds of commentators were commenting on how wasteful it was to spend $20,000,000 USD on a vacation, when the world faced problems of poverty, and threat of war. It was the first question Tito was asked at his press conference. Tito's answer was something like:

You are completely correct, that $20,000,000 should have been spent helping the poor. And it was. Do you know the average monthly wage of a Russian aerospace worker? About $100 USD per month.

This is a great answer. It earned my respect. Soviet researchers were highly skilled, and it is a tragedy to have their training and experience go to waste.

But it not just the talents of Soviet aerospace researchers we need to make sure don't go to waste. I would feel the world was a more secure place if former Soviet defense researchers were getting grants from Western institutions, to lift them out of poverty. Visiting fellowships? Send Western students to go learn from them on exchange programs? I believe it is strongly in the West's interests to give these guys and gals jobs that use their talents and preserve their dignity.

Face it, who is going to be more tempted to sell their skills on the black market, or help smuggle out Fissile material? The researcher who has had his dignity restored with a good job, research facilities, and a living wage? Or the researcher who is starving in poverty?

Personally I can't stand PKD. Some of his ideas are interesting, but I don't like the style of writing. I think he might be medically insane.

Heinlein is competent, but all his books seem to follow more or less the same patterns (the hero is usually filthy rich, there's always some battle in court, etc.). Somewhat like Hollywood cinema, they're always extraordinary stories about extraordinary people. Personally I prefer extraordinary stories about ordinary people.

Silverberg has one good book (The Labyrinth) and the rest (the ones I've read, at least) are painfully bad.

Another author I like is John Varley. He usually has interesting, original ideas, and writes quite well. But in some of his books I have a feeling he just got lost and couldn't come up with an ending that made any sense.

Lem is definitely one of my favourite authors, and I'd recommend him to anyone who likes SF (and most people who don't as well). Memoirs is not a good place to start, though. Most of his books are much "lighter" and easier to read. I wouldn't recommend Memoirs (or His Master's Voice, or even Solaris) to someone who doesn't know any of his work.

Fiasco is a more or less conventional novel, where Lem's usual cynicism is woven into the story in a way that won't put off the casual readers.

Futurological Congress, Star Diaries and Memoirs of a Space Traveler are very funny books, and a good introduction to Lem's habit of creating new words to give a shape to new concepts. The same applies to a lot of his short stories. The Invasion from Aldebaran is brilliant.

Return from the Stars is (like Solaris) more about people than it is about the world, and will probably appeal to people who don't like SF, as well as to those who do.

Here are links to a couple of sites dedicated to Lem's work:

http://www.k26.com/solaris

http://www.cyberiad.info/english/main.htm

RMN
~~~

Antonov An-225

Instead of going to the effort of making a twin-tailed plane, why didn't they just give the An-225 pilots control over the Buran's tailfin?

I was looking for some info to compare the Buran and US space shuttles, but couldn't find anything easily. We know it's possible to transport US shuttles but I'm not sure about the Buran.

There may be some information available about the Buran's size and weight but I can't find it.

Funny except from that page:

Q. So the two countries with shuttle fleets are the U.S. and Kahzakstan?

A. Pretty much.

The Buran shuttle was indeed transported like the NASA shuttle, atop a massive An-225 Mriya carrier aircraft with 6 jet engines(!).
There is some info here

Also, a couple interesting Buran info sites:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm
http://k26.com/buran/Info/A_Quick_Look/a_quick_loo k.html

1 1988 Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.

Priced to move at only $6 million! Buy yours now!

One shuttle was completed, but never actively used - it performed an unmanned orbit and return, admirably.

There is a flight test prototype currently on display in Sydney I believe (that's where it was when I last looked anyway), but was never space capable.

There is at one other almost complete space capable shuttle in storage (named Ptichka (Little Bird)) along with the one that orbited - Buran. Three more (unnamed) were under construction when the program finished.

They were obviously externally designed in the same way as the american shuttles with one major difference. They don't have engines. Instead to launch they are strapped to the back of one VERY powerful rocket system - an Engergia.

Anyway, this site is the best place for all your Buran needs.

The Kosmos-Zemlya company formed by NPO Molniya, the park, Kosmoflot and headed by Gherman Titov, is trying to make a buck by using the test article as the framework for a new space motif restaurant. Videokosmos has produced a video production of Earth views to be shown in simulated port holes as up to 60 patrons eat from 100 varieties of space food for a cost of $70

The runway at Baikonur has just been refurbished, this is the runway that was built specifically for the Buran and AN225.

Reportadly Buran is virtually ready to fly with very little work, strap on an Energia and boosters roll her out to the pad and jump on in.

actually, it is not...
Buran in Gorky Park.
That is one of the test models. It was not a space flight capable one.

If anyone's interested at more information on Buran and Baikal (the other Russian orbiter), take a look at http://www.k26.com/buran/ for some good information, plus a Message forum where I've read lots of interesting information concerning Buran and it's possible ressurrection. Also, the Buran unit designed for aerodynamic test flights (and thusly equipped with 4 turbo jets + afterburners) is on tour in Australia right now. Pictures of that tour can be found at http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pmorton/.

I'm actually going to find it very interesting if Russia ressurrects it's Buran shuttles, as most likely they'll put a small crew of cosmonauts on it and then sell the remaining 3-4 seats to tourists to piss off NASA :P

--Kumba

The US: Make it military, then we can hide how much it costs in the interest of "National Security".

Russia: We'll get dumb rich Americans to pay us to build it for joy rides. See here: Russia restarting Buran program for space tourism purposes.

Hmm, clever blokes those Russians, eh?

Some information found:

Taken from http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm has the main differences of Buran and Shuttle as follows:

The main differences between the space airplane the automatic landing of Buran from orbit onto airdrome;

The absence of the main rocket engine on the orbital airplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tons of payload against 30 tons for Space Shuttle;

The height lift-drag ratio of the space airplane is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle;

The space airplane Buran returned 20 tons of payloads against 15 tons for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an aerodrome;

The cutting lay-out pattern of thermal protection tiles of Buran is optimal and longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. The tile belts of the Buran fuselage and fin have an optimal position.

Also for another comparison between USA and Russia's space shuttle go to:

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/info.html

Another benefit of Buran being able to have unmanned space flights.

One of the big benefits of the Russian Space Shuttle is the thermal protection system, unfortunately I do not know enough about it to compare it with the USA Suttle. Last I heard the USA Shuttle they must check every ceramic tile under the underbody, which cost a bucket load of money (At least the Americans have it).. If someone could elaborate on this I would be very grateful.