SimonShuttle - 18/10/2005 5:16 AM
Couple of things of note. This was an Orbiter that flew herself from launch to landing, even the US Orbiters need a helping hand on landing, so in some ways this was a cleverer Shuttle?
The landing seemed very controlled, slower and softer?
Less people in mission control?
Launch seemed a lot more powerful, longer SRB trail?
Avron - 18/10/2005 9:52 AM
Wonder if there was any issues with foam loss?
Flightstar - 18/10/2005 8:52 PM
There were reports she was destroyed when her hanger roof collapsed. A model is in Gorky Park and another is with a rich Middle East guy, I think.
Flightstar - 19/10/2005 6:23 PM
Are they still there?
Flightstar - 19/10/2005 6:23 PM
Is this a recent photo?
SimonShuttle - 19/10/2005 6:39 PM
lacking paint of course
anik - 19/10/2005 9:52 AMQuoteSimonShuttle - 19/10/2005 6:39 PM
lacking paint of course
They dusty :(
anik - 19/10/2005 9:31 AMQuoteFlightstar - 19/10/2005 6:23 PM
Are they still there?
Yes... They will stay there for ever... :(QuoteFlightstar - 19/10/2005 6:23 PM
Is this a recent photo?
2004 year
FransonUK - 19/10/2005 7:06 PM
I'm sure you'd get a good price for them
Andy L - 19/10/2005 3:11 PM
Wow, how terrible! Thank you so much Ani, I really appreciate your posts.
What caused the roof to collapse?
Flightstar - 19/10/2005 4:12 PM
Was she being processed for another launch?
Flightstar - 19/10/2005 3:12 PM
Was she being processed for another launch?
Andy L - 20/10/2005 12:11 AM
What caused the roof to collapse?
Flightstar - 20/10/2005 12:12 AM
Was she being processed for another launch?
Flightstar - 20/10/2005 11:18 PM
Thank you so much Anik. You are a very valuable poster on this forum.
Chris Bergin - 21/10/2005 1:39 AM
My goodness, they are simply letting her rust? :(
Avron - 21/10/2005 10:21 PM
Whats the item on the tank ahead of the orbiter?
Avron - 21/10/2005 10:21 PM
Anik...
Whats the item on the tank ahead of the orbiter?
Chris Bergin - 22/10/2005 1:22 AM
Anik, how many Buran's are there left?
anik - 22/10/2005 12:34 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 22/10/2005 1:22 AM
Anik, how many Buran's are there left?
Chris,
There were made five orbital spacecrafts and eight full-size models for the “Energiya-Buran” program in the Soviet Union…
> Five orbital spacecrafts:
1K made spaceflight (look at the photo “1K.jpg”) and was destroyed because of the building roof collapse on the Baikonur
2K is stored in the building on the Baikonur (look at the photo “2K.jpg”)
3K is in Moscow (look at the photo “3K.jpg”)
4K is disassembled (look at the photo “4K.jpg”)
5K is unfinished and then destroyed
> Eight full-size models:
1M is in the Gor’ky park and is transformed into an attraction "The Buran: the space travel"
2M was used for atmospheric testings (look at the photo “2M - 1.jpg”) and is in Bahrein (look at Tahii’s photo “2M - 2.jpg”). By the way, Ben, turbojets were used only on this model…
3M is at RSC Energiya (look at the photo “3M.jpg”)
4MT is on the Baikonur (look at the photo “4MT.jpg”)
5M is at TsAGI (look at the photo “5M.jpg”)
6M is at NIIhimmash in Moscow region (look at the photo “6M.jpg”)
7M is stored in the building on the Baikonur (look at the photo “7M.jpg”)
8M is at Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center
P.S.: All these information and photos from Russian Vadim Lukashevich's Buran website ( http://www.buran.ru )
anik - 22/10/2005 5:07 AMQuoteAvron - 21/10/2005 10:21 PM
Anik...
Whats the item on the tank ahead of the orbiter?
Avron,
This item is on the tank – look at the photo “Before launch.jpg”…
This item is removed from the tank – look at the photo “During launch.jpg”…
Also look at the photo “Before launch - 2.jpg”… Cables are stretching to this item (maybe power supplies?)...Quote
Thank-you sir...
Andy L - 31/10/2005 5:40 PM
It really saddens me to see one of the Soviet Orbiters beheaded and covered in snow. That better not be the fate of NASA's three Orbiters!
Chris Bergin - 1/11/2005 8:30 AM
Yes, and they should also stay in the hands of people that know how to care for them.
Avron - 2/11/2005 5:12 AMQuoteChris Bergin - 1/11/2005 8:30 AM
Yes, and they should also stay in the hands of people that know how to care for them.
I have space in my back yard..:)
Andy L - 31/10/2005 3:40 PM
It really saddens me to see one of the Soviet Orbiters beheaded and covered in snow. That better not be the fate of NASA's three Orbiters!
NASA_Langley_spammer - 30/11/2005 6:39 AM
Anyone know of available schematics for the Buran?
rsp1202 - 8/12/2005 12:21 PM
More at:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
rsp1202 - 8/12/2005 12:17 PM
Nice seat.
STS Tony - 8/12/2005 10:23 PM
She does look nice inside, not as much as the U.S Orbiters, but this one can fly without a crew which really made her special.
80mileshigh - 30/12/2005 1:20 AM
On a point of historical curiosity, did the Energia-Buran program have another title, like the Space-Shuttle program = National Space Transportation System?
Davros - 6/1/2006 6:56 PM
Tourist attraction right there folks.
Sergi Manstov - 25/1/2006 1:46 AM
It's a bit funny.....but I think our spy whale we sent to London was much more clever ;)
Sergi Manstov - 25/1/2006 1:46 AM
It's a bit funny.....but I think our spy whale we sent to London was much more clever ;)
STS Tony - 4/2/2006 7:45 PM
Will the modification kit been mentioned for the US shuttles be a direct version of the Buran landing kit?
Jamie Young - 5/2/2006 2:14 PM
Still a huge achievement by the Soviets. A shame it was only the one time.
Jim - 1/3/2006 7:01 AM
It looks like there were more Soviets shuttles built that US.
OV-98 MPTA
OV-99 STA and Challenger
OV-101 ALT, Enterprise
102 Columbia
103 Discover
104 Atlantis
105 Endeavour
Mockups
Rockwell, Downey
JSC (1 and 1/2)
Not going to count visitor center mockups at JSC, KSC, and MSFC
Jamie Young - 1/3/2006 1:10 PMQuoteJim - 1/3/2006 7:01 AMIt looks like there were more Soviets shuttles built that US.Are Explorer and Pathfinder included in there as the mockups?
OV-98 MPTA
OV-99 STA and Challenger
OV-101 ALT, Enterprise
102 Columbia
103 Discover
104 Atlantis
105 Endeavour
Mockups
Rockwell, Downey
JSC (1 and 1/2)
Not going to count visitor center mockups at JSC, KSC, and MSFC
Hotol - 1/3/2006 10:15 AMBut did the Soviets have a Star Wars of their own, or was Buran an expensive double bluff?
Jamie Young - 1/3/2006 4:31 PM
Laser battle station? Wow, any images?
rsp1202 - 1/3/2006 8:16 PMhttp://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htmAnd attached to Energia:
Jim - 1/3/2006 8:41 PMQuotersp1202 - 1/3/2006 8:16 PMhttp://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htmAnd attached to Energia:
Notice that it says "MIR" on it
nacnud - 9/3/2006 5:30 AM
It happened in 2002, the Soviet Union fell in 1991.
DaveS - 9/3/2006 6:13 AMIt was attached to an wood mockup of Energia in a storage facility when the accident happened.
DaveS - 9/3/2006 6:13 AM
It was attached to an wood mockup of Energia in a storage facility when the accident happened.
DaveS - 9/3/2006 2:37 PM
It's not related to the dragchute system, that's one thing I'm 100% certain about. It's clearly a smoke of some sort coming from some kind of vent(??) as it appears in pulses. Very visible APU exhaust maybe???
DaveS - 9/3/2006 12:37 PM
It's not related to the dragchute system, that's one thing I'm 100% certain about. It's clearly a smoke of some sort coming from some kind of vent(??) as it appears in pulses. Very visible APU exhaust maybe???
Jim - 9/3/2006 6:54 PM
I forgot I had this pic
Jim - 9/3/2006 6:54 PM
I forgot I had this pic
NASA_Twix_JSC - 11/3/2006 9:45 AMQuoteJim - 9/3/2006 6:54 PMI forgot I had this picI'm curious to know if this image was taken soon after the Buran had landed. It seems very unattended to.
Jamie Young - 11/3/2006 8:34 PM
Anyone here know when Buran landed, in that case?
anik - 11/3/2006 11:41 AMQuoteJamie Young - 11/3/2006 8:34 PM
Anyone here know when Buran landed, in that case?
Buran landed only once at 06:24:42 UTC on November 15, 1988...
Jamie Young - 11/3/2006 12:01 PMQuoteanik - 11/3/2006 11:41 AMWhat was she doing on the runway in August?QuoteJamie Young - 11/3/2006 8:34 PMAnyone here know when Buran landed, in that case?Buran landed only once at 06:24:42 UTC on November 15, 1988...
Jester - 17/3/2006 2:42 AM
I will see if I can sneak into MIK 112a to get a picture of the one(s) in there (I believe only little bird is in there), but only if I dont see the wrong end of a AK-47 ;)
Jester - 19/3/2006 2:19 PM
I will see if I can enter the one on display when I go back there.
publiusr - 23/3/2006 12:56 PM If only we had one in Huntsville. I would love to see some Soviet rocket mock-ups to stand next to the rockets on display there--to show just how big R-7 and Proton are.
Are going to put up EELV's also to show how big they are.
zappafrank - 26/3/2006 9:56 AM
Which one was on display in Sydney in 2000?
Jester - 17/3/2006 12:42 PM
I will see if I can sneak into MIK 112a to get a picture of the one(s) in there (I believe only little bird is in there)
anik - 26/3/2006 12:54 PMQuoteJester - 17/3/2006 12:42 PM
I will see if I can sneak into MIK 112a to get a picture of the one(s) in there (I believe only little bird is in there)
There are two birds in this building (see image below) - 7M (or OK-ML1) full-size model and 2K (or "Burya") orbital spacecraft...
zappafrank - 25/3/2006 11:56 PM
Which one was on display in Sydney in 2000?
I almost went to see it, but the admission price was huge and it wasn't the one that flew in space.
Jester - 26/3/2006 12:38 PMQuoteanik - 26/3/2006 12:54 PMQuoteJester - 17/3/2006 12:42 PM
I will see if I can sneak into MIK 112a to get a picture of the one(s) in there (I believe only little bird is in there)
There are two birds in this building (see image below) - 7M (or OK-ML1) full-size model and 2K (or "Burya") orbital spacecraft...
Thanks anik, I will see if I can get in there......and yes i'll bring a mop and some soft soapy water :P
Hotol - 26/3/2006 7:39 PM
What happened to it after 2000?
zappafrank - 26/3/2006 9:03 PM
I call that version of Buran the 727 Buran, due to the 3 engines on the tail
TheMadCap - 26/3/2006 9:07 PM
Does anyone have a video of the Buran launch?
TheMadCap - 26/3/2006 5:07 PM
Does anyone have a vid of the Buran launch? I have seen one on the internet, but it was only the liftoff...
Maltboy! - 31/3/2006 9:38 AM
Could someone please eloborate on the thermal damage caused during her re-entry?
Sergi Manstov - 31/3/2006 8:45 PM
Anyone have more?
Terry Rocket - 8/4/2006 12:04 PM
Whatever became of Buran's younger sister, Ptichka?
Satori - 11/4/2006 1:12 AM
the second Buran is stored together with the Energia-M rocket inside the Vibration Test Building at site 112A
Hotol - 12/4/2006 2:34 PM
That's a big complex, and it's still at the cosmodrome today?
publiusr - 12/4/2006 1:41 PM
I wish I could visit that place.
Chris Bergin - 15/4/2006 12:17 PMYou mean Ptichka? I think it means "little bird".
What is the translation for that name in English? I know Buran = Snowstorm.
zerm - 22/5/2006 2:29 AM
Tourists at the Buran site- that's what someone mentioned earlier- FYI Read "Two Sides of the Moon" and Alexei Leonov's account of this landscape- it is crawling with deadly spiders and snakes. A bit harder to control and avoid than the Cape's gators.
Jester - 12/6/2006 8:26 AMQuotezerm - 22/5/2006 2:29 AM
Tourists at the Buran site- that's what someone mentioned earlier- FYI Read "Two Sides of the Moon" and Alexei Leonov's account of this landscape- it is crawling with deadly spiders and snakes. A bit harder to control and avoid than the Cape's gators.
Try scorpions, inside the MIK112 building yesterday.....
Mr Verkhoturov - 14/4/2006 5:00 AM
K-008
Vehicles.
1.01 - Buran
1.02 - Ptichka
2.01 - Second series 1
2.02 - Second series 2
2.03 - Second series 3
Thank you for remembering.
Launch Fan - 13/6/2006 12:56 AMQuoteJester - 12/6/2006 8:26 AMQuotezerm - 22/5/2006 2:29 AM
Tourists at the Buran site- that's what someone mentioned earlier- FYI Read "Two Sides of the Moon" and Alexei Leonov's account of this landscape- it is crawling with deadly spiders and snakes. A bit harder to control and avoid than the Cape's gators.
Try scorpions, inside the MIK112 building yesterday.....
Are you at Baykonur??!
Damon Hill - 1/7/2006 11:44 AM
I also followed the double tracks out to a >third< launch pad that is much more distant, and doesn't look used. What was this pad used for?
anik - 1/7/2006 5:34 AMQuoteDamon Hill - 1/7/2006 11:44 AM
I also followed the double tracks out to a >third< launch pad that is much more distant, and doesn't look used. What was this pad used for?
It is the Universal Complex Stand (UKSS) on site 250, which was used for testing of engines of Energiya rocket and, also, for the first launch of Energiya rocket on May 15, 1987... See an image of UKSS below (from Novosti kosmonavtiki website)...
Davros - 28/7/2006 8:08 AM
Any pics of the actual transporter?
spaceamillion - 28/7/2006 10:51 PM
I wonder, does anyone know the exact timing of that pad test and designation of the Buran orbiter?
spaceamillion - 28/7/2006 11:12 PM
Hi Anik,
The Russian press reported that Helen Sharman, Artesbarski and Krikalev had watched the roll-out of the combination (although I don't recall anything about in her autobiography). I will have to check my news videos of her Soyuz TM-12 mission to see if any reports covered this....
