What if Russia had continued the Buran program and halted production of Proton?

[Vahe231991]

I wanted to ask what Russia's heavy lift needs have been like from the 1990s onwards if Russia in the post-Soviet period had chosen not to cancel the Buran space shuttle program and instead let NPO Energia finish the Buran shuttles Ptichka/Burya (1.02) and 2.01, while saving money for the Buran program by canceling production of the Proton rocket (which would have mollified critics of the Proton rocket for spewing toxic propellants), because just as the Space Shuttle could carry heavy loads like the Hubble Space Telescope, Unity module for the ISS, and other large spacecraft, the Buran's payload bay would have been big enough to carry the Russian-made modules.

[Jim]

They had no heavy lift requirements that the Buran could meet.  They had no science spacecraft like Hubble.  Buran had no upper stages to service higher orbits.  Proton’s propellants were not a concern

[Orbit Explained]

While I would love to see what that would look like today, Exchanging Proton with Buran would just mean less payload to orbit and limited orbit types. We dont know how much Buran would cost and how well reusablity would work for it though I think it would be fair to say it would be a great deal cheaper then the STS. STS Had to have crew on board for every mission. This heavily increased the price of each mission, Buran on the other could(and has) flown without crew on board. Despite all this assuming buran had half the price of STS: ~250 Million USD it would pale in comparison to Protons ~65 Million USD.

More expensive, less capability 

[JayWee]

Don't forget it's not Proton vs Buran, but Proton vs Energia (and Zenit).

[Hobbes-22]

I would have liked to see the proposed reuse of the Zenit boosters in action.

[DreamyPickle]

Zenit did in fact continue. Energia and Buran had much greater capabilities but there was not sufficient demand to continue the program.

It's interesting to ask why Zenit did not replace the Proton, was it just international politics that led to building Angara instead?

Nearly 30 years after the fall of the USSR the Proton is still not fully replaced.

[Vahe231991]

Zenit did in fact continue. Energia and Buran had much greater capabilities but there was not sufficient demand to continue the program.

It's interesting to ask why Zenit did not replace the Proton, was it just international politics that led to building Angara instead?

Nearly 30 years after the fall of the USSR the Proton is still not fully replaced.

Some people have complained about launches involving the Proton rocket having a negative environmental impact because the main stages of the Proton rocket are fueled by the toxic propellant unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. Environmental critics of the Proton rocket think that the Russian Federation should have let the Buran space shuttle program continue and save more than 800 million rubles for the Buran program by cancelling further production of the Proton and Molniya rockets, because the Energia rocket booster did not use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and instead was fueled by LOX, LH₂, and kerosene.

[JayWee]

I believe the fact that Zenit remained property of Ukraine was the problem.

[libra]

Folks,
You all have bits of the story right.

IMHO the whole story went the following way
- Back in the 1980's Zenit, as a derivate of Energiya's booster, was to replace Proton
- In fact Glushko outsourced the Energiya-Buran booster (Zenit) there as his workload was crushing.
- And thus Zenit was built in Ukraine - at the former Yangel OKB.
- Yangel had moved there in the 1960's, after losing a fight with Korolev
- And thanks to Brezhnev, also an Ukrainian who wanted space jobs in his political fiefdom (yes, it also happens outside NASA ROTFL)
- But USSR collapsed
- Ukraine got independant, and so Zenit was not an option for Russia - it ended at SeaLaunch.
- Even if Zenit had pads at Baikonur and had already flown there (including an enormous KABOOM that flattened one of the pads)
- Angara was created from scratch to replace Proton, but took 25 years to maiden flight
- So Proton carried on flying all those years
- And yes, the Altai and Tuva "Republics" downrange Baikonur paid a heavy price to storable propellant stages.
They are littered with carcasses of Proton and Soyuz stages. While LOX is not toxic, kerosene is, and N2O4 / N2H4 are really toxic.

Bottom line: the real successor to Proton was to be Zenit, but Ukraine independance decided otherwise, and Angara was created instead.

No point in keeping the Energiya-Buran stack to replace Proton: the lone booster, Zenit, was to do that job.

Energiya HLV and Buran manned capabilities were not needed to replace Proton.

In a sense, Angara and Zenit are the result of Glushko decision in the late 1970's to outsource the Energiya booster to Ukraine and the former Yangel OKB (Energomash ? never remind the name correctly).

[Jim]

Some people have complained about launches involving the Proton rocket having a negative environmental impact because the main stages of the Proton rocket are fueled by the toxic propellant unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. Environmental critics of the Proton rocket think that the Russian Federation should have let the Buran space shuttle program continue and save more than 800 million rubles for the Buran program by cancelling further production of the Proton and Molniya rockets, because the Energia rocket booster did not use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and instead was fueled by LOX, LH₂, and kerosene.

Some but not many. 

There would not be any savings.  Buran would have cost more.

[libra]

The Soviets / Russians and American way of building space stations are polar opposite.

On the American side: the Shuttle orbiter, its crew and robotic arm were to do the job (in the 1970's - and finally did it for the ISS from 1999 to 2011)

The Soviets went the opposite way. Buran was never, ever built to do the above job, neither for Mir (DOS-7) or its DOS-8 backup that ended on the ISS instead of Mir-2. Plans to use Buran for Mir-2 were afterthoughts, but just like Mir, it did not needed Buran in the first place.

In the case of Mir, the modules were automatically guided and docked to the DOS-7 base block. They pioneered that with TKS dockings to Salyut 6 and Salyut 7 (DOS-5 and DOS-6).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS_(spacecraft)#Kosmos_1267

The Mir modules docked to the frontal port, a bit like Soyuz and Progress. After what they tilted themselves by 90 degrees, docking to the side ports by using that pretty smart little thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyappa_arm

[Robert_the_Doll]

While I would love to see what that would look like today, Exchanging Proton with Buran would just mean less payload to orbit and limited orbit types. We dont know how much Buran would cost and how well reusablity would work for it though I think it would be fair to say it would be a great deal cheaper then the STS. STS Had to have crew on board for every mission. This heavily increased the price of each mission, Buran on the other could(and has) flown without crew on board. Despite all this assuming buran had half the price of STS: ~250 Million USD it would pale in comparison to Protons ~65 Million USD.

More expensive, less capability

Buran-Energia was theoretically capable of a 30 tonne payload to low Earth orbit at an inclination of 51.56 degrees. That is actually superior to Proton's 23.7 tonnes.

There is also no indication that Buran-Energia would be significantly cheaper than STS. In fact, one estimate given by a Soviet official in 1990 placed costs in the same approximate range. The completely expendable nature of Energia simply would not allow for anything else.

[libra]

There were plans to make Energiya (and Zenit boosters) reusable - but they did involved Buran proper. And the thing remained oversized.





Never quite understood whether the "Baikal approach" could be applied to a fly alone Zenit - or not. Then again, the RD-120 second stage would remain expendable.