Buran from the dead?

[desktopsimmer]

Back maybe back from the dead, or at least some of the technology.

http://www.russiatoday.com/scitech/news/33330?gclid=COCv5ua5s5cCFQtoQgodKj3mjg

[STS78MEMBER]

Very interesting article thanks for sharing.  I guess a SIM for Buran would be pretty boring or accomodating to some since landing is automatic. 

[desktopsimmer]

The only missions that I know that Buran was to accomplish was creating Mir 2, a USSR Space telescope with Habitat module. There was rumour that Buran was also going to be used to setup weapon platforms, as USSR thought that was one of the main goals of the US Shuttle. Regarding landing it, yes it was fully automated and made it's own choices for approach, but this was done to upstage the US Shuttle. However, I think that the CDR would take over flying pre HAC phase just like the US shuttle.

Here's a list of the difference's between the two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program#Key_differences_from_the_NASA_Space_Shuttle

[USA~Driver]

Since Buran (Snowstorm) was destroyed in 2002 along with Energia it would be like designing a whole new technology to replace it, No? In the end you'd prolly end up with 'a new shuttle' by the time it was all said and done. As much as the Russians tried to come up with something different, They pretty much came up with what NASA already Had.

The Energia launcher I think could have some potential. A modular system - different configurations of boosters and even extra stages stacked on the rocket, Could turn it into a general-purpose heavy launch vehicle.

BTW. That hanger roof collapse at Tyuratam killed eight people.

[enterprise_69]

Something the author of that artical missed and phrased incorrectly is that the U.S. Space Shuttle can land automatically though none never have as we have the worsld best pilots flying the Shuttle. If I remember correctly the USSR also got a hold of the U.S Shuttle plans and basically copied our Shuttle, but nothing new there as they have always tried to copy our aircraft(B-29, B-1, ...).

[vertical]

Buran is not coming back.  NASA is not going to invest in a program with no active airframes (there's one in a German museum, IIRC.  Not sure what state it's in) and zero hours of manned space flight.  The press in Russia just seems obligated to run an article about their dead shuttle program every so often and how it is so much more advanced than that Space Shuttle that has actually flown missions for ~25 years. 

We'll likely be extending our own Shuttle program (not by more than a few years though) to wait out Orion and its launch vehicle coming online. 


vertical

[Yossarian1943]

Buran is not coming back.  NASA is not going to invest in a program with no active airframes (there's one in a German museum, IIRC.  Not sure what state it's in)

Found this old thread. Maybe you are still interested in BURAN.

It´s in the Technikmuseum Speyer, Rheinland-Pfalz. You can read the Museum´s HP in English.

http://speyer.technik-museum.de/

[Spaceguy5]

A museum is planning to refurbish and complete one of the Burans that was only partially constructed. http://englishrussia.com/2011/06/24/the-second-chance-for-buran/

[Yossarian1943]

Nice article, and the bad condition allows some interesting views on shuttle construction.

[Spaceguy5]

Yeah. It's very obvious how similar Buran is to our own space shuttle, they truly were aiming for an exact copy.  Have you ever seen the photos of the US Shuttles being constructed?

[Moonwalker]

Yeah. It's very obvious how similar Buran is to our own space shuttle, they truly were aiming for an exact copy.  Have you ever seen the photos of the US Shuttles being constructed?

Yes. And I even have got 51 high res pdf drawings on my HD which show the (US) Shuttles structure and location of the different systems in it. I tried to find the source but I can't find it anymore. Otherwise I would have posted it.

The structures of the Shuttle and Buran indeed are quite similar. Except that the OMS pods and main engines are missing. And the leading edges of the wings also don't have the RCC tiles (reinforced carbon–carbon). This actually indicates that Buran was a little less complex. But this is anyway backed up by the fact that Burans computers were running a software converted from Soyuz computers which was considered to be not fully developed.

But I think it would have been nice to see Buran become fully operational later on. Sometimes it's a real shame what governments do with their space flight programs. At least the US Shuttles won't rust away

[Spaceguy5]

I think I know those PDFs. They used to be on the NASA Human Spaceflight website, but were taken down. You can still access them through the Wayback Machine.

[Cthulhus]

Incredible ...
USA stop their Space Shuttle for a "Apollo" concept.
The Russian will stop their Soyuz in 2010 for a Space Shuttle concept ? (Buran 2.0)

What's next ? Boeing will stop producing Air-plane for a Zeppelin concept ?

[Moonwalker]

Incredible ...
USA stop their Space Shuttle for a "Apollo" concept.

Meanwhile I agree that it was a bad mistake to cancel STS (STS-135 actually did make me come down to earth again). Developing a MPCV is not bad though. But not having the capability which STS had is a very bad course for the future of NASA I think.

The Russian will stop their Soyuz in 2010 for a Space Shuttle concept ? (Buran 2.0)

Never heared of something like this. There was talk in the past to make Buran fly again in future. But it was just talk.

I think that Soyuz CSTS is more likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTS

[Yossarian1943]

But not having the capability which STS had is a very bad course for the future of NASA I think.

Not only for NASA and the US. The possibilty to carry tons of payload back is the biggest plus for the Shuttle.