Thanks again,
Neville
Chris Bergin - 29/7/2006 9:07 PM
Am I reading this right? Helen Sharman was a potential crew member for a "Buran" mission?
Flightstar - 18/10/2005 7:39 PM
There were reports she was destroyed when her hanger roof collapsed. A model is in Gorky Park and another is with a rich Middle East guy, I think.
oscar71 - 27/8/2006 3:00 PMQuoteFlightstar - 18/10/2005 7:39 PM
There were reports she was destroyed when her hanger roof collapsed. A model is in Gorky Park and another is with a rich Middle East guy, I think.
I have never seen any pictures of the destroyed shuttle itself. In the photographs I've seen, the only distinguishable objects are the strap ons and the core stage. Which begs the question...what was the Buran doing strapped to an Energia 8 years after it's cancellation? Not to be a conspiracy hound but didn't the Chinese begin talking about building a shuttle of their own some time after Buran's destruction? The Russians sold the Chinese a Soyuz vehicle, not hard to imagine them selling a shuttle as well.
Jester - 31/8/2006 4:48 PM
Trust me, i've worked for a month in the building (MIK112) and its there, in pieces, some of the pieces are in the local museum, and they are still cleaning up, I'll be going there again so I'll update, so sorry about that, but no conspiracy with sales to China ;)
SimonShuttle - 1/9/2006 1:49 PMQuoteJester - 31/8/2006 4:48 PM
Trust me, i've worked for a month in the building (MIK112) and its there, in pieces, some of the pieces are in the local museum, and they are still cleaning up, I'll be going there again so I'll update, so sorry about that, but no conspiracy with sales to China ;)
There's still some peices scattered in the building? :o
anik - 2/9/2006 7:48 AM
Below is image of external airlock and docking system of Buran spacecraft inside one of buildings at technical zone of the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre (GCTC)... I do not know whether it is real equipment for spaceflight or simply mock-up for trainings... It is in one room with ISS Russian segment simulator, but it is latent from extraneous people... Also the full-size cabin of Buran for trainings and the dynamic stand there... This equipment is in an awful condition there... Sadly... :(
MKremer - 4/9/2006 1:48 AM
I doubt the Russian gov't will either have, or be willing, to spend the money to preserve/restore any of the Buran hardware. It would come down to having some space-enthusiast, philanthropic donar(s) to set up some type of organization and funding to do that.
SimonShuttle - 4/9/2006 1:18 PMQuoteMKremer - 4/9/2006 1:48 AM
I doubt the Russian gov't will either have, or be willing, to spend the money to preserve/restore any of the Buran hardware. It would come down to having some space-enthusiast, philanthropic donar(s) to set up some type of organization and funding to do that.
It's got nothing to do with Russia. They are owned by Kazahstan.
oscar71 - 28/9/2006 3:14 AM
I read that the later models of Buran would have ejection seats for the 4 primary crew members. I assume that the cosmonauts would be seated on the flight deck, but I have never been able to find a diagram showing how the seats would be arranged. I assume that ejection seats cannot be stowed away, therefore would there have been enough space on the flight deck for them to carry out operations the way NASA astronauts have been able to?
SRBseparama - 5/10/2006 7:25 AM
How many operating shuttles did the Soviet Union plan to have in service?
Mr Verkhoturov - 14/4/2006 6:56 AM
Good day.
A list. First test articles.
OK-TVA
OK-GLI
OK-ML-1
OK-ML-2
OK-KS
OK-TVI
OK-005
OK-008
Vehicles.
1.01 - Buran
1.02 - Ptichka
2.01 - Second series 1
2.02 - Second series 2
2.03 - Second series 3
Thank you for remembering.
anik - 11/4/2006 7:12 PMQuoteSatori - 11/4/2006 1:12 AM
the second Buran is stored together with the Energia-M rocket inside the Vibration Test Building at site 112A
No... Only a breadboard of Energiya-M rocket is stored inside the Vibration Test Building (correctly - the Stand of Dynamic Tests [SDI]) at site 112A...
buran.fr - 12/10/2006 9:49 AM
Hello everybody,
I'm making a site on Buran and Energia. The major part of the information came from buran.ru (of course) but from other sites too.
I give you the URL (http://en.buran.fr) for those of you who don't understand russian. At the begining I translated all the informations of the Vadim's site in french (and now in english), but I will add new informations as soon as they appears.
Tell me what you think about it.
Thank you.
buran.fr - 12/10/2006 3:49 PM
Hello everybody,
I'm making a site on Buran and Energia. The major part of the information came from buran.ru (of course) but from other sites too.
I give you the URL (http://en.buran.fr) for those of you who don't understand russian. At the begining I translated all the informations of the Vadim's site in french (and now in english), but I will add new informations as soon as they appears.
Tell me what you think about it.
Thank you.
Satori - 15/10/2006 10:29 PM
I don't know if this was asked here before but can anyone tell me what was made of the debris that resulted from the MIK-112 colapse (roof, Buran and Energiya rockets)? When I was at Baykonur I don't remember seing any debris outside the building. Any help?
Satori - 15/10/2006 4:29 PM
I don't know if this was asked here before but can anyone tell me what was made of the debris that resulted from the MIK-112 colapse (roof, Buran and Energiya rockets)? When I was at Baykonur I don't remember seing any debris outside the building. Any help?
Satori - 15/10/2006 11:29 PM
I don't know if this was asked here before but can anyone tell me what was made of the debris that resulted from the MIK-112 colapse (roof, Buran and Energiya rockets)? When I was at Baykonur I don't remember seing any debris outside the building. Any help?
buran.fr - 17/10/2006 3:08 AMQuoteSatori - 15/10/2006 11:29 PM
I don't know if this was asked here before but can anyone tell me what was made of the debris that resulted from the MIK-112 colapse (roof, Buran and Energiya rockets)? When I was at Baykonur I don't remember seing any debris outside the building. Any help?
As we can see here: http://maps.google.com/?q=Russia&ie=UTF8&om=0&z=17&ll=45.927722,63.... they didn't clean up the building. I don't know when the picture was taken.
Their is no informations available about the debris, what did they do ?, did they trash them, did they sort them,....
buran.fr - 17/10/2006 4:23 AM
It's hard to say. If you look outside the building you see the 2 transportation systems wich was used to move energia to the launch pad. I used it as a scale and I think this cone is not the cone of a booster, it is too big. May be I was the nose cone of another Energia beeing built.
If we look closer we can't see any details of the dead Buran as we can see on the pictures here : http://en.buran.fr/bourane/bourane-fin.php
Satori - 17/10/2006 11:38 AM[/QUOTE]Quote
If we look closer we can't see any details of the dead Buran as we can see on the pictures here : http://en.buran.fr/bourane/bourane-fin.php
Hummm, I think this images aren't from Baykonur. I don't remember seing any trees near MIK-112. I think that if this was at Baykonur they would show us the same way they show us the OK-M. Maybe they are from the NPO Molniya facilities?
Sphereion - 24/10/2006 4:31 PM
Well once Challenger happened, the Soviets would have had no political will, correct?
Jorge - 24/10/2006 8:23 PMQuoteSphereion - 24/10/2006 4:31 PM
Well once Challenger happened, the Soviets would have had no political will, correct?
Huh? Challenger was almost three years before the first Buran flight - if it was going to affect their political will, why would it have affected the second flight and not the first?
--
JRF
SRBseparama - 24/10/2006 10:06 PMQuoteJorge - 24/10/2006 8:23 PMQuoteSphereion - 24/10/2006 4:31 PM
Well once Challenger happened, the Soviets would have had no political will, correct?
Huh? Challenger was almost three years before the first Buran flight - if it was going to affect their political will, why would it have affected the second flight and not the first?
--
JRF
Yeah. That's what I thought. Did the USAF pull out of the Shuttle program immediately after Challenger, or a few years later, which would help explain the lack of will for the Soviets to continue.
SRBseparama - 25/10/2006 5:06 AM
Yeah. That's what I thought. Did the USAF pull out of the Shuttle program immediately after Challenger, or a few years later, which would help explain the lack of will for the Soviets to continue.
dwmzmm - 25/10/2006 12:49 AMQuoteSRBseparama - 24/10/2006 10:06 PMQuoteJorge - 24/10/2006 8:23 PMQuoteSphereion - 24/10/2006 4:31 PM
Well once Challenger happened, the Soviets would have had no political will, correct?
Huh? Challenger was almost three years before the first Buran flight - if it was going to affect their political will, why would it have affected the second flight and not the first?
--
JRF
Yeah. That's what I thought. Did the USAF pull out of the Shuttle program immediately after Challenger, or a few years later, which would help explain the lack of will for the Soviets to continue.
Great question. Vandenburg AFB in California was supposed to be the western launch facility for the manned military Shuttle missions (polar orbits), but after the Challenger disaster all construction at that facility was halted.
publiusr - 3/11/2006 12:06 PM
More on Buran, alternate vehicles, including the top mount craft for VULKAN/Energiya:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm ***Updated!
http://www.buran.ru/htm/38-3.htm#vulkan
http://www.buran.ru/htm/vulkan.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/str124.htm
Energiya
http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm
Spiral
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral_5.htm
Buran--the line up (scroll to the bottom)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/ok-92.htm
N-1
http://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2019.htm
In trying to know the fate of the Buran shuttle after the colapse of the MIK roof, I've tried through several sources to know what happen to the wreckage. One of my sources recently sent me the following email:
"The decision on recycling a Soviet Buran space shuttle is accepted, which first and last time flied to space. Therefore we have not received the sanction to his survey in the future."
Does this makes any sense?
Satori - 18/11/2006 8:28 AMIn trying to know the fate of the Buran shuttle after the colapse of the MIK roof, I've tried through several sources to know what happen to the wreckage. One of my sources recently sent me the following email:
"The decision on recycling a Soviet Buran space shuttle is accepted, which first and last time flied to space. Therefore we have not received the sanction to his survey in the future."Does this makes any sense?
Satori - 18/11/2006 3:28 PMIn trying to know the fate of the Buran shuttle after the colapse of the MIK roof, I've tried through several sources to know what happen to the wreckage. One of my sources recently sent me the following email:
"The decision on recycling a Soviet Buran space shuttle is accepted, which first and last time flied to space. Therefore we have not received the sanction to his survey in the future."Does this makes any sense?
dwmzmm - 18/11/2006 12:09 PM
One of my model rocketeer friend who visited Russia for the World Spacemodeling Championship toured the Russian
launch/assembly facilities just a couple of months ago and told me that the hardwares where that building roof collasped is pretty much left as is when/where it happened. The Buran/Russian Space Shuttle flew just once, and
has made its last flight on that one (and only) flight. There simply isn't the funds to fly this hardware anymore (for now). It's doubtful that the Russian Space Agency or other organizations within Russia would have the resources to
restore the Russian Shuttles to a flight ready status in the future (it's a shame; I'd for one would like to see them
operational!!).
Satori - 18/11/2006 3:16 PM
I don't believe that the remains of Buran are inside the MIK. If you look at the Google Earth pictures you don't see any pieces inside. Also, when I was at Baykonur last March they didn't told me that the Buran was still inside. If fact they didn't told me where it was...
Luca - 24/11/2006 6:50 PM
Finally, the sell of the orbiters to Kazachstan sounds like a terrible joke. Can't you hear Borat saying "hey you people that's Pitchka, my own space plane. It's nice... I like!" Aaaahhhhh!!!!
lmike - 25/11/2006 12:48 PM
Sorry, Buran/Shmuran, the project was a disaster. Let's bury it in peace. It was a response and a reaction to the US shuttle STS, the Russians had much more capable projects underneath (MAKs) , this hog of a resources was a predicament... And many "insiders" voiced their opinions against this project.
dwmzmm - 25/11/2006 9:28 PM
Seems to me that the Buran could have been leased/purchased by NASA to be used in some capacity; didn't they reach an agreement for NASA to purchase the TU-144LL supersonic aircraft for flight testing just a few years ago? Last I heard was this TU-144LL was in storage somewhere in the USA...
lmike - 26/11/2006 3:37 AM
Don't get me wrong, its very interesting to look at it in retrospect and I indeed appreciate your efforts to translate a lot of info from that excellent site (automatic translators are not very reliable;) ) which I visit regularly.
otisbow - 26/11/2006 4:02 PM
I have a 15 min. Beta tape of live coverage of the Buran flight. This recording shows the first film of the launch as shown on Soviet TV. A reporter interviews people in mission control and there is live pictures of the Earth on the screen in the background from Buran. It is recorded on NTAS. I would like to show this tape to you-all, but done know how to put it on this thread.
buran.fr - 6/12/2006 2:33 AM
I've update my website to put articles on Vulkan and Energia M launchers wich are part of the Energia familly. But there is not many informations about them because Vulkan stayed on the blueprints and only a mock-up of Energia M was built.
http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/famille-desc.php
dwmzmm - 8/12/2006 4:32 AM
Has the Vulkan been flown at all? Looks like a really cool launch vehicle!
publiusr - 22/12/2006 4:16 PM
Glushko might actually have done more for Soviet space without Korolov.
.
buran.fr - 22/12/2006 3:23 AM
Here is the Buran's landing strip and it is concrete:
http://maps.google.com/?q=Russia&ie=UTF8&om=0&z=15&ll=46.054828,63.258548&spn=0.021324,0.040255&t=k
The landing strip was polished with diamands to minimize the Z delta.
buran.fr - 22/12/2006 4:58 PM
This landing strip was used for Buran and when Mriya (an-225) had to carry something. It is still used today for important payload, but not as often as the usual Leninsk airport.
publiusr - 5/1/2007 2:55 PM
How much support is there for Angara 100 or an Energiya renewal? I'd love to see it--Energiya M as an Ariane 5 replacement if nothing else.
publiusr - 5/1/2007 8:55 PM
How much support is there for Angara 100 or an Energiya renewal? I'd love to see it--Energiya M as an Ariane 5 replacement if nothing else.
Jim - 5/1/2007 9:01 PM
Energia M was a kludge, using parts not meant to go together.
Vostok7 - 16/1/2007 12:07 AM
Buran. Ok.
By the way, look at this http://www.spacevideo.ru/films/2/f2_4_en.htm Both of them are in Russian but they are not bad (aspecially the 2nd), a lot of interesting frames.
stefan1138 - 20/1/2007 3:16 PM
Ok, thank you very much, Your site is really great - the best photos of Buran in the internet.
stefan1138 - 20/1/2007 3:16 PM
Do you know if it is still planned to be brought to the Technik museum'?
Stefan :)
stefan1138 - 22/1/2007 7:38 AM
I just want to let you know that I received an e-mail from the Technik Museaum today.
They wrote that they are still working on the legal problems but they hope to be able to move OK-GLI from Bahrain to Sinsheim in the spring or summer of this year.
It would be nice to see it in the museum this summer!
Stefan :)
Sunhillow - 27/1/2007 11:03 AM
Vassili, your site has become the most valuable place to get information about soviet space technology. Much better than Babelfish translations of russian sites :)
Thank you very much for this!
Jamie Young - 30/1/2007 12:05 AM
I'm glad these vehicles are not forgotten. Very important.
Thomas ESA - 3/2/2007 5:57 PM
Both those images are of Buran, not Dreamchaser?
publiusr - 3/2/2007 10:44 PM
They would look similar--my bad.
buran.fr - 3/2/2007 10:50 PMQuotepubliusr - 3/2/2007 10:44 PM
They would look similar--my bad.
At least Dream Chaser look like a BOR lifting body, not Buran.
publiusr - 7/2/2007 10:15 PM
It will be side launched--the Dream chaser. The first Dream Chaser iteration looked rather like Buran--or X-34 rather.
publiusr - 10/2/2007 1:32 PM
I really don't like that ugly lifting body.
publiusr - 7/2/2007 4:19 PM
I think they put the tail on the nose at one point in time. I would suggest the book SPACEFLIGHT IN THE ERA OF AEROSPACEPLANES by Russ. Hannigan.
buran.fr - 27/2/2007 7:30 AM
Not at all. The main differences are in the automatisation flight and the security procedure of Buran which are not appliable to the Shuttle. Because the shuttle must be piloted by men, and about the security, because the shuttle can't fly by itself. Moreover, their is a political dimension which is that taking ideas from Buran-Energia would lead NASA to tell that they have made mistakes on some points (which is hard to accept, even if the cold war is ended).
Jim - 27/2/2007 7:54 PM
Not quite so. The shuttle could have flown unmanned if needed. The Buran couldn't have flown manned on the first flight since the crew displays and life support systems were installed
Also the Buran wasn't perfect either. According to some reports, it was too badly damaged to fly again
Jim - 28/2/2007 7:00 AM
NASA was looking at flying the shuttle unmanned (computer controlled) for the first flight. Since NASA decided not to fly it unmanned, they stopped the few mods to enable it.
What do you mean more "secure vessel". If you mean safer, then I would have to disagree and there is no way to prove it
buran.fr - 28/2/2007 2:25 AM
Yes I meant safer, (english is not my native tongue, so some times I switch words).
As it is written upper it is difficult to compare those 2 orbiters because Buran flow just one time, so we can only speak about the specifications for things which had not been implemented / tested in the first flight.
But about the safety you have to admit that the US shuttle has no such procedure to avoid the lost of the crew than Buran had:
http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-secu-traject.php
Jim - 28/2/2007 2:55 PM
Now that is totally wrong
The Shuttle has had those same "procedures" since the first flight. The shuttle calls them "Abort trajectories". The aborts cover the different times in the flight.
The main ones are:
1. RTLS- Return To Launch Site.
2. TAL - Trans oceanic Abort Landing
3. AOA - Abort Once Around
4. ATO - Abort to Orbit
It looks like Buran copied them exactly.
Also The Columbia had ejection seats for the first 4 flights
Carl G - 28/2/2007 6:34 AM
Hang on, so Baikonur has a museum, but there's no Buran's inside?
Rob in KC - 19/2/2007 8:40 PMQuotepubliusr - 10/2/2007 1:32 PM
I really don't like that ugly lifting body.
Not as ugly as a capsule.
Paul Adams - 26/2/2007 3:37 PMQuotepubliusr - 7/2/2007 4:19 PM
I think they put the tail on the nose at one point in time. I would suggest the book SPACEFLIGHT IN THE ERA OF AEROSPACEPLANES by Russ. Hannigan.
Any idea where I can get that book from?
Thanks
Paul
buran.fr - 2/3/2007 9:59 PM
Here is the explication of the move:
Numerous projects were studied to use this mock-up and emphasize the heritage which it represents, but all failed because they required too important investments. In the second half of January the authorities, under the management of the first assistant Tomchuka V. R. of Baikonur, finally decided to move the mock-up towards the Bailonur’s museum because it is the cheapest solution. The outside of the shuttle will be restored, a cabin with cosmonauts’ seats will be installed there and a showroom will be fitted out in the payload bay. It is a second life for this shuttle which takes place at the time of the twentieth anniversary of the Energia’s launch (in May 17th, 1987).
stefan1138 - 2/3/2007 2:17 PM
Sorry, bit off topic, but is Baikonur open for visiting tourists a la KSC (though probably on a much smaller scale)?
Stefan :)
Satori - 6/3/2007 2:30 AMQuotestefan1138 - 2/3/2007 2:17 PM
Sorry, bit off topic, but is Baikonur open for visiting tourists a la KSC (though probably on a much smaller scale)?
Stefan :)
Yes it is, if you want to pay for the tour! I have been there in March 2006 for the launch of Soyuz TMA-8. It's a tour that I'm planning to do again next year!
Chris Bergin - 6/3/2007 10:05 AMQuoteSatori - 6/3/2007 2:30 AMQuotestefan1138 - 2/3/2007 2:17 PM
Sorry, bit off topic, but is Baikonur open for visiting tourists a la KSC (though probably on a much smaller scale)?
Stefan :)
Yes it is, if you want to pay for the tour! I have been there in March 2006 for the launch of Soyuz TMA-8. It's a tour that I'm planning to do again next year!
How much is the tour....I'm assuming everything is pretty cheap in that country. Wouldn't know where to start to get a flight to Baikonur though.
dwmzmm - 11/3/2007 10:25 PM
Ok, got permission from the video's owner, James Duffy, to post the links to the video. Here's one:
http://www.rocket.aero/baikonur.html
Here's an alternate "director's commentary" video:
http://rocket.aero/baikonur.html
Be sure to view the video from start to finish. Hope you'll enjoy it!
Satori - 6/3/2007 5:36 PM
At this time I'm preparing my second visit to Baykonur (maybe next year). Anyone wants to come???
E_ E_ H - 15/3/2007 2:08 PM
Is it remotely possible that Khazakstan would want to sell the two remaining orbiters back to Russia. They are getting richer by the minute at the moment... Also, could the programme be reactivated if someone had a mind to do it?
jduffy - 15/3/2007 2:49 PM
All,
I've posted a series of Buran walkaround photos at:
http://web.mac.com/jduffy/iWeb/Site/Buran%20Test%20Article.html
Enjoy!
James
___________________
James Duffy
[email protected]
www.rocket.aero
jduffy - 15/3/2007 2:49 PM
All,
I've posted a series of Buran walkaround photos at:
http://web.mac.com/jduffy/iWeb/Site/Buran%20Test%20Article.html
Enjoy!
James
___________________
James Duffy
[email protected]
www.rocket.aero
jduffy - 15/3/2007 2:49 PM
All,
I've posted a series of Buran walkaround photos at:
http://web.mac.com/jduffy/iWeb/Site/Buran%20Test%20Article.html
Enjoy!
James
___________________
James Duffy
[email protected]
www.rocket.aero
Andy L - 31/3/2007 8:28 PM
There seems to be an upturn in saving the Burans. Any reason for this?
buran.fr - 10/4/2007 4:33 AM
So to answer the question we was asking ourselves few pages ago, they didn't clean it up.
buran.fr - 18/4/2007 1:02 PM
Great !!, But the cockpit is awfull, it's like bad 80's SF. They made it fast.
anik - 18/4/2007 12:56 PM
New photos of the mock-up 4MT (OK-ML1) of Buran spacecraft, which near Baikonur museum on area 2, were published on Novosti kosmonavtiki forum (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=204612#204612) today...
[img=http://o.foto.radikal.ru/0704/b1/1223c160bdb9.jpg]
[img=http://u.foto.radikal.ru/0704/3b/c2790c1c847f.jpg]
[img=http://s.foto.radikal.ru/0704/56/9c2efa216ac3.jpg]
wannamoonbase - 21/4/2007 5:05 PM
Wasn't there a problem with the on orbit control or reentry and didn't they almost loose it on re-entry (recalling a story from long ago.)
Was there a deorbit burn or was the orbit such that it re-entered regardless?
wannamoonbase - 21/4/2007 7:05 PM
Was there a deorbit burn or was the orbit such that it re-entered regardless?
buran.fr - 21/4/2007 11:11 AM
Here is the story of the space flight.
The shuttle made 2 revolutions at 250-260 km so there was a deorbit burn.
dwmzmm - 21/4/2007 5:43 PM
1. It's a shame Buran wasn't made operational.
2. I thought at the time of its' first unmanned flight, with the
superb approach and landing in a strong crosswind, that this was a remarkable achievement (and still feel
this way today).
3. And, Energia would make an excellent booster for lofting some of the larger components
of the ISS,
4. among other possible missions.
Jim - 22/4/2007 1:39 AM
1. It wasn't worth the cost
2. No, different than the shuttle
3. Not so all components were sized for the shuttle, would have been inefficient.
4. There was no real use for it, hence the reason for it's non existence
buran.fr - 22/4/2007 4:08 AM
2. Big difference with the shuttle: this last is not 100% unmanned, it still need human to land and operate in space.
Jim - 22/4/2007 1:48 PMQuoteburan.fr - 22/4/2007 4:08 AM
2. Big difference with the shuttle: this last is not 100% unmanned, it still need human to land and operate in space.
Yes, it was a big difference. The shuttle was advanced enough on its first flight that men could fly on it. Buran could not.
For the shuttle, it was a choice not to automate a flight, there was nothing technical preventing a unmanned flight. The fact that Buran did it, doesn't mean it was more "advanced" than the shuttle
Operate in space is a relative term. Buran just "past" through space on its short flight. It didn't accomplish any other tasks.
dwmzmm - 22/4/2007 9:35 PM
My question to anik and buran.fr is: If the Soviets, instead of spending considerable time, resources and money on the Buran/Shuttle program, had
they instead focused on the Energia and mission to Mars, would they have been able to succeed?
dwmzmm - 22/4/2007 10:35 PM
In this profile, the Engeria would have to be launched (within very short
order) four times to boost the primary components for the manned mission to Mars in Earth orbit. Given that the Soviets/Russians have considerable
experience in readying and launching their launch vehicles quickly after they're placed on the pads
.......
I remember thinking to myself "Gosh, the Soviets might already have all the foundations in place to pull this off..."
02hurnella - 11/4/2007 10:08 AM
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur90.jpg
This is the best image of the Buran shuttle itself that Ive seen
zambot - 10/5/2007 12:45 AM
Dear all,
this is my first post to the forum. I just got back from baikonur for some work and took many pictures of the place.
I put some of them related to Buran mock-up 4MT (OK-ML1) which is now close to the museum.
http://www.casolino.it/photos/baikonur_photos/buran2007/buran2007.html
As you might know, it has been restored and it is possible to visit it from the inside.
They moved part of the buran-related exhibits from the building of the museum to the cargo bay of Buran. As you can see in the pictures the cockpit has been completed adding some meaningless items, such as voltmeter, oscilloscopes and so on. Some look original though.
I'm very glad they saved this magnificent model, some older (2005) pictures are here:
http://www.casolino.it/photos/baikonur_photos/buran/buran.html
I apologize since the site is very crude
thanks for the many info,
Marco
Edit: This post was in its own thread, and a moderator (wisely) merged it with this one.
I was looking over the thread for the recent Proton launch, and someone had posted pictures from the Buran.ru website.
Snooping around, I found that their image directory was available for browsing. In searching for current pictures, I searched the pages for "09-Jul-2007" and found some really neat images of the Buran orbiter:
Orbiter on carrier aircraft .
Another shot of orbiter on carrier aircraft
And another...
And another...
And some technical drawings of the Buran TPS (warning: these are large!):
ras-cb-0.jpg
ras-cb-2.jpg
ras-cb-3.jpg
ras-niz0.jpg
ras-sp-0.jpg
ras-sp-1.jpg
ras-zd-0.jpg
Edit: It looks like a lot of this is in support of this article .
On a more disturbing note, there are some animated GIFs of what appear to be Buran dispensing some Spiral-looking lifting body nuclear weapon re-entry vehicles over the continental United States:
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/shiza_2.gif
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/shiza_3.gif
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/shiza_5.gif << Was there a cargo variant of Buran ("Buran-C") ?
These were obviously created more recently, maybe to illustrate some concept for using Buran as a bombardment platform.
Their images are split into JPEG and GIF subdirectories. The parent for these is here:
if you'd like to browse for yourself.
MondoMor - 9/7/2007 12:00 AM
These were obviously created more recently, maybe to illustrate some concept for using Buran as a bombardment platform.
Jester - 11/7/2007 9:54 AM
and glad to see she looks much better now then back in 2005....
Jester - 11/7/2007 11:21 AM
could somebody confirm if OK 1.02 is still in the MIK building (not 112) or has it been moved?
Space101 - 12/7/2007 12:43 AMTheir gov't already has a huge list of more pressing priorities taking longer than 20 years to accomplish - much more important than restoring old space hardware.
Kazakhstan = lots of oil. Should be able to gold plate the Burans in 20 years time!
buran.fr - 11/7/2007 10:00 AMQuoteJester - 11/7/2007 9:54 AM
and glad to see she looks much better now then back in 2005....
This picture is OK-M, not OK-1.02.
Look here.
anik - 11/7/2007 6:33 PMQuoteJester - 11/7/2007 11:21 AM
could somebody confirm if OK 1.02 is still in the MIK building (not 112) or has it been moved?
As far as I know, orbital spacecraft 2K and full-size mock-up 7M are still stored inside the Assembly-Refueling Building (MZK) No. 80 on site 112A... Their future depends on Kazakhstan, which they belong to...
publish - 13/7/2007 2:42 PM
There was a proposed follow on to the Energiya called "Angara 100" a perfect use for the oil money coming in now. I have always been impressed with Soviet launch vehicles. The chief designers there had no fear of size.
@RD170@ - 12/7/2007 7:16 PM
I´ll read you all with my best pleasure.
pippin - 13/7/2007 11:48 AM
And in the end it's all politics.
Wasn't the Problem of Eneriga (at least the small version) that parts of it are built in Ukraine?
Let's guess how Ariane would look like if all of its parts would have to be from France or from Germany alone...
Or even Atlas....
George CA - 20/7/2007 3:16 PM
Are some of you still planning to go visit the Buran?
stefan1138 - 31/7/2007 12:41 AM
Is there any chance to see Buran 1.02 in the hangar? Strangely there seem to be no recent photos of her.
stefan1138 - 13/8/2007 7:09 PM
BTW do you know where Orbiter 2.01 is? It was supposed to come to Germany also, but there have been no news since 3 years. As per your site it was moved in October 2004, but where did it go?
Thanks as always! Stefan :)
stefan1138 - 13/8/2007 7:29 PM
P.S. sorry for callin her an it... Will not happen again!
spaceamillion - 31/8/2007 12:01 AM
Just for info, a new book by Bart Hendrickx and Bert Vis is published:
http://www.springer.com/west/home/new+&+forthcoming+titles+(default)?SGWID=4-40356-22-173740647-0
It is the best English language book on the subject and covers the history, systems, and other variants of the Soviet/Russian shuttle programme.
publiusr - 10/8/2007 7:21 PM
O/T--but I hear that the second AN-225 has been purchased and is being assembled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225
j2_ - 31/8/2007 10:08 PM
Found these Buran pics on englishrussia.com today, apologies if they've already been posted...
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1362
buran.fr - 31/8/2007 5:09 PMQuotespaceamillion - 31/8/2007 12:01 AM
Just for info, a new book by Bart Hendrickx and Bert Vis is published:
http://www.springer.com/west/home/new+&+forthcoming+titles+(default)?SGWID=4-40356-22-173740647-0
It is the best English language book on the subject and covers the history, systems, and other variants of the Soviet/Russian shuttle programme.
The problem is that it's quite expensive (80$ if I remember).
The writers contacted different people who worked on the project, unfortunately there is nothing new about Buran Energia in this book. But there is very few books in english on this subject so it could be interesting for people passionated by Soviet space history.
hyper_snyper - 8/9/2007 9:01 PM
You know looking at Buran/Energia... all liquid all the way uphill. It kind of bothers me that the US doesn't have a high performance Kero engine anymore.
Bart Hendrickx - 12/9/2007 8:44 AM
The main reason we decided to write this book was that nothing substantial has appeared in English on Buran in the past twenty years or so. The Western aerospace press had pretty good contemporary coverage of the program during its heyday in the late 1980s, but virtually ignored it later on, exactly when the Russians began releasing the most interesting information.
j2_ - 31/8/2007 4:08 PM
Found these Buran pics on englishrussia.com today, apologies if they've already been posted...
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1362
Maverick - 15/1/2008 4:02 PM
Did the trip happen? Would have loved to go, but don't have a spare 5,000 bucks.
andrea - 20/1/2008 2:46 PM
We suppose, but we have no sure proof, that the Zenit thrusters, falling on the ground from 50 km height, probably were destroyed during the reentry with an explosive charge, in order to avoid excessive damages to the population,
andrea - 20/1/2008 5:27 PM
The reason is that, as we have almost finished a long work to render a sientifically accurate full Apollo 11 mission using Celestia, we wish to make the same with the Buran orbital flight, and to do this we need SURE data, not only assumptions, even if plausible like your one or mine.
Coolhand77 - 20/1/2008 3:45 PMOh, yes, thank you, but obviously we well know that the chutes open only when all the three landing gear oleos are compressed, i.e. when they all have touched the ground. ;)
FYI, the chutes opened between main gear and nose gear touchdown, not in flight.
Jim - 20/1/2008 2:23 PMJim, I understand you, but as you say "there is no data on it because it doesn't exist", OK, then what happened?Quoteandrea - 20/1/2008 5:27 PMI still don't understand. There is no basis for an assumption that the boosters carried explosive charges. Russian boosters don't carry charges so why would someone think it.
The reason is that, as we have almost finished a long work to render a sientifically accurate full Apollo 11 mission using Celestia, we wish to make the same with the Buran orbital flight, and to do this we need SURE data, not only assumptions, even if plausible like your one or mine.
Logic says there is no data on it because it doesn't exist
Jim - 21/1/2008 3:38 AMThank you Jim.
Russian range safety procedures are to just shutdown the engines. In many, if not all, launch vehicles are unstable without active control and will tumble after the engines are shutdown. The tumbling will sometimes cause the vehicle and burned outs stage to breakup due to aeroloads.
Hoonte - 23/1/2008 4:48 PM
I noticed that the buran main engines are 'unlike the space shuttle' located on the ET and are not reuseable. I was wondering if this is more cost efficient the the reusable once on the sts which I guess must be more complicated.
andrea - 20/1/2008 1:46 PM
At the moment we feel we reached a sufficiently good level of realty, but we are missing one important detail: we know where the four Zenit and the single Energia thrusters fell, but we are missing the information on how it happened exactly.
We suppose, but we have no sure proof, that the Zenit thrusters, falling on the ground from 50 km height, probably were destroyed during the reentry with an explosive charge, in order to avoid excessive damages to the population, while the Energia probably was destroyed by the atmospheric friction during its reentry to Pacific Ocean, from 115 km height.
But this is only a conjecture, whose we are not sure at all. :frown:
Someone has a link to documents that could confirm or negate this thought, please?
Thanks a lot for your help, bye
Andrea :)
andrea - 25/1/2008 6:43 PM
And moreover it's very interesting to read that the stage 2, Energia, didn't break apart and came down in the Pacific still as a single piece.
Very nice, thanks a lot, appreciated.
Bye
Andrea :)
Bart Hendrickx - 26/1/2008 3:07 AMWe understand. But we must think, missing ANY other information, that this was applied to the orbital flight too, IMHO.
Do note that the only source for this information is the former engineer from the NPO Energiya Volga Branch, there is no independent confirmation of this. Also, he was referring specifically to the core stage used for the first Energiya launch on 15 May 1987, not to the one used for the Buran launch on 15 November 1988.
Nice job on the illustrations. One of them does show all four strap-on boosters peeling away from the core stage separately. In reality, the strap-ons separated in pairs and it was not until 15 to 25 seconds later that both pairs in turn split into two boosters. This was done to reduce the chance of any of the boosters hitting the core stage or Buran after separation.
Just as an aside, it's not quite accurate to refer to the strap-ons as "Zenits". The Zenit does have a first stage that is about 70 % identical to the Energiya strap-on boosters, but also has a second stage (and even a third stage for the Sea Launch version) that makes it a rocket in its own right.Good to know, thank you.
buran.fr - 26/1/2008 4:15 AMThank you.
Yes the first stage is the A block.
imfan - 26/1/2008 5:57 AMThank you imfan, I'll give a look. ;)
I would suggest downloading excellent add-on for orbiter simulator by Yuri Kulchitsky ( http://kulch.spb.ru ).
stefan1138 - 11/3/2008 12:26 AM
Wish you guys a nice trip and looking forward to see all those nice reports and photos!
Regards Stefan
Archibald - 30/3/2008 1:21 PM
Ok, here's a (probably) dumb question... would it be possible to mount a Buran on top of a Saturn INT-21 and launch it to LEO this way ?
Patchouli - 30/3/2008 2:57 PM
Well you could just have Buran's APU's fully active during ascent and use the control surfaces to reduce the lift force as this is what STS does.
But an extinct technology unlike an extinct animal can be recreated so long as the blue prints still exist or an example of it exists to be reverse engineered.
Instead of the INT-21 today we'd use the Jupiter 232 a vehicle with similar performance but much lower costs.
Patchouli - 30/3/2008 3:57 PM
Well you could just have Buran's APU's fully active during ascent and use the control surfaces to reduce the lift force as this is what STS does.
.
eeergo - 3/4/2008 3:16 PMAnalog to flight hardware, i.e. mock-up or test article.
Sorry, I haven't found what the Analog is... not a Russian Shuttle name that I'm aware of, or is it?
hop - 3/4/2008 6:28 PMQuoteeeergo - 3/4/2008 3:16 PMAnalog to flight hardware, i.e. mock-up or test article.
Sorry, I haven't found what the Analog is... not a Russian Shuttle name that I'm aware of, or is it?
Chris, will you be doing a trailer for the Buran videos you have on L2 (I see it in the ticker)?
(snip) It's not Buran that failed, it's communism that did!There are plenty of universities in the US where that might not be accepted as true :D
I have every reason to believe that during their development and operation these two vehicles have seen the best engineers and scientists in the world working on them on both sides of the fence (snip)Agreed, and congratulations to all those who worked on both systems for getting them to function as well as they did given the resources each were given and the demands made. These vehicles have both had to fly in an unimaginably difficult combination of aerodynamic and thermal conditions; for both vehicles to do it successfully on their first flights is quite an achievement.
(snip) the Russian team might have had an advantage in knowledge due to the fact that they could learn from their colleagues.Might? oh, come-on now... the Buran crew hatch is even on the same side of the fuselage! :D The reluctance of some to admit how much of the Buran was influenced by the US design is sort of amusing and has always generated a few laughs over here; I presume it's wrapped-up in national pride on the Russian side, but I suspect the Buran would have been more-respected by people on this side of the ocean if the influence had been openly admitted rather than denied back when it flew. The US program was operated publicly, so it was not exactly unexpected that others would see it as an example (both for good and ill) The reluctance to admit the level of influence makes about as much sense as it would for the US to not admit it was influenced by German rocket builders. :)
So please keep this discussion respectful and don't blame failures of politicians on the people working on great projects.I think we can all respect the work that went into Buran, w/o regard to the influence of the US program (which we can all be free to agree/disagree about). I, for one, wish they had made a minimum of one more flight of the same vehicle so we would know if was indeed re-usable. A manned flight would have been nice, so the vehicle could have been moved from the "robotic vehicle" category to the "manned vehicle" category. It would have been a very neat thing had the US and Russia both been able to service ISS by orbiter; it might have even influenced the US to do a second-generation shuttle rather than killing the program, and might have driven the partners to build a larger ISS with greater crew capacity.
The Buran OK-GLI was transported in the exhibition hangar of the museum on Wednesday June 11
Nice pictures; is that a full scale model of the 747 in those last several pictures?It is/was a real 747 (D-ABYM 21588 "Schleswig-Holdstein")
There is a new model kit of this craft.
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=63060
Iam glad she's got a good final home.
Back in Sydney Australia in 2001 when I first saw her she kind of looked lonely. I was the only one there and I spent while over a hour looking her over specialy in the payload bay. Hope to see her again soon.
Wow...I'd love to see Buran in action, but this article is laughable:
Soviet Space Shuttle Could Bail Out NASA (http://www.russiatoday.com/scitech/news/33330?gclid=CIue08nOtJcCFQv7agodjkTJjw)
I found that link as an ad on the front page of the NSF.
"Because NASA will soon retire its ageing space shuttle fleet, some American and Russian scientists are beginning to think of ways to revive the Buran programme."
No actual details are provided about the claim that Russia would restart the Buran program, but it did inform me that one of the reasons for building Buran was to steal Skylab.
This article is good to began a good day, it's essential to laugh each day. :D
First of all Buran will never be funded again, otherwise why they were working on different versions of Klipper for all these years?
Secondly, I think they mistaken Skylab and SpaceLab ( which can fit into the payload bay).
I found that link as an ad on the front page of the NSF.
I found that link as an ad on the front page of the NSF.
You found it via some wacky google adsense link that's managed to find its way on. Nothing to do with the site other than poor selection by google's software. Will block it.
Secondly, I think they mistaken Skylab and SpaceLab ( which can fit into the payload bay).
Quote from: buran.frSecondly, I think they mistaken Skylab and SpaceLab ( which can fit into the payload bay).
Do you mean SpaceLab flown in the US shuttle's bay? No way they would be stealing that (tug-of-war in orbit?). Perhaps they were referring to plans to build a similar laboratory payload for Buran?
My thought was maybe they envisioned separating the telescope mount and/or the docking adapter. It still seems like a fantasy, however.
Yes, off course the spacelab was sealed inside the payload bay and could not be steal. But I was wondering how they think that Skylab (diameter of a Saturn V) could fit inside the payload bay? ???Not quite. Skylab was a converted S-IVB stage which had a diameter of 22 ft(6.6m), while the S-1C and S-II stages had a diameter of 33 ft(9.9m). Still too wide for the orbiter payload bay though, 15 ft(4.5m).
With any luck China might buy into a Buran like system.
Yes, off course the spacelab was sealed inside the payload bay and could not be steal. But I was wondering how they think that Skylab (diameter of a Saturn V) could fit inside the payload bay? ???Not quite. Skylab was a converted S-IVB stage which had a diameter of 22 ft(6.6m), while the S-1C and S-II stages had a diameter of 33 ft(9.9m). Still too wide for the orbiter payload bay though, 15 ft(4.5m).
They might have been thinking on just stealing parts of the station such as just the Apollo telescope mount the rest of Skylab would not be of much technical interest to them esp considering their DM stations though smaller were much more advanced.
China's GDP is about 4,222 billion USD or nearly 1/3 that of the US.With any luck China might buy into a Buran like system.
good, it can bankrupt them
They might have been thinking on just stealing parts of the station such as just the Apollo telescope mount the rest of Skylab would not be of much technical interest to them esp considering their DM stations though smaller were much more advanced.
1. That is a fabrication. Skylab was long gone before Buran was even a viable project *
2. Also the DM stations were not more advanced
* the fact that you believed this shows your clueless
With Miles O'Brien and his whole tech. staff now eliminated from CNN, I wonder how long before that network runs with this nonsense story?
Buran also dates back to 1976 and even NASA believed Skylab was going to still be in orbit by the 80s back then.
The projections for orbit decay that did not factor in the then not fully understood effects solar maximum on the upper atmosphere put it's orbital life span to somewhere around 1982 to 1984.
by 1976 NASA knew Skylab was coming down earlier.
With Miles O'Brien and his whole tech. staff now eliminated from CNN, I wonder how long before that network runs with this nonsense story?
Or to paraphrase, how many of these crappy stories can we expect to see in the future?... ???
Maybe we may see a spaceflight tabloid... A very scary thought... :(
Have I missed something along the way? As a space video junkie recording television coverage dating back to 1982, I don't recall ever seeing the complete launch of Buran; only a short clip at tower. You would think it would have been released after all these years (i.e. failed N1). Again, have I missed something?
by 1976 NASA knew Skylab was coming down earlier.
I recall they want to accelerate STS because of this... am I right?
Thanks for the info. It's been a while since ive seen the video. The short video makes sense now with the cloud deck. I'm sure its probably been mentioned somewhere in this long thread, but what was the rationale to launch a new vehicle at night into a cloud deck? What about high altitude imagery?
Thanks for the info. It's been a while since ive seen the video. The short video makes sense now with the cloud deck. I'm sure its probably been mentioned somewhere in this long thread, but what was the rationale to launch a new vehicle at night into a cloud deck? What about high altitude imagery?
A spaceflight tabloid would at least mean there was some public interest...
They did want to accelerate the STS production, but ran into too many
snags that kept pushing Columbia's maiden launch further.
Thanks for the info. It's been a while since ive seen the video. The short video makes sense now with the cloud deck. I'm sure its probably been mentioned somewhere in this long thread, but what was the rationale to launch a new vehicle at night into a cloud deck? What about high altitude imagery?
Engineers don't need visuals on their vehicle, they're too busy looking at the telemetry. Visuals are only a bonus for outsiders.
Engineers don't need visuals on their vehicle, they're too busy looking at the telemetry. Visuals are only a bonus for outsiders.
Like the photos in the Rogers Commission report showing the puffs of smoke and later the plume of flame coming from the breached field joint on the SRB? Those were of no value and were only a "bonus for outsiders"? Why were cameras placed inside propellant tanks of some of the early vehicles to watch how the contents behaved during flight? Why are there cameras on the Shuttle watching the vehicle during ascent and inside the umbilical well to photograph the ET after separation? The engineers surely don't need any of this, they just watch their telemetry. Sheesh. Sorry for OT.
Which *other* launch vehicle requires such close scrutiny during launch?
I had this news (http://www.buran-energia.com/blog/2008/12/13/moving-of-the-catapult/lang/en/) some days ago and I didn't put it here so I do now:
The catapult which was used to test the ejectables seats of Buran was moved some weeks ago from Zhukovski air base (near Moscow).
<yawn> Pardon me for sounding cynical, but a new book on Almaz? Riiiiight. Seriously, who buys that Russian rubbish? I'm SURE it'll be choc-full of color pics of these stations being prepared/launced and in orbit? I don't think...
<yawn> Pardon me for sounding cynical, but a new book on Almaz? Riiiiight. Seriously, who buys that Russian rubbish? I'm SURE it'll be choc-full of color pics of these stations being prepared/launced and in orbit? I don't think...
There is only ONE good book in the Soviet space program IMHO: Phil Clark's excellent "The Soviet Manned Space Program", now much in need of an update.
... I just finished one book on Soyuz ("Soyuz: A Universal Spacecraft" by Hall and Shayler) and another on Mir ("The Story of Space Station Mir" by Harland)They are both very interesting and well researched books, IMHO. I enjoyed them both.
1-I haven't actually bought "Challenge to Apollo', true. I wasn't expecting anything new! Perhaps you can correect me on this?
2-The aforementioned book on Energia/Buran makes compulsive reading, emphasis on the 'reading'. The pics aren't new - I've seen them all on the www.buran.ru site, and even more disappointingly, they're all b&w. I went so far as to teach myself enough Russian to read their publications, and have several - again, enough to convince me that they're not worth the money, so no more of this 'unfamiliar with the subject matter' chat...
2-I'm sorry, but your comments make it difficult to conclude that you are familiar with the literature. There has been a tremendous amount of new material on the Soviet space program that has been released, starting in the mid-1990s. You refuse to acknowledge that, or make odd comments that books are no good unless they're filled with pictures. A blanket statement that there's been no good info, followed by a comment that there's a lot of info, but it's on the web, and the pictures are black and white, is contradictory.
Very true; a case in point is the book "Apollo - The Behind-The-Scenes
Story of One of Humankind's Greatest Achievements" by Charles Murray &
Catherine Bly Cox. I ordered this book several years ago thinking it was
going to have a lot of pictures of the Saturn - V/Apollo spacecraft, etc.,
but instead it has NO pictures whatsoever (except a really nice Saturn - V liftoff photo on the cover). Instead, the book offers very compelling and dramatic insights by those who were behind the scenes (controllers,
engineers, scientists, etc) that, once you start reading, it's hard to put
it down.
I thought that Varfolomeyev wrote about ten articles on the subject, but I'd have to go through old issues to see.There were thirteen parts, published in Spaceflight for Aug 95, Feb and Jun 96, Jan, Mar, May, Sep and Dec 98, May 99, Apr and Oct 00, Jan and Apr 01.
I got the impression that there should have been more,but for some reason the series ended prematurely.
Yep, spacrfotos.ru has shown a degree of promise, but ishandicapped by the same problem: the USSR's photo archives still remain closed. I think of what's been released so far on that site indicates, more than anything, just what we're missing out on. I've ordered a couple of pics from them. I hope they're worth it.
Lastly, I'm not obsessed with photos. It's just that to justify a book on the Russian space program, filling it with yet more grainy, blurry b&w's, artist's impressions and line drawings is getting seriously stale. For instance: "13: The Flight that Failed" by Henry Cooper is by FAR the best book on the Apollo 13 accident I've ever seen, and guess what. Not a pic in sight! But having already seen the Apollo 13 pics elsewhere, it didn't really matter. The quality of his writing more than made up for that. No Russian book published so far can make up with good prose for the lack of pics, because you can't see tham anywhere else...
China's GDP is about 4,222 billion USD or nearly 1/3 that of the US.
It would not bankrupt them by a long shot not even Apollo Saturn would.
The only way your going to bankrupt China would be to screw up global trade
One spacecraft/launch vehicle I've yet to see in quantity and quality is the
Voskhods. I've been needing more data on the Voskhods so I can build a flying
scale model of one.
snip
I thought this was an interesting link. I was working for NASA at the time Buran flew and the rumor was the Russians decided not to fly it again because it had major TPS problems.
Danny Deger
http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2008-11-15/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html
snip
I thought this was an interesting link. I was working for NASA at the time Buran flew and the rumor was the Russians decided not to fly it again because it had major TPS problems.
Danny Deger
http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2008-11-15/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html
“The Energia-Buran programme was started to get the capability to attack the United States, just like the shuttle was able to attack the USSR. We also wanted to take the Skylab space station from orbit. Buran was supposed to put it in its cargo bay and deliver it back to Earth for studies,” Tolboev said.
Ha ha! This quote from the referenced article caused me to spew coffee all over my monitor and keyboard:Quote“The Energia-Buran programme was started to get the capability to attack the United States, just like the shuttle was able to attack the USSR. We also wanted to take the Skylab space station from orbit. Buran was supposed to put it in its cargo bay and deliver it back to Earth for studies,” Tolboev said.
Buran was much smaller than the Shuttle, and there is no way Skylab could ever fit in a Shuttle!
Found this on YouTube
Paul
Has anyone seen more recent pictures from Buran 2K than 2004 which are also in this thread?
Sorry but the pictures you showed are of Buran 1.02. I think Zipi is refering Buran 2K as 2.01
Sorry but the pictures you showed are of Buran 1.02. I think Zipi is refering Buran 2K as 2.01
I am sorry, but 2K is 1.02 and 2.01 is 3K, so I have answered to what I had seen.
I saw only interior photos made by Vadim Lukashevich on January 31, 2007. They are here (http://www.buran.ru/htm/1-02.htm). But what differences do you want to see since 2004? There are no differences. 2K is poor and dusty bird. She belongs to Kazakhstan, which do not know what to do with her. Spaceship's internal parts is removed with vandalism, cables are cut, tiles are damaged. Gates of building, where she is, can not be opened. 2K with her sister 4MT are there for ever. Photos of 4MT (also from that date) can be seen here (http://www.buran.ru/htm/ok-mt.htm).
Are those 2004 dusty photos at some other web site than in this thread?
Apologies if this has been asked before.
What did the Soviets plan to do with Soyuz once Buran was operational?
Funny that they didn't consider a 'gap' as being feasible...
Was the Buran project more expansive that Project Apollo?That is a myth Apollo was by a very large margin the most expensive space project in history.
Is true or is a myte that damaged seriously the soviet economy?
Whats the item on the tank ahead of the orbiter?
Found randomly on the Net : an amazing picture of Buran 4MT in the 112A area of Baikonur cosmodrome.
http://www.mai6.ru/contents/gallery/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=18 (http://www.mai6.ru/contents/gallery/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=18)
Are you sure it's MT? The only pictures of MT I've seen did not have black around the nose area save for the tip.Found randomly on the Net : an amazing picture of Buran 4MT in the 112A area of Baikonur cosmodrome.
http://www.mai6.ru/contents/gallery/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=18 (http://www.mai6.ru/contents/gallery/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=18)
holy crap, somebody got lucky ! I asked my buttoff when I was there and couldn't get access
That's a very elusive shot, from apparently added 7th of April 2009 but i'm trying to work out the real date.
in any case, cleanup on isle 5 a shame is bombarded with guano
Are you sure it's MT? The only pictures of MT I've seen did not have black around the nose area save for the tip.
The picture on page 5 of 4MT matches the color-schemes I've seen before. This one does not, is all I am saying.Are you sure it's MT? The only pictures of MT I've seen did not have black around the nose area save for the tip.
It's what Anik said in the page 3 of this thread...
Ok, I did some checking, below is what should be the correct names (the 4MT above is wrong, the real 4M has been refurbished and is now outside the baikonur museum there days)looks like it to me too.
In the first picture (posted by anik many pages back) the one on the bottom is 2k and the one on top is 7M (in line with the post by anik on page 5)
looking at the first picture you can see that the one in the second image is the same as the top one on the first picture.
looking at the first picture you can see that the one in the second image is the same as the top one on the first picture.
The RD-0120 flame output is mighty impressive.
nice movie about buran
http://www.buran.ru/video/avi/grachev_DivX.avi
Came across this link:
http://www.mk.ru/photo/social/1090-buran-prinesennyiy-v-zhertvu.html (http://www.mk.ru/photo/social/1090-buran-prinesennyiy-v-zhertvu.html)
I don't read Russian -- can somebody who does tell us if this is what it appears to be?
Wow, lots of Buran footage in that video I had never seen before - Thanks!
BTW, what LV/payload is shown between 2:26-2:42? It is a winged stage/rocket/payload launching in a sidemounted configuration which I have never seen before.
I'd love to see it with one of the US shuttles side by side. The Smithsonian would make a great home for it.I'm sure they could find a decent exhibition space in Moscow for it, once you hand over Enterprise or one of the real orbiters. ;)
Soviet shuttles for gullible tourists to gawk at thinking it was *the* Buran :)That'd only work in Oz! ;D
I am also curious, is the nose of the Buran shuttle longer than that of the US shuttle or are they the same size?Get your ruler out! ;)
They could replace all those missing tiles, bolt on the wings, give her a fresh paint-job with 'Buran" on the side like OK-ML and the one in Gorky Park and presto! There'd be *three* Soviet shuttles for gullible tourists to gawk at thinking it was *the* Buran :)
I'm much rather they stabilise the decay and explain her history, it is far more interesting to see her structure and what economics can do to aspirations.
simonbp, you do realize the 'flight' Buran was destroyed in a hanger roof collapse..?
Probably be cheaper to build a new one from scratch.
What is the diameter of the boosters and core stage of the Energia rocket in feet? I'm trying to draw plans to help build a 1/72 scale model of the Energia-Buran vehicle. There already is a kit for Buran, but not the Energia rocket.
There is also a paper kit available:
http://www.cardmodels-r.narod.ru/index-e.htm
I know the Buran landed autonomously, but what about the approach? How did it figure out which runway and traffic patter to make? Was the info uploaded before the deorbit burn or after reentry, or some other way?
Photos of 2K (1.02, Burya) spacecraft: http://public.fotki.com/burannow/6061/
Photos of 4MT (0.15, OK-MT) mockup: http://public.fotki.com/burannow/di8ch/
Photos of MZK building: http://public.fotki.com/burannow/a5h67/
Is this an arm design intended for Buran?http://www.city-data.com/forum/aviation/1715346-systems-reusable-space-shatll-nergy-buran.html
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-19.jpg)
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-20.jpg)
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-21.jpg)
source: http://englishrussia.com/2012/06/12/debunking-myths-of-the-tower/
I've stumbled upon those photos. I haven't seen them before, but I haven't gone through the whole Buran thread, just couple pages of recent posts.
http://xgoweb.com/rare-photos-of-space-shuttle-buran/
I've stumbled upon those photos. I haven't seen them before, but I haven't gone through the whole Buran thread, just couple pages of recent posts.
http://xgoweb.com/rare-photos-of-space-shuttle-buran/
These are SO cool!
Buran, Buran - Russia's Forgotten Space Shuttles
This is a pretty informative video that pretty much covers the entire program and includes some pretty rare video and photos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1-0hiWAf_I
I have just spent the last several days reading through this thread about the tragedies and triumphs of Buran. Very awesome to see so many fans of this shuttle. I remember reading of her in Aviation Week back in the late 1980s.
Does anyone know the names of those lost when the hanger collapsed? I always feel we should remember not only the astronaut/cosmonauts that are lost but those who are lost on the ground.
I have just spent the last several days reading through this thread about the tragedies and triumphs of Buran. Very awesome to see so many fans of this shuttle. I remember reading of her in Aviation Week back in the late 1980s.
Does anyone know the names of those lost when the hanger collapsed? I always feel we should remember not only the astronaut/cosmonauts that are lost but those who are lost on the ground.
The only Russian Shuttle lost during the hangar collapse was Buran. The only Russian shuttle to fly into space.
The others were not in the hangar when it collapsed.
The others were named:
OK-1K2 Ptichka (95%-97% complete) [little Bird in english]
OK-2K1 Baikal (30%-50% complete) [Also known as Shuttle 2.01]
Shuttle 2.02 (10%-20% complete)
Shuttle 2.03 (dismantled)
FYI orbiter Baikal was invented by V.Luckashevich, author of buran.ru website as April Fool joke :)I have just spent the last several days reading through this thread about the tragedies and triumphs of Buran. Very awesome to see so many fans of this shuttle. I remember reading of her in Aviation Week back in the late 1980s.
Does anyone know the names of those lost when the hanger collapsed? I always feel we should remember not only the astronaut/cosmonauts that are lost but those who are lost on the ground.
The only Russian Shuttle lost during the hangar collapse was Buran. The only Russian shuttle to fly into space.
The others were not in the hangar when it collapsed.
The others were named:
OK-1K2 Ptichka (95%-97% complete) [little Bird in english]
OK-2K1 Baikal (30%-50% complete) [Also known as Shuttle 2.01]
Shuttle 2.02 (10%-20% complete)
Shuttle 2.03 (dismantled)
I actually meant the names of the workers.
I have just spent the last several days reading through this thread about the tragedies and triumphs of Buran. Very awesome to see so many fans of this shuttle. I remember reading of her in Aviation Week back in the late 1980s.
Does anyone know the names of those lost when the hanger collapsed? I always feel we should remember not only the astronaut/cosmonauts that are lost but those who are lost on the ground.
The only Russian Shuttle lost during the hangar collapse was Buran. The only Russian shuttle to fly into space.
The others were not in the hangar when it collapsed.
The others were named:
OK-1K2 Ptichka (95%-97% complete) [little Bird in english]
OK-2K1 Baikal (30%-50% complete) [Also known as Shuttle 2.01]
Shuttle 2.02 (10%-20% complete)
Shuttle 2.03 (dismantled)
I actually meant the names of the workers.
I recently had some fun with Google Earth, and found these locations. I figured I would post them.
1st picture: The collapsed hangar in 2012.
2nd picture: This is a full scale model of Ptichka nearby the hangar in 2006. The model has since been removed.
3rd picture: Buran test model OK-M in 2012.
I recently had some fun with Google Earth, and found these locations. I figured I would post them.
1st picture: The collapsed hangar in 2012.
2nd picture: This is a full scale model of Ptichka nearby the hangar in 2006. The model has since been removed.
3rd picture: Buran test model OK-M in 2012.
Actually, the 2nd and 3rd picture both show OK-M. For years OK-M sat exposed to the elements on the platform that was used for test firings of Buran's propulsion systems and auxiliary power units. After so many years in the open air, it was in a sorry state. See pictures taken in 2002 here :
http://www.buran.ru/htm/sk.htm#004
On 19 February 2007 the vehicle was removed from the platform and parked next to the Baikonur museum, where it was completely refurbished. See pictures of the transfer to the museum and the refurbished vehicle here :
http://www.buran.ru/htm/foto26.htm
As for the names of the people killed in the collapse of the assembly building roof, I doubt if any more information was given on them other than that they were Kazakh construction workers. According to Vadim Lukashevich's website there was another victim later the same day : the guy of TsSKB/Progress who was responsible for the repair work on the roof died of a heart attack. His name *is* mentioned, namely Aleksandr Kostyshev.
http://www.buran.ru/htm/foto7.htm
And to come back to my earlier post about the name Baikal : from footage on Lukashevich's website it can be determined that the name of the first flight vehicle was changed from Baikal to Buran in May 1988.
The vehicle still had the name Baikal painted on it when it underwent test firings of its propulsion system and auxiliary power units at Baikonur between 25 April and 9 May 1988 :
http://www.buran.ru/htm/video7.htm
(see clips 3 (test firings) and 4 (preparations for the test firings)
Later that month (on 23 May) the vehicle was rolled out with Energiya 1L for a series of pad tests and by this time it was called Buran :
http://www.buran.ru/htm/video8.htm
(clip 4)
There's more amazing declassified footage of Energiya and Buran on the website's video archive. Worth checking out.
And to mark the 25th anniversary, here's what is surprisingly our first Buran article!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/remembering-buran-shuttles-estranged-soviet-cousin/
Many thanks to Nickolai for his help with the article!
When faced with the requirement to make a 200mt thrust LOX/LH2 engine, in tandem with reusability, the Soviets decided to ditch the reusable requirement. ... The immense power of the Energia provided a capacity to place about 100 tonnes in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), up to 20 t to the geostationary orbit (GEO) and up to 32 t to a translunar trajectory.
And to mark the 25th anniversary, here's what is surprisingly our first Buran article!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/remembering-buran-shuttles-estranged-soviet-cousin/
Many thanks to Nickolai for his help with the article!
A very enjoyable read for people like me interested in Russian and Soviet spaceflight.Quote from: Chris BerginWhen faced with the requirement to make a 200mt thrust LOX/LH2 engine, in tandem with reusability, the Soviets decided to ditch the reusable requirement. ... The immense power of the Energia provided a capacity to place about 100 tonnes in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), up to 20 t to the geostationary orbit (GEO) and up to 32 t to a translunar trajectory.
Actually Chris that's only partially correct, and it makes the Energia & Buran history even more interesting. I've talked to several experts on Russian space vehicles about the Energia before, including fregate, Anatoly Zak of Russiaspaceweb.com and Dmitry Vorontsov, and they say the boosters were intended to be reusable. It's why they have those large bulges near the top to store their parachutes and also why the RD-170 engine was rated for up to 10 uses. Had the Soviets decided to use a fully expendable design with expendable boosters, the payload to LEO would have jumped dramatically. Dmitry Vorontsov (Dmitry_V_Home) claims an Energia with expendable boosters and an inline PLF would be capable of launching 126 mt to LEO from Baikonur. Of this increase, the vast majority would be due to the lessened booster weight, while a few mt would be gained by streamlining the rocket. Recently there's been a proposal for a rocket that's basically an inline Energia with expendable boosters: the Yenisei-5. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html It's rated to launch 125 mt using the near exact same launch mass as the Energia but with 4 expendable Zenit boosters and 3 RD-0120 engines instead of 4 on an Energia-size core. So it looks like Dmitry was correct after all. If the Energia's boosters weren't meant to be reusable, it would have out-lifted a Saturn V to LEO. It makes me wonder if such an Energia would have allowed a Buran to launch with more than the normal max of a 30 mt internal payload. Anyone have the expertise to know if the Buran could have handled it?
Lagging behind the United States in their design of large Solid Rocket motors, an early decision was made to utilize liquid propulsion to power the stack off the launch pad.
Just to sort out the confusion:
You are talking about the RD-170 engine which burns Kerosene and LOX. It was installed on the boosters ("Block A"), which were designed to be reusable. But the four Blocks A used for this mission were not reusable yet, because the recovery systems had not been installed. The designers planned to install recovery systems on Blocks A for following missions, which unfortunately never happened.
The sentence you quoted from Chris' article is mentioning a LOX/LH2 engine. This is the RD-0120 engine which was installed on the core stage ("Block Z"), and, as Chris mentions correctly, it was not designed to be reusable.
Does the last picture in the article show OK-1K2?
P.s.
The "birdie" name is a myth, its a generic term used by the Russians for the orbiters that got wrongly translated by western media, as indicated here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=636.msg643909#msg643909
"The second flight vehicle (2K, sometimes mistakenly identified as "Ptichka" ("Birdie"), which actually was a general nickname for Soviet orbiters) is in storage at the Assembly and Fueling Facility (MZK) at Baikonur."
If you are wondering about the guy posting that info, it's Bart, the guy who co-wrote this book:
http://www.springer.com/engineering/mechanical+engineering/book/978-0-387-69848-9
Great article. Always liked the Buran/Energia combination. Looks really powerful.Why is it that people keep associating solid propulsion with "less advanced" and liquid propulsion with "more advanced"?QuoteLagging behind the United States in their design of large Solid Rocket motors, an early decision was made to utilize liquid propulsion to power the stack off the launch pad.
I would have thought the very opposite. Having liquid boosters is surely more advanced than STS.
Keith
According to this article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_starts_ambitious_super_heavy_space_rocket_project_999.html
Buran executed a fly-around before landing. I am not entirely convinced that is true! Any thoughts?
When Buran Landed, there was quite the char colored remnants on her fuselage and upper tail ...something I never saw on the Shuttles...or not as deep as Buran.. did anyone else notice this ?
Dave
Why is it that people keep associating solid propulsion with "less advanced" and liquid propulsion with "more advanced"?
The number of moving parts on a given mechanical systems says exactly zero about how advanced that system is.
One thing that always struck mewas the different location of the nose gear. Wonder why they went with a more aft one, maybe it had to do with the flying versions? With the location of the nose gear on the American Shuttle it would have been harder to rotate to a flying attitude.
At least in the Energyia case, they developed the RD-170, which was arguably the most powerful (liquid) and advanced rocket every developed (by that time). The only engine that might challenge the advanced assertion was the SSME.Great article. Always liked the Buran/Energia combination. Looks really powerful.Why is it that people keep associating solid propulsion with "less advanced" and liquid propulsion with "more advanced"?QuoteLagging behind the United States in their design of large Solid Rocket motors, an early decision was made to utilize liquid propulsion to power the stack off the launch pad.
I would have thought the very opposite. Having liquid boosters is surely more advanced than STS.
The number of moving parts on a given mechanical systems says exactly zero about how advanced that system is.
One thing that always struck mewas the different location of the nose gear. Wonder why they went with a more aft one, maybe it had to do with the flying versions? With the location of the nose gear on the American Shuttle it would have been harder to rotate to a flying attitude.
I don't know the general reason for the different location, but if by "flying version" you mean the "Buran Analog" BTS-002 (OK-GLI) which was used for the development and tests of the auto-land system, and was equipped with four jet engines to allow it to take off under its own power: It had a longer nose gear strut than the orbiters for exactly this reason - to facilitate rotation on take-off.
Is this an arm design intended for Buran?
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-19.jpg)
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-20.jpg)
(http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/rtk/towerrtk001-21.jpg)
source: http://englishrussia.com/2012/06/12/debunking-myths-of-the-tower/
Sorry if this is a double post never seen this much detail on Buran.
http://youtu.be/YaZKZ95PFFE
Sorry if this is a double post never seen this much detail on Buran.
Sorry if this is a double post never seen this much detail on Buran.
Super-beatiful. Thanks!
A question: at 08:50 they zoom on a detail of the Energya rocket. Does someone know why?
That's not present day is it? They wouldn't have left it like that?
A picture of the pure-white Buran on pad.
Is it OK-ML1 (the one which is now in Baykonur museum) ?
Buran Building with no roof..... :'( from Aleksandr Zheleznyakov facebook page.
Buran Building with no roof..... :'( from Aleksandr Zheleznyakov facebook page.
Oh wow! I had no idea they had left it like this. How tragic. Does anyone know when exactly the roof structure collapsed?
Via Forum de la Conquete Spatiale: http://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html
Brings a tear to your eye...
How could they be allowed to get into such a state.:(
How could they be allowed to get into such a state.:(
Money. The United States is rich. We've got a lot of money to spend on things that are not necessities, including museums and historic artifacts. As a result the U.S. is pretty good at preserving its aviation and space heritage. Nevertheless, even in the U.S. some things get neglected. The remaining Saturn V's were all rotting in the elements for decades before money was raised to preserve them indoors. But even today there is a first stage (S-IC) sitting exposed in Louisiana. Who is going to find the money to restore and protect that? Similarly, the first Boeing 747 was deteriorating for a very long time not very far from a major Boeing facility. Only recently has it been restored.
Russia doesn't have a lot of money, and Buran was a failed program with some really big artifacts that were not located in Russia. It's easy to understand how they abandoned the hardware.
You are right and I wish that many of the new Russian elites would contribute some of their wealth to preserving their space history.
I suppose raising money from the citizenry would be a no go as well with other concerns on most people's plates.
Again. These two spacecrafts are not a property of Russia. They were sold and belong to Kazakhstan.
You are right and I wish that many of the new Russian elites would contribute some of their wealth to preserving their space history.
I have very interest soviet doc movie about Baikonur 1985 year (30 year)This is a .jpg, not any sort of video file.
http://i.uralweb.ru/albums/fotos/f/647/64703c831f8276bff94bb27388e3003c.jpg (http://i.uralweb.ru/albums/fotos/f/647/64703c831f8276bff94bb27388e3003c.jpg)
Thanks SpaceStalker, great pics (though not much has changed). I hope Russia can find them a good home, as they were the superior orbiters.
Burya construction was at 97% when the project was cancelled. I still can't believe why the Kazakhstan government haven't sold at lest one of them to a museum, like they did with the OK - GLI that was sold to the Technikmuseum Speyer in Germany.Minor nit:
Thanks SpaceStalker, great pics (though not much has changed). I hope Russia can find them a good home, as they were the superior orbiters.
Emphasis mine.
Bold statement for a system that flew exactly once and never proved it's worth.
Thanks SpaceStalker, great pics (though not much has changed). I hope Russia can find them a good home, as they were the superior orbiters.
Emphasis mine.
Bold statement for a system that flew exactly once and never proved it's worth.
Thanks SpaceStalker, great pics (though not much has changed). I hope Russia can find them a good home, as they were the superior orbiters.
Emphasis mine.
Bold statement for a system that flew exactly once and never proved it's worth.
Well, NASA has validated the Buran system design decision by moving the engines to the bottom of the fuel tank in theEnergiyaSLS. That makes the Buran Orbiter design better because Buran didn't have expensive to refurbish and heavy engines accompany it to orbit and back.
And the DOD thought highly enough of the booster engines to use the direct descendant engine RD-180 for US national security payloads for at least a decade - starting about two decades after the engine was first designed.
And the Shuttle never landed on autopilot. The shuttle required crews for all missions, including the initial test launch. The Energiya booster could be used for cargo only deliveries so both parts of their system were crew-optional.
So the collapse of the Soviet Union shouldn't be the factor that denigrates the design of the Buran system.
1. We'll never know what the reburbishment costs were for a Buran orbiter. None were ever reflown.
2. The SMEs, a 30 year old + design, are thought highly enough to form the basis of SLS.
3. Sure, Shuttle C could have done that, it's purely conjecture just like the entire Energia/ Buran program is mostly hindsight conjecture. Produce the history, produce the flights.
4. Autopilot is arguably the easiest problem to solve of all. Just the fact that the Soviets did it proves that.
Thanks SpaceStalker, great pics (though not much has changed). I hope Russia can find them a good home, as they were the superior orbiters.
Emphasis mine.
Bold statement for a system that flew exactly once and never proved it's worth.
Well, NASA has validated the Buran system design decision by moving the engines to the bottom of the fuel tank in theEnergiyaSLS. That makes the Buran Orbiter design better because Buran didn't have expensive to refurbish and heavy engines accompany it to orbit and back.
The automation issue is largely a red herring as the American space shuttle was also capable of fully autonomous flight (the launch of both vehicles is autonomous as EVERY rocket system has always been), but the landing could be done either manually or automatically, the American crews simply never turned on the autopilot during the entire shuttle program.
The automation issue is largely a red herring as the American space shuttle was also capable of fully autonomous flight (the launch of both vehicles is autonomous as EVERY rocket system has always been), but the landing could be done either manually or automatically, the American crews simply never turned on the autopilot during the entire shuttle program.
Not really true. The US shuttles were launched on auto pilot and returned on autopilot. It was only the final approach that were stick-flown (and I'm not entirely sure some weren't flown all the way to the hardtop while on autopilot like any large commercial jet).
1) We know the refurbishment of Shuttle orbiter was horrendous, it is hard to imagine that Buran could have been worse, the Soviets are not known for making delicate machines. Better knowledge of the durability of it's TPS would be needed to really answer this question with numbers rather then arm-waving. The cost of the disposable portions of Buran is not known but we know the Soviets were very efficient in turning out expendable liquid rockets.
1) We know the refurbishment of Shuttle orbiter was horrendous, it is hard to imagine that Buran could have been worse, the Soviets are not known for making delicate machines. Better knowledge of the durability of it's TPS would be needed to really answer this question with numbers rather then arm-waving. The cost of the disposable portions of Buran is not known but we know the Soviets were very efficient in turning out expendable liquid rockets.
There are many post-flight pictures which purport to show clear evidence of tile damage on Buran. Google "buran tile damage" -- http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php (http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php), for example, shows a picture of three damaged tiles from"under the left wing" that may show structural damage. I suppose we'll never really know whether the flaws were in the tiles, attachment, or some fundamental error in the heating analysis.
At least one Shuttle entry was flown "by hand" (from computer display output, I believe), from top to bottom. It was a fairly early flight, but I don't recall which, at the moment.
There are many post-flight pictures which purport to show clear evidence of tile damage on Buran. Google "buran tile damage" -- http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php, for example, shows a picture of three damaged tiles from"under the left wing" that may show structural damage. I suppose we'll never really know whether the flaws were in the tiles, attachment, or some fundamental error in the heating analysis.
They launched during a blizzard with hail. The really dangerous damage, the one that made plasma eat part of the Titanium frame, was made by a big chunk of ice. They had learned the Columbia lesson on the first launch.
1) We know the refurbishment of Shuttle orbiter was horrendous, it is hard to imagine that Buran could have been worse, the Soviets are not known for making delicate machines. Better knowledge of the durability of it's TPS would be needed to really answer this question with numbers rather then arm-waving. The cost of the disposable portions of Buran is not known but we know the Soviets were very efficient in turning out expendable liquid rockets.
There are many post-flight pictures which purport to show clear evidence of tile damage on Buran. Google "buran tile damage" -- http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php (http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php), for example, shows a picture of three damaged tiles from"under the left wing" that may show structural damage. I suppose we'll never really know whether the flaws were in the tiles, attachment, or some fundamental error in the heating analysis.
In fact, the damage to the Buran TPS, as observed post-flight was significantly worse than the damage to Columbia's TPS as observed post-flight on STS-1.
But, post-flight analysis also showed that the acoustic environment of launching Buran on Energia was worse than initially predicted. Some of the tiles that let go were quite literally shaken-off on ascent.
For some reason, my social media feeds lately have been filled with images of “Russia’s secret space shuttles” that have fallen into ruin. This is a little puzzling, since those shuttles haven’t been ‘secret’ for decades, and they’ve been in terrible condition for over 20 years. But that got me thinking — was it a better Space Shuttle than the American one?
Did The Soviets Build A Better Shuttle Than We Did?
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/did-the-soviets-build-a-better-shuttle-than-we-did-1713379466
I've only skimmed this, but it seems like a decent comparison. I do think that the Soviet design had a lot of advantages. That said, I take issue with his comments about solid rocket boosters being unsafe. Statistically, they are no less safe than liquid rocket engines. As for the claim that liquid engines "can be turned off"--when have we ever done this?How about Apollo 13? Center engine (Engine#5) on the S-II stage caused severe pogo and that nearly tore the thrust structure from the stage itself. I believe that was only seconds away from happening and it was only due to a LH2 Low Level Cut-Off sensor being tripped on the engine that caused the engine to shut down.
Also STS 51-f... As for the claim that liquid engines "can be turned off"--when have we ever done this? ...How about Apollo 13?...
Speaking of Titanium construction, I just saw a video about the USAs "Oxcart" SR-71/A-12/M-21&D-21 drone/F-21 programs. In order to build these planes, it was necessary to procure Titanium from the Soviet Union. The US sought Titanium from the very entity it was to primarily spy on.They launched during a blizzard with hail. The really dangerous damage, the one that made plasma eat part of the Titanium frame, was made by a big chunk of ice. They had learned the Columbia lesson on the first launch.
1) We know the refurbishment of Shuttle orbiter was horrendous, it is hard to imagine that Buran could have been worse, the Soviets are not known for making delicate machines. Better knowledge of the durability of it's TPS would be needed to really answer this question with numbers rather then arm-waving. The cost of the disposable portions of Buran is not known but we know the Soviets were very efficient in turning out expendable liquid rockets.
There are many post-flight pictures which purport to show clear evidence of tile damage on Buran. Google "buran tile damage" -- http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php (http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php), for example, shows a picture of three damaged tiles from"under the left wing" that may show structural damage. I suppose we'll never really know whether the flaws were in the tiles, attachment, or some fundamental error in the heating analysis.
In fact, the damage to the Buran TPS, as observed post-flight was significantly worse than the damage to Columbia's TPS as observed post-flight on STS-1.
But, post-flight analysis also showed that the acoustic environment of launching Buran on Energia was worse than initially predicted. Some of the tiles that let go were quite literally shaken-off on ascent.
BTW, using Titanium for the frame was the right choice. Another better trade that the Russians did. Not to mention that it was actually three separate sections.
Working with Titanium is inherently more difficult than say Aluminum. For the Oxcart planes, new tooling, technology and techniques were required as they simply didn't exist at the time.They discovered all sorts of things, as it was unexplored territory at the time. Case in point: They were at first mystified as to why welds on titanium failed more frequently when they were done during the summer. It turned out that there was extra chlorine in the water supply during the summer, and that interacted with the titanium welds, making them more brittle.
What is to be done with Ptichka and OK-M in the Baikanour hanger? Heck, I wish NASA would get Buran's sister and put her next to Atlantis. :) A nice compare and contrast of the shuttles of two nations side by side.IMHO, that would only happen if one of our shuttles went there, even though the comparison is not entirely apples to apples.
And to mark the 25th anniversary, here's what is surprisingly our first Buran article!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/remembering-buran-shuttles-estranged-soviet-cousin/
Many thanks to Nickolai for his help with the article!
First Soviet Space Shuttle (PROTOTYPE) story, start in 1957
Dan Beaumont Space Museum
Published on Jan 31, 2017
(RUSSIAN AUDIO) TV Roscosmos, January 31, 2017: In February 1957, 60 years ago, aircraft Tsybin Paul, who led OKB-256, was given the task to develop a planning spacecraft "PCA". It outputs to a height of 300 kilometers of the carrier rocket "Vostok". After orbital flight "PAC" had to return to Earth, planning in the dense layers of the atmosphere. During the descent, in the zone of intense thermal heating "RCA" would use the lift force of the original shape of the hull. This project Sergey Korolev gave an informal name of - "Lapotok".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsV_q8-hAyM?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsV_q8-hAyM
http://tass.ru/kosmos/4342852Just to keep things clear, could you give us the OK number/version? Thanks!
A full-scale test model of Buran (vehicle N° 003) now located on the premises of RKK Energia near Moscow will be transported to Sochi on the Black Sea
http://tass.ru/kosmos/4342852Just to keep things clear, could you give us the OK number/version? Thanks!
A full-scale test model of Buran (vehicle N° 003) now located on the premises of RKK Energia near Moscow will be transported to Sochi on the Black Sea
I've been meaning to ask...
I don't recall ever seeing any pictures of article 8M, the Crew Trainer that was supposedly at the GCTC. What finally happened to it?
While I'm at it, what is the current status of 5M & 6M?
Buran sent to Sochi
http://www.vesti.ru/videos/show/vid/720113/cid/1/
Thank you for the prompt response.
I admit to confusion. According to the information I have, 4M is the vehicle on display at the Baikonur museum and 7M is the one in the MZK.
I guess I need to buy your book...
"sent to" came from here:Buran sent to Sochi
http://www.vesti.ru/videos/show/vid/720113/cid/1/
It's not quite on its way yet. The report says disassembly of the vehicle began today and should be finished about a week from now. Then the individual elements will be moved by truck to a nearby port and transported to Sochi by barge.
"sent to" came from here:Buran sent to Sochi
http://www.vesti.ru/videos/show/vid/720113/cid/1/
It's not quite on its way yet. The report says disassembly of the vehicle began today and should be finished about a week from now. Then the individual elements will be moved by truck to a nearby port and transported to Sochi by barge.
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news.html
You are right. "are sent to...""sent to" came from here:Buran sent to Sochi
http://www.vesti.ru/videos/show/vid/720113/cid/1/
It's not quite on its way yet. The report says disassembly of the vehicle began today and should be finished about a week from now. Then the individual elements will be moved by truck to a nearby port and transported to Sochi by barge.
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news.html
That's a mistranslation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM
I hadn't seen this posted here yet.
Be sure to turn subtitles on if you don't speak Russian.
I think both videos are staged.
One of the main problems was TPS damage. Seven heat protection tiles were lost and many more were damaged. The worst was on the left wing, where three tiles were lost in the same location, allowing hot plasma to enter and damage the wing's titanium structure on reentry.
You can do a forum search or google "Buran tile damage"..
http://tass.ru/kosmos/4367966
According to yesterday's TASS report the trucks carrying the various parts of Buran were to depart Moscow on June 29 and arrive at the port of Kavkaz (on the Kerch strait in the Stavropol region) on July 3. There they will be loaded onto a sea-going vessel and leave for Sochi, with arrival at the Imeretinskiy port in Sochi expected on July 5. From there Buran will be transported to the Sirius Educational Center. Refurbishment work is expected to take 1.5 months. Buran will be part of a permanent space exhibition at Sirius that will open in early 2018. It will be joined by a full-scale mock-up of the cancelled Kliper spacecraft and may eventually also be joined by a full-scale mock-up of Federatsia.
A very bad news... :-XI did save the whole site, as Vadim requested. It took a week though, as the site's upload is 24 KB/s! Many thanks to Vadim for his work, and I hope he wins the court case!
According to Vadim Lukashevich, editor of the site "Buran.ru", the owners of the mark "Buran" have requested to the Russian justice the closure of the site, due to the unauthorized use of the mark "Buran".
A new research work between NPO Molniya and RKK Energia: Will Russia build a space dron?
now on YouTube...
Archive. Preparation and launch of the MTCS "Energia-Buran"
ROSCOSMOS Media Store
Published on Nov 15, 2017
ROSKOSMOS presents unique archival frames for the preparation and launch of the reusable transport space system Energia-Buran.
Very nice compilation video about the pre-launch processing and launch day on this 29th anniversary of Buran's first/only launch.
https://www.roscosmos.ru/24308/
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/930804318164410375
yet another video surfaces: First part is real footage the second part (Launch) is CGI.
This is a photo I took of OK-1K2 "Ptichka" still standing in the MKZ building, the similarity to the US design is striking especially in the design of the maneuvering system at the bow of the aircraft...
One correction : Ptichka ("Birdie") was not the name of a specific orbiter, but just a nickname used by engineers to refer to Buran orbiters in general (just like Space Shuttle engineers affectionately called any Shuttle orbiter "the bird"). It's a myth that seems to be hard to eradicate.
The MZK building with the two abandoned Buran orbiters seems to be becoming a very popular target for "urban explorers". This is the third YouTube film I've seen of people illegally entering the building (and there may be more):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=84&v=TMRcpUlSJfE
The Kazakhs should simply open the building for tourists. Of course, that would make it totally unattractive for the urban explorers:-).
The MZK building with the two abandoned Buran orbiters seems to be becoming a very popular target for "urban explorers". This is the third YouTube film I've seen of people illegally entering the building (and there may be more):
Just curious,
Is it possible to send the orbiters somewhere like another museum in Russia, or someplace in Europe? I know the cost might be prohibitive, or transport is impossible, or it might be a matter of pride, but better to move them somewhere where they can be preserved than to let them rot away, right?
I would think that the Smithsonian would be glad to take one under its care, but under the circumstances of Russian-US relations it's not possible to happen now or in the foreseeable future.
This would never be done of course, but would it be possible to get the Buran closest to space worthiness, rebuild it where needed and attach it to an SLS? Unlike the shuttle, the Buran has no internal engines so weight would be less of a problem. Maybe offer Putin 200M for it, pull some shuttle engineers out of retirement, get some private investment, and give it a shot.First of all: Why?
This would never be done of course, but would it be possible to get the Buran closest to space worthiness, rebuild it where needed and attach it to an SLS? Unlike the shuttle, the Buran has no internal engines so weight would be less of a problem. Maybe offer Putin 200M for it, pull some shuttle engineers out of retirement, get some private investment, and give it a shot.First of all: Why?
Just curious,
Is it possible to send the orbiters somewhere like another museum in Russia, or someplace in Europe? I know the cost might be prohibitive, or transport is impossible, or it might be a matter of pride, but better to move them somewhere where they can be preserved than to let them rot away, right?
I would think that the Smithsonian would be glad to take one under its care, but under the circumstances of Russian-US relations it's not possible to happen now or in the foreseeable future.
For instance, a large structure built next to the Baikonur runway is needed to hoist the orbiters atop the aircraft. This structure was not maintained after the cancelation of the Buran project and restoring it to working order may be a costly affair. In the end, the German museum purchased another Buran orbiter (used for approach and landing tests in the 1980s) that had somehow ended up in Bahrein. It was transported to Germany by boat.No need for Mate/Demate Device (MDD, that's what the structures used to mate/demate the orbiters at KSC/EDW was called). Things can be done with commercially available mobile cranes. How else do you think they offloaded Enterprise/Discovery at Dulles and New York? Same for Endeavour at LAX.
Time to bump as this week marks the 30th anniversary of Buran's flight. :)
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1061668010367234048
One question as I wasn't born until the 1990s: When was the first time the program was known to the public in the West? (did it ever made it to the big newspapers or evening TV news?) Hpw much coverage did the flight get in the US, Europe or other places back then? (with Soviets getting a bit more open by then I guess there were some coverage?)
Also:This should work: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kommersant.ru%2Fdoc%2F3791895&edit-text=
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3791895
Interview with a Buran test pilot. Somebody might want to run that through the translator and post the English version here.
I love how much Roscosmos is tweeting for Buran today :)
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1063012540307914752 (https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1063012540307914752)
That video is a death by a million cuts. There are all kinds of little statements that are not really true, like "quietly building a second launch site for the shuttle, at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California." Quietly? It was in the newspapers.
And there's the claim that the shuttle could recover a Soviet satellite--well, maybe the Soviets thought that, but it was totally impractical.
So What exactly is the BRM-3A Mission? I get the cross range requirement for an abort once around on a polar mission. Not sure what the urgency would be to land right away after satellite deployment though. The only thing that comes to mind would be a concern that it might have been attacked if on a military mission in a time of conflict, thus minimize exposure by landing quickly.
So What exactly is the BRM-3A Mission? I get the cross range requirement for an abort once around on a polar mission. Not sure what the urgency would be to land right away after satellite deployment though. The only thing that comes to mind would be a concern that it might have been attacked if on a military mission in a time of conflict, thus minimize exposure by landing quickly.
Interpretation of the Wikipedia list seems to say "no" - whatever was in Baikonur, went to Kazakhstan, whatever was in Moscow, stuck to Russia. no transfer since then ?
