"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...

(snip)

Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that
aged
over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.

Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an external
booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both accidents
happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as
one
for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats, will
he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

Challenger was killed by a SRB letting go. Buran-Energia had no SRB's.

Columbia was killed by foam insulation falling off an ET and hitting a wing.
I do not think this could happen in the Buran-Energia setup, looking at how
they are oriented.

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.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
figures?

Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high
altitude
during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
accidents, etc.

AFAIK there were only the two well-documented Soyuz losses, one
decompression and one parachute failure. All the Soviet era accidents can be
safely assumed to have come out I would say.

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered
a
nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces
involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could
have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own
mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

As I have said above, I do not think Buran would have been susceptible to
either disaster in the first place.

Both were consequences of the poor design of the STS in the first place, and
of breathtaking complacency within NASA about safety.

Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing
built
could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating
characteristics
and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

(snip)

I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one down
at
the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
assembly.

It certainly would. AFAIK they are finished like the Buran.

John