But I've always wondered whether Valentin Glushko's setup was really safer than STS, having seen the numerous explosive first-stage failures of Zenits over the years. On and on the list of alleged advantages go. 7) With additional boosters and an upper stage, the 'Vulkan Herkules' version of the Energia could have lifted 200 mt into LEO, which dwarfs the capability of even the Saturn V. 6) The Energia was modular and had far more lift capability (88 mt) compared to an equivalent STS cargo variant (70 mt). 5) The Buran had an automatic docking system, the Shuttle did not. 4) The Buran demonstrated it could be flown unmanned, which was never demonstrated by the Shuttle.

3) The Buran could supposedly be more easily refurbished for flight thanks to not carrying large engines. 2) Soviet Space Shuttle could haul 5 mt more into LEO (thanks to not carrying the heavy main engines). 1) Energia could be launched without the Soviet space shuttle. Yet the alleged superiority of the Energia/Buran does not end there. The Energia launcher also was an all-liquid engine design, so it lacked the o-ring issues on the SRBs that in 1986 would claim the shuttle Challenger shortly after lift-off. To the best of my knowledge, the Energia launcher lacked the falling foam problem that came with the shuttle's external tank, which later would doom Columbia. But I've always wondered, had the USSR not economically collapsed, would the Energia launcher and Buran shuttle have proved the superior, safer designs? The Shuttle and STS after all has killed some 14 astronauts in two separate disasters due to design flaws the Energia/Buran system did not have. This however has more to USSR's economic collapse than the merits of the design. Molniya Company It's true that the Energia rocket was only launched twice, and the Buran shuttle only launched once with it.

Buran space shuttle