If I;m not mistaken it was this 104ş launch to the South from VAFB that drove the cross-range requirements to get an Orbiter Vehicle back to the contiguous United States instead of the Pacific water landing that would have resulted without said crossrange. Without the military polar orbit requirement, there would be no need for as much crossrange, meaning there would be no use for wings, meaning that the military wouldnt need STS, meaning that the military wouldn't provide any funding for STS, meaning that there would be no STS at all. If there was no STS at all, there would be no Buran either. Does that sound fair?So What exactly is the BRM-3A Mission? I get the cross range requirement for an abort once around on a polar mission. Not sure what the urgency would be to land right away after satellite deployment though. The only thing that comes to mind would be a concern that it might have been attacked if on a military mission in a time of conflict, thus minimize exposure by landing quickly.
A single-orbit mission launched from VAFB into a 104-degree inclination orbit has a groundtrack that never passes over Soviet ground stations. This would have prevented the Soviets from tracking the shuttle and perhaps the payload, assuming the payload quickly maneuvered to/from its true operational orbit.
If I;m not mistaken it was this 104ş launch to the South from VAFB that drove the cross-range requirements to get an Orbiter Vehicle back to the contiguous United States instead of the Pacific water landing that would have resulted without said crossrange. Without the military polar orbit requirement, there would be no need for as much crossrange, meaning there would be no use for wings, meaning that the military wouldnt need STS, meaning that the military wouldn't provide any funding for STS, meaning that there would be no STS at all. If there was no STS at all, there would be no Buran either. Does that sound fair?So What exactly is the BRM-3A Mission? I get the cross range requirement for an abort once around on a polar mission. Not sure what the urgency would be to land right away after satellite deployment though. The only thing that comes to mind would be a concern that it might have been attacked if on a military mission in a time of conflict, thus minimize exposure by landing quickly.
A single-orbit mission launched from VAFB into a 104-degree inclination orbit has a groundtrack that never passes over Soviet ground stations. This would have prevented the Soviets from tracking the shuttle and perhaps the payload, assuming the payload quickly maneuvered to/from its true operational orbit.
More or less, but not sure that the military ever provided any funding for the shuttle. I'm guessing it was more a case that future funding to the military for space launch vehicles instead went to NASA for the shuttle. In turn NASA agreed to perform all the military's space missions and design the shuttle to meet the military's performance requirements which in part resulted in the final design, ie the wing design.
Speaking of AirForce spending on STS. It was labelled as "Space Shuttle Operations" in the USAF budget from back then.
FY1988 $48,737,000
FY1989 $39,370,000
FY1990 $64,692,000
FY1991 $47,227,000
Of course much much more was spent for Shuttle and its facilities.
I have a question. About OK-GLI. Was its internal structure identical to a full blown Buran orbiter ? I do know the TPS was absent, I'm wondering about the overall structure.
I'm asking that question in the following sense. Let's suppose somebody dismantles OK-GLI as presently shown in Speyer museum Germany. What could be learned about a Buran orbiter structure?
Translation (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=636.msg2031934#msg2031934) revised again.
By the way, does anyone know anything about the Shuttle's flight programs "ShA" and "ShB" (or possibly "ShV") that are mentioned on page 9 of the translation?
They appear to correspond to Baseline Reference Missions 3A and 3B. Single-orbit spacecraft deploy and retrieval missions, respectively, from VAFB to 104 degree inclination. Despite what the translation says, neither mission overflew the USSR (this was deliberate, to make them more difficult to track). And ironically, both missions were scrubbed from the BRM around the time the Buran program was started.
The Energia-Buran was the most expensive and ambitious Soviet space project in history. As the Soviet Union’s answer to the US Space Shuttle, the rival reusable launch system was designed to match any potential strategic advantage offered by the Space Shuttle. But the Soviets had a unique challenge on their hands.
Like all manned Soviet spacecraft, the Energia-Buran would be launched at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, but it would be assembled at production facilities in the west, which were thousands of kilometers away. Unlike earlier Soviet spacecraft - like the Soyuz family of rockets - Energia-Buran components would be too large to be transported using railways. The Soviets explored building new widened rail lines as well as building entirely new production facilities at Baikonur, but these solutions were considered too expensive and would take too long. The most practical solution was to airlift components.
In a rush to meet their airlift needs, the Soviets put VM-T Alants into service, but the aircraft were only intended to be a stopgap measure. They were too small and underpowered to fly fully assembled spacecraft components. The VM-T Alant also needed to make refueling stops along the way to the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Starting in the late 1970’s, engineers began studying options to develop a much more capable strategic heavy lift transport. The aircraft’s primary mission would be to carry Energia-Buran components, but engineers also planned on using the new plane to serve as a launch platform for a small air-launched reusable spacecraft called the MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system). The Antonov An-124 Ruslan, under development in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, was a logical starting point. The plane would be the largest and most capable transport to ever enter service, and it was expected to be ready in time for Energia-Buran. But even the An-124 wasn't quite large or powerful enough.
Rather than design an entirely new aircraft from scratch, engineers lengthened the An-124’s fuselage and added a new center section to increase the aircraft’s overall wing span. To give the plane more power, they added two additional engines, giving the plane a total of 309,600 pounds of thrust. Engineers also redesigned the vertical stabilizer to accommodate larger components, and designed a new landing gear to distribute the plane’s immense weight across 32 wheels. The new supersized jet would be designated as the AN-225 Mriya.
The enormous plane made its first flight on December 21, 1998, one month after the first launch of an unmanned Buran spacecraft. But the successes of the Energia-Buran and the An-225 were soon overshadowed by the fact that the Soviet Union was going bankrupt. It meant the Buran would never launch again, and the An-225 no longer had a mission.
Without the need to airlift spacecraft components, the An-225 was paraded around at western airshows while the Soviets struggled to find an alternative use for the giant plane. Proposals included using the An-225 to deploy ekranoplans for maritime rescue missions, using the plane as a launch platform for a British space plane (HOTOL) and there was even a proposal to convert the plane into an airliner.
In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and before long the An-225 was sent to storage outside Kiev Ukraine where it was scavenged for parts. The world’s largest plane now seemed destined for the scrap yard. But the world’s largest plane was given a new lease in the early 2000’s. After years in storage, 20 million dollars were invested into new engines, modernized avionics and a new strengthened cargo hold.
Today the An-225 is used to transport cargo that would otherwise be impossible to fly. But the plane’s outsized capabilities also come with an outsized cost. At upwards of $30,000 an hour to operate, the 225 only flies when no other aircraft can do the job. But as a one of a kind aircraft in a class of its own, the An-225 still draws crowds wherever it lands.
Retro Space HD
Restored field sequential color TV footage of the Shuttle Buran cockpit camera during reentry.
Some maneuvering is shown, performed by the autopilot system, as the shuttle glides towards the landing field. Probably in real speed, but the actual video framerate is unknown.
The original black and white raw footage is from buran.ru
Similar to Apollo (and early US Shuttle) TV cameras the system was field sequential - each image was taken through a different color filter, in sequence. Reconstructing this sequence it's possible to recover color, at the expense of motion artifacts.
Research, editing and processing by Retro Space HD.
Regarding the recent intrusion in the non-utilized facility in Baikonur where the Buran craft are located, the Russian side will introduce the question of the conservation of unique objects in the Cosmodrome during the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission between Kazakhstan and Russia in Baikonur. According to the State Corporation [Roscosmos], it is necessary to swiftly take a decision about the transfer of unique objects to one of the Cosmonautics Museums. Roscosmos is ready to discuss the terms of said decision.
And Roscosmos has reportedly "painted it over" (facepalm)
At least it has spurred an official reaction and it might actually mean these dilapidated vehicles will finally get the curation they deserve.
Hey there, new to this forum, so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are there any original blueprints for buran that have been published (either for the orbiter or the full stack with Energia)?
Hey there, new to this forum, so sorry if this is a dumb question, but are there any original blueprints for buran that have been published (either for the orbiter or the full stack with Energia)?
There are some great images on this site, including detailed schematics: http://buran.ru/
BTW, was the runway for Buran custom-built for this project? Is it still used for regular aircraft? I assume it's in bad shape as well.
- Buran's future RMS was to be built in The Ukraine. Could have been called "Ukrainearm", mirroring "Canadarm". :)
- Buran's future RMS was to be built in The Ukraine. Could have been called "Ukrainearm", mirroring "Canadarm". :)
Actually, Buran's RMS was built by TsNII RTK (Central Scientific Research Institute for Robotics and Technical Cybernetics) in Leningrad, now St.-Petersburg.
Check out pictures here:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/bighand.htm
Hello. Quick question. While looking at reference photos of Buran after the mission I noticed that plenty of scorching and other weathering is present , presumably from reentry. Why is it present on Buran, but not on any of the US shuttles after reentry?Hi and welcome to the NSF forum.
The aerodynamics testbed had 4 engines. Were they planning to use 2 on the orbital Burans?
The aerodynamics testbed had 4 engines. Were they planning to use 2 on the orbital Burans?
No
An-225 dies, Buran(s) are on the move. Life goes on... :-\Notwithstanding the fact that the An-225 was originally built to haul the Buran shuttle to Baikonur but subsequently went on to become a heavylift transport years after the end of the Buran program, it is possible that Roscosmos could decide to have the Buran 2.01 completed and either painted in the likeness of the first Buran shuttle and sent to a museum or fitted with functioning hardware to allow it to be launched into orbit to deploy a space trawler to retrieve derelict Soviet-era satellites if it wants the proposed ROSS to avoid being hit by space debris (just as the ISS on occasions has had to grapple with space junk).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/world/europe/ukraine-giant-plane-mriya.htmlA couple of pictures of the 2nd - unfinished - An-225, which is mentioned in the article. Looks like a good basis to get one flying again (assuming that the 2nd one did fare better during the Russian attacks). And while they are at it, maybe swap in some western, more fuel efficient and less noisy engines?
Restoring a Giant Plane: Ukrainian Resilience or Folly?
Ukraine, with far more pressing needs, plans to rebuild the colossal Mriya cargo plane, a symbol of pride that was destroyed last year in a battle for its airfield.
By Andrew E. Kramer
March 27, 2023Updated 2:17 p.m. ET
<snip>
Notwithstanding the fact that the second An-225 was built as a static test airframe, if the second An-225 is completed with components from the salvaged wreckage of the first An-225, it could be powered by four Rolls-Royce Trent 900s, given that the new in-development Aviadvigatel PD-35 intended to power the proposed Antonov An-124-102 won't be delivered for a few more years. After all, the D-18T powering the An-124 and An-225 was designed in the 1970s and so a variant of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 would be appropriate for the second An-225 given that the the Trent 900 was conceived in the late 1990s.https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/world/europe/ukraine-giant-plane-mriya.htmlA couple of pictures of the 2nd - unfinished - An-225, which is mentioned in the article. Looks like a good basis to get one flying again (assuming that the 2nd one did fare better during the Russian attacks). And while they are at it, maybe swap in some western, more fuel efficient and less noisy engines?
Restoring a Giant Plane: Ukrainian Resilience or Folly?
Ukraine, with far more pressing needs, plans to rebuild the colossal Mriya cargo plane, a symbol of pride that was destroyed last year in a battle for its airfield.
By Andrew E. Kramer
March 27, 2023Updated 2:17 p.m. ET
<snip>
if the second An-225 is completed with components from the salvaged wreckage of the first An-225, it could be powered by four Rolls-Royce Trent 900s,
All it would take is a complete redesign of the wing to use 2 engines/side instead of 3, plus complete redesign of the fuel, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic systems, integrating them all together, then flight testing....
All it would take is a complete redesign of the wing to use 2 engines/side instead of 3, plus complete redesign of the fuel, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic systems, integrating them all together, then flight testing....
One of my favorite planes is the B-52. There have been proposals dating back to the 1990s to re-engine the B-52 with high-bypass turbofans....
One of the guys in my "silent avian" hangar was very heavily involved in this, among the many other things he did during a very distinguished USAF career, he gave a presentation about it (now called the B-52J) to our chapter one night. Like you said, money and politics killed/delayed this program, replacing the TF33s with single engine pods was nothing but a pipe dream out of a Dale Brown novel due to the amount of redesigning/engineering involved.
This link discusses proposals in the late 1960s to 1980s for re-engining the B-52 with advanced high-bypass turbofans or the Pratt & Whitney PW2000/F117 turbofan engine:One of the guys in my "silent avian" hangar was very heavily involved in this, among the many other things he did during a very distinguished USAF career, he gave a presentation about it (now called the B-52J) to our chapter one night. Like you said, money and politics killed/delayed this program, replacing the TF33s with single engine pods was nothing but a pipe dream out of a Dale Brown novel due to the amount of redesigning/engineering involved.
There may have been a pre-1990s proposal for re-engining the B-52, but I'm too lazy to look at the pile of books I have on the aircraft. The 1990s proposal was unusual. My memory is that Boeing was offering to pay for the upgrade (probably in concert with an engine provider), but they would then sign a maintenance contract with USAF over a period of time. Essentially, they would be renting the engine upgrade to USAF. It was an unusual contracting idea, but nobody went for it.
There has been discussion of doing the current upgrade in two phases, resulting in a B-52J and a B-52K. I think the J would be the engines and the K would be new radar and avionics. But I expect that they'll all be collapsed into a single upgrade.
Yeah, we've drifted a bit. But Buran and the An-225 are rubble now, so we don't have much to go with.
One thing I've always been curious about was why Buran located the nose gear so far back compared to the US shuttle.
At this time in 1988, the Soviet Space Shuttle Buran launched on her one and only flight, uncrewed.
Overview:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/remembering-buran-shuttles-estranged-soviet-cousin/
A clip from one of the several long vids we acquired in L2:
Sorry if this has been answered before, but was a reason ever given as to why Energia was hydrolox powered? I mean, they changed plenty of things from STS, but why was arguably the "worst' part of it, the main stage being hydrolox powered (especially when the USSR had basically no experience with hydrolox engines too) wasn't changed?A hydrolox upper stage is not unusual, and Buran's (kerolox, later forming the Zenit first stage) side boosters are more of a first stage than the central core. Burning from the surface is unusual for serial staging but not for parallel staging. If Energia had stuck the side boosters underneath for a traditional tall narrow vehicle, the choice of a hydrolox upper stage would not be unusual at all.
Sorry if this has been answered before, but was a reason ever given as to why Energia was hydrolox powered? I mean, they changed plenty of things from STS, but why was arguably the "worst' part of it, the main stage being hydrolox powered (especially when the USSR had basically no experience with hydrolox engines too) wasn't changed?
There indeed probably was some political justification for why KbKhA got the engine development contract. They definitely didn't come from nowhere.It is not politic, it is only technic: KBHA has a great experiance of work with liquid hydrogen - they made 11B91, nuclear thermal rocket engine.