In article om,
says...

On 15-06-24 20:10, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/did-t...did-1713379466

Not really anything new here, but always a fun discussion.

I think that the advantage of not having main engines part of the plane
was overplayed. The main engines are still part of the stack at launch
so their weight limits payload just as much.

The main difference is with on-orbit burns after separation where the
shuttle is then lighter. But what percentage of total delta-V is
imparted by OMS versus main engines ?



Also, the shuttle's main engines were re-usable and survived re-entry.
Was Energya reusable in any way ?

There were plans to reuse the liquid fueled boosters, which is why they
were designed with containers on the outside for parachutes. But, I do
not believe any were recovered and they were therefore never reused. It
was unclear how the core stage was planned to be reused.

The image I get is that Buran was far from being in production use. It
seemed more like the Enterprise, except launched from orbit instead of
from a 747.

There was also a landing test vehicle, fitted with jet engines, that was
more analogous to Enterprise.

Clearly the first orbital test vehicle was more functional than
Enterprise, which lacked major components needed for spaceflight (like a
pressurized crew cabin, engine thrust structure, engines, and etc.).
I'd place the first orbital Buran somewhere between Enterprise and
Columbia in terms of capabilities.

Supposedly a second orbiter (along with its Energia launch vehicle) was
completed and ready for orbital flight, or very close to it, when the
program was canceled and the program mothballed.

Did Buran re-enter and land on auto pilot, or remote-control ?

I believe the first flight was on "auto pilot", which is something the
US orbiter never did from launch to landing. The first Buran orbital
flight was, after all, a pre-programmed test flight.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer