Incredibly Russia is considering ressurecting its Space Shuttle{Buran}

ynotdu

Russia To Review Its Space Shuttle Project

Soviet space shuttle program Buran managed to make only one unmanned flight in 1988 and has been closed soon afterwards.by Staff Writers
Moscow, Russia (XNA) Jun 28, 2010
Russia will return to its program of building the space shuttles and super-heavy carrier rockets after 2018, the Interfax news agency reported on Friday.
New carrier rockets will have a workload over 24 tons, director of Moscow's Central Machine-building Institute, Gennady Raikunov, said during the Strong Russia business conference.
According to Raikunov, the tests of the rocket will start in 2015 and its commercial exploitation will commence in 2018.
Russian space engineers also are working on building the rocket capable of delivering to the orbit a workload over 100 ton per launch, he said. In more distant future, Raikunov's institute plans to work out a new manned spaceship and non-disposable boosters. Soviet space shuttle program Buran managed to make only one unmanned flight in 1988 and has been closed soon after.

The plans for Buran are widely believed to have been stolen/sold from the United States during Soviet rule.

[YOUTUBE]6nJkyA2ESPE[/YOUTUBE]

There was one launch of it in 1988 which launched unmanned and
returned intact to Earth after two orbits.

It went with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

ynotdu

This is a recent News report from Russia Today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nJkyA2ESPE

lord lucan

Can't say that i can see this happening tbh. Not sure why they'd go backwards to go forwards. I loved the music in the first video though,great craic.:)

thecommander

Wasn't it damaged beyond repair when its hanger collapsed?

dbran

Hi

Pigs will be flying transatlantic and referees will be allowed to change their minds at the word cup.

dbran

ynotdu

dbran wrote: »

Hi

Pigs will be flying transatlantic and referees will be allowed to change their minds at the word cup.

dbran

Well even if it is pigs who are flying into Space it will be more than America will be as things Stand.;)

No time to reply to others at Mo,Because of need to search for linksbut plans are very advanced too for a heavy launch Vehicle{Soyuz 5 is provisional name}
I see You are an accountancy Mod,Russias fleet is turning into a nice little earner for them!

Arian 5 has only had two launchs this year due to technical problems and the ancient Russian Proton is lobbing up Commercial payloads almost every week!

Johnmb

It has been a while since I read about the specs of the Russian shuttle, but if I remember correctly, it wasn't a rip off of the american shuttle. It looked similar on the outside, but in almost every way that mattered it was far superior to the American shuttle, but was shelved due to finances. I doubt they have the finances to restart the project now to be honest, but if they did, it would be an improvement over the shuttles being retired even if nothing was changed since the late 80's (and I'm sure there will be a number of changes). I think it got a bad reputation due to the Concordski events that people assumed if it looks like an American shuttle, it must just be a cheap Soviet rip off.

dbran

Hi

I read somewhere that the old Boran currently in Moscow and converted into a restaurant.:)

But you are right about the total destruction of NASA though.

Regards


dbran

Ghost Train

thecommander wrote: »

Wasn't it damaged beyond repair when its hanger collapsed?

yes, but this seems to be about using prievious experience to build a new spacecraft

I suppose it might work well an an unmanned spacecraft, might not be the way to go if they plan on putting people in it, would be better to keep developing the Soyuz which have been proved safer

Johnmb

dbran wrote: »

I read somewhere that the old Boran currently in Moscow and converted into a restaurant.:)

I'd say the intention would be to dust off the plans, and build a fresh version, rather than trying to reuse the original prototypes. Again though, I seriously doubt Russia would have the finances available to them to do this any time soon.

ynotdu

Johnmb wrote: »

It has been a while since I read about the specs of the Russian shuttle, but if I remember correctly, it wasn't a rip off of the american shuttle. It looked similar on the outside, but in almost every way that mattered it was far superior to the American shuttle, but was shelved due to finances. I doubt they have the finances to restart the project now to be honest, but if they did, it would be an improvement over the shuttles being retired even if nothing was changed since the late 80's (and I'm sure there will be a number of changes). I think it got a bad reputation due to the Concordski events that people assumed if it looks like an American shuttle, it must just be a cheap Soviet rip off.

Hi Johnmb,The main WIKI page on Buran would agree with You{I did not want to post it because Wiki asks for more citations throughout}

____________________________________________________________

Similarities to NASA Space Shuttle
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
Because Buran's debut followed that of Space Shuttle Columbia's, and because there were striking visual similarities between the two shuttle systems—a state of affairs which recalled the similarity between the Tupolev Tu-144 and Concorde supersonic airliners—many speculated that Cold War espionage played a role in the development of the Soviet shuttle. Despite remarkable external similarities, many key differences existed, which suggests that, had espionage been a factor in Buran's development, it would likely have been in the form of external photography or early airframe designs.
URL="http://www.boards.ie/w/index.php?title=Buran_program&action=edit&section=10"][COLOR=#0645ad]edit[/COLOR][/URL Key differences from the NASA Space Shuttle

• Buran was not an integral part of the system, but rather a payload for the Energia launcher. The orbiter had no main rocket engines, freeing space and weight for additional payload; the largest cylindrical structure is the Energia carrier-rocket, not just a fuel tank. In contrast, in the American Space Shuttle system, the three main engines on the rear of the orbiter comprise the second stage launch propulsion system, and the External Tank and twin boosters are not used to launch anything except an orbiter.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• Energia was designed from the start to be configured for a variety of uses, rather than just a shuttle launcher. Other payloads than Buran, with mass as high as 80 metric tons, could be lifted to space by Energia, as was the case on its first launch. The heaviest configuration (never built) would have been able to launch 200 tons into orbit. (The Shuttle-C concept was a similar proposal to the Energia system, envisaged to complement the space shuttle by adapting its boosters and external tank for use with other vehicles, but it never moved beyond the experimental mock-up stage. The NASA Ares V rocket, in development, is a similarly "shuttle-derived" idea.)I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• Energia was also capable of delivering a payload to the Moon. However, this configuration was never tested. The Space Shuttle was never intended to go beyond Low Earth orbit.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• As Buran was designed to be capable of both manned and robotic flight, it had automated landing capability; the manned version was never operational. The Space Shuttle was later retrofitted with an automated landing capability; the equipment to make this possible was first flown on STS-121, but is intended only as a contingency, and has never been used on any flight.[14]
• The orbiters were designed to carry two jet engines for increased return capability. Although they were not installed in the first orbiter for reason of weight limits on the first Energia launcher, provisions exist in the structure for later retrofit.[15] NASA's Space Shuttle, as a glider, relies entirely on management of descent energy for landing.
• The boosters used liquid propellant (kerosene/oxygen). The Space Shuttle's boosters use solid propellant.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• The main engines were mounted on the core Energiya stage and thus destroyed when it burns up in the atmosphere, unlike the U.S. Space Shuttle which has reusable main engines in the orbiter. Both designs feature reusable boosters. There were some plans for constructing a fully reusable Energiya carrier, but funding cuts meant that this was never completed.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• Buran could lift 30 metric tons into orbit in its standard configuration, compared to the early Space Shuttle Orbiters' 25 metric tons (later Orbiters were physically several tonnes lighter and could carry a correspondingly heavier payload).[16]
• The high lift-to-drag ratio of Buran is 6.5 against 4.5 for the Space Shuttle.[17]
• Buran was designed to return 20 metric tons of payload from orbit, as against 15 metric tons for the Space Shuttle orbiter.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• The thermal protection tiles on the Buran and U.S. Space Shuttles are laid out differently. Soviet engineers believed their design to be thermodynamically superior.[16]
• Buran's equivalent of the shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System used safer propellants with lower toxicity (GOX/Kerosene), and gave higher performance (a specific impulse of 362 seconds).I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• Buran was designed to be moved to the launch pad horizontally on special train tracks, and then erected at the launch site. This enabled a much faster rollout than the US Space Shuttle, which is moved vertically, and as such must be moved very slowly (less than one mile per hour, typically taking about 6 hours to move the Mobile Launch Platform supporting the Shuttle stack from the VAB to the launch pad on a Crawler-Transporter.)I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• The booster rockets were not constructed in segments vulnerable to leakage through O-rings, which caused the destruction of Challenger. (Their liquid-fueled nature would make this design inapplicable.) However, the liquid fuel for the booster rockets (see above) would have made them less easy to prepare - and hold ready - for flight than solid rocket fuel in the Shuttle boosters and in addition represented a potential explosive hazard on the ground.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
• The manned version was intended to have a crew of ten as opposed to seven.[16]

Full article at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program

---

Ghostrain Yes that is exactly what they are contemplating,the whole launch systym does not include the External tank feeding Burans Main Engines,It would piggyback on A hugh Tank and boosters to Orbit.

lord lucan

Finance alone will knock this on the head. At the moment they have a pretty reliable space transportation system(Soyuz) which is reasonably cost effective. Add in that NASA are going to be paying the Russians to use Soyuz to carry their astronauts to the ISS following Shuttle retirement and it's a nice little earner.

Pumping millions into R&D before they even fire a booster in anger and then construction and flight costs would be too much for even the Russians to fund right now imo.

ynotdu

lord lucan wrote: »

Can't say that i can see this happening tbh. Not sure why they'd go backwards to go forwards. I loved the music in the first video though,great craic.:)

LOL LL in My defence the computer i found that vid on did not play sound,not exactly Iron Maiden is it?:)
This one is 150 seconds long,about a minute in it is revealed that one of the plans for Buran was to capture Skylab and return it to USSR:eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nJkyA2ESPE

@ thecommander it shows the wreckage of the Buran that flew as You say was destroyed in the hanger.

@dbran Yes there were several built as described in the wiki article,
Lord Lucan posted one another time that showed a second ond rusty in a field.
I have not read about the restraunt one,but i have heard about one beng in Gorky Park and saw a picture of one as an attraction beside a lake and there is one in a German museum.

Just a reminder that Soyuz TM-19 will have to undock today and change to a diffrient docking port to make room for a progress re-supply mission to the ISS.The progress's give the ISS a nudge into a higher orbit sometimes.Think it is sometime after 4PM will be on NASA TV.

Beeker

It would be great to see this happen but I really don't think it will:( It would cost huge sums of money to do it. The Russians are not in a position to do that at this time.