Russia's Buran

2029030664_382d6a5154.jpg


Smoking in this environment?! I guess it just gives you an idea of not only the different time period, but the different etiquette there is in Russia.
 
On one of the websites linked above, it was commented that you need more than the "usual" luck to be flying in the program. The smoking is low on the scale it seems.
 
Orange Anchor said:
The Russians never got a manned mission in Buran and eventually abandoned the program.
Click to expand...

They do still use pieces of the Energia booster package, as the Zenit rocket. It's actually one of the cheapest ways to put something in LEO right now, when you break the cost down per pound. And the engines from the Energia, the RD-170, were uprated and modified to become the RD-180, which powers the Atlas V we launch today. Lots of good stuff came from that program, just they ran out of money at a good time. Personally, I feel that the design of the Buran is fundamentally better than the STS, as you don't get stuck carrying the dead weight of propulsion in orbit, and as such, can carry more weight in the vehicle .
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
They do still use pieces of the Energia booster package, as the Zenit rocket. It's actually one of the cheapest ways to put something in LEO right now, when you break the cost down per pound. And the engines from the Energia, the RD-170, were uprated and modified to become the RD-180, which powers the Atlas V we launch today. Lots of good stuff came from that program, just they ran out of money at a good time. Personally, I feel that the design of the Buran is fundamentally better than the STS, as you don't get stuck carrying the dead weight of propulsion in orbit, and as such, can carry more weight in the vehicle .
Click to expand...
Yes. It is interesting how much Russian equipment we use including the -124s and the -225 to move some of our boosters around. And yes, the Russians have always had BIG boosters although they too have suffered setbacks with some of their technology. Their moon rocket set back is well known.

As for Buran being lighter and carrying more, I will have to check. From what I remember the payloads are not that different in weight and the eventual Buran for space flt would have carried into space its two jet engines making it capable of a go-around.
 
Orange Anchor said:
As for Buran being lighter and carrying more, I will have to check. From what I remember the payloads are not that different in weight and the eventual Buran for space flt would have carried into space its two jet engines making it capable of a go-around.
Click to expand...

The only Buran use for jet engines was testing of lower atmosphere aerodynamics, so rather than carrying the thing on a plane like the Enterprise, they could just fly to altitude. AFAIK, there was no plan to put jets on the space flown vehicles. The Buran could carry about 5,000 Kg more to orbit in terms of payload than the STS can, but has a lighter launch weight than the Shuttle.
 
Most likely the ship in OA's link is "Baikal." The hangar what housed the vehicle that went into space collapsed and burned in 2002, destroying the orbiter (maybe this building from the original link?).

There were additional vehicles being built when the program was ended. SS 2.02 sits outside Tushino Manchine Factory near Moscow (they now make wind turbines). SS 2.03 was disassembled.

http://www.mk.ru/photo/social/1090-buran-prinesennyiy-v-zhertvu.html
​
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
They do still use pieces of the Energia booster package, as the Zenit rocket. It's actually one of the cheapest ways to put something in LEO right now, when you break the cost down per pound. And the engines from the Energia, the RD-170, were uprated and modified to become the RD-180, which powers the Atlas V we launch today. Lots of good stuff came from that program, just they ran out of money at a good time. Personally, I feel that the design of the Buran is fundamentally better than the STS, as you don't get stuck carrying the dead weight of propulsion in orbit, and as such, can carry more weight in the vehicle .
Click to expand...



But they didn't have the CANADA ARM! :bandit:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The only Buran use for jet engines was testing of lower atmosphere aerodynamics, so rather than carrying the thing on a plane like the Enterprise, they could just fly to altitude. AFAIK, there was no plan to put jets on the space flown vehicles. The Buran could carry about 5,000 Kg more to orbit in terms of payload than the STS can, but has a lighter launch weight than the Shuttle.
Click to expand...
Various sources say the jets were to be added later in the program. The Russians were not happy with the no go-around capability again according to some sites. And the follow on builds did appear to have points for attaching the engines. All else we seem to agree on.
 
Orange Anchor said:
Various sources say the jets were to be added later in the program. The Russians were not happy with the no go-around capability again according to some sites. And the follow on builds did appear to have points for attaching the engines. All else we seem to agree on.
Click to expand...

I mean, I've heard a few sources say that they were possibly looking into the go around options, but when you really think about the logistics involved in it, specifically the weights, it just doesn't make any sense. To have any meaningful amount of time on those jets, you'd need a bunch of fuel, which isn't light by any means.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I mean, I've heard a few sources say that they were possibly looking into the go around options, but when you really think about the logistics involved in it, specifically the weights, it just doesn't make any sense. To have any meaningful amount of time on those jets, you'd need a bunch of fuel, which isn't light by any means.
Click to expand...

Not arguing the logic. Just some sites say/suggest/imply that the jets were to be used on later versions. However, having said that I agree with YOUR logic.
 
Orange Anchor said:
Not arguing the logic. Just some sites say/suggest/imply that the jets were to be used on later versions. However, having said that I agree with YOUR logic.
Click to expand...

Oh it would be cool to see the shuttle/Buran with the ability to change its landing site. Makes it a much more valuable military asset. But it would for sure kill any load carrying ability by the thing.
 
I think it is funny that all the Buran fan boys around the internet (not talking about here) try to play down the visual similarities between it and the STS. Yeah the motor arrangement is different, but aside from that.....come on......they are practically identical looking.....

As for it being more technologically advanced because of an autonomous landing capability, not sure where that comes from; even the original STS was capable of such a thing, if only there had been a way to lower the gear remotely prior to the Columbia mishap.
 
Don't know much about the Buran program but those photos are amazing, Russia has a fascinating love story with space and aviation, I'm a big fan of their designs and ingenuity when you consider the scope of operation in such a huge country...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top