Buran ' s exterior was a copy of the space shuttle . Its internals are completely different , for example , it being capable of autonomous flight which the space shuttle was not , an orbital manoeuvering system based on GOXLOXKerosene lower toxicity and higher specific impulse compared to NASA ' s m o n o methylhydrazinedinitrogen tetroxide and having a totally different propulsion system not even having main engines , and instead propulsion was based on the liquid fuelbased Energia . Together , Energia and Buran have radically different , innovative superior designs in terms of capacity , cost and safety compared with the Space Shuttle the cost advantages follow from the design safety advantages that would have averted some of the Space Shuttle ' s disasters . nbspSpecificallyEnergia could carry different payloads other than Buran like Polyus and could put up to 100 metric tons into orbit . The Space Shuttle orbiter is integral to its launch system and is therefore the only possible main configuration payload is limited to whatever fits in the relatively small Space Shuttle . The liquid fueled booster rockets were not constructed in segments so they were not vulnerable to Oring leakage Challenger . Energia ' s four boosters used liquid propellant and as a result could be individually controlled and turned off , greatly improving safety whereas solid boosters have to be jettisoned or you wait until they run out . nbspIn case your meaning is the Buran spaceplane itself does not offer much innovation compared to the Space Shuttle orbiter , you and the article are indeed correct but that is very narrow use of language . Energia should be considered along with the Buran spaceplane together known as the Buran Programme because in contrast the American counterpart to Energia is incorporated into the Space Shuttle in particular , the main engines , ie only Energia and the Buran spaceplane together as the Buran are equivalent to the Space Shuttle plus the SRBs and its external tank .