Author Topic: Buran abort modes  (Read 7357 times)

Offline GLS

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Buran abort modes
« on: 05/15/2006 11:13 AM »
Does anyone know what were the abort modes of the Buran?
GLS is go for main engine start!

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7059
  • SpaceShip Earth
  • Liked: 3438
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #1 on: 05/15/2006 12:30 PM »
According to several sites:

Buran had several abort modes: lose one booster, abort once around; lose two boosters, abort return to site. Reserve landing strips were at Simferopol, and in the "East of the country"

Offline Seattle Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 46
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #2 on: 05/15/2006 10:50 PM »
How could it still abort with the loss of a booster? That's a LOV on the NASA shuttle right?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #3 on: 05/15/2006 11:02 PM »
Quote
Seattle Dave - 15/5/2006  6:37 PM

How could it still abort with the loss of a booster? That's a LOV on the NASA shuttle right?

It had 4 boosters

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #4 on: 05/15/2006 11:02 PM »
The Energia LV used liquid strap-on boosters instead of solids like used on the shuttle, so it could handle an a booster failure.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3026
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 223
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #5 on: 05/15/2006 11:15 PM »
It really was a superior design, in my amateur opinion.  No solids, of course, and with the booster being independent of the orbiter, they already had their heavy lift vehicle with performance similar to what NASA will spend billions to get with CaLV.  It's a shame the Russians didn't have the money to keep the program going.


Offline Orbiter Obvious

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #6 on: 05/16/2006 12:48 AM »
Why did NASA opt for SRBs instead of these liquid boosters?

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2319
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #7 on: 05/16/2006 12:56 AM »
Development costs, the US could build them more cheaply than the liquids. The Soviets didn't have the experience with large solids back then.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #8 on: 05/16/2006 01:21 AM »
Quote
nacnud - 15/5/2006  8:43 PM

Development costs, the US could build them more cheaply than the liquids. The Soviets didn't have the experience with large solids back then.

Nope, not the reason.  Reason was replacement costs.  If the LRB's were to be lost at sea (like the SRB's for STS-4), the replacements costs would out weight the savings over SRB's

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2319
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #9 on: 05/16/2006 01:31 AM »
OK I should have said reuseable LBRs.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #10 on: 05/18/2006 07:13 PM »
There were concepts of LFB replacements to the SRBs. Some of them were sturdy pressure-feds. I can't find a lot of shuttle upgrade websites (been busy) but I seem to remember one concept in Jenkins book that had the Main engines placed underneath the ET.

Offline Zoomer30

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #11 on: 05/19/2006 02:43 PM »
Theywere always trying to find ways to get the main engines out of the shuttle aft end and on the tank.  Its a huge waste of weight to have the SSMEs there, they only run about 8 mins then for the rest of the mission they are dead weight.  Weight that CANT be used for payload.  

The Soviet shuttle was by FAR a better design than our shuttle here in America.  Just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head:

1.  Energia booster was not limited to taking Buran up.  Could lauch pretty much ANY heavy payload to orbit.

2.  Buran shuttle had air breathing engines for landing (on the wings).  This would create a much simpler landing profile, vs the NASA shuttle that pretty much lands in a controlled crash due to the steep glideslope.  The ABEs would also allow for a "wave off" if something was amiss.  A stuck landing gear comes to mind (sure they can fire the PIPs and force the gear to gravity fall and lock, if it works!)

3.  An RTLS on the Buran would be a walk in the park.  An RTLS with the NASA shuttle would more then likely result in LOV and crew.  I mean if they have been having issues with the SRB struts during roll program latley, makes me wonder how well the ET struts would handle the flip around move.

4.  No "ascent engines" in Buran at all.  No weight wasted on heavy engines that are just need for launch.    Only 2 small OMS type engines in the rear for orbit changes and de-orbit.

5.  Liquid boosters are much safer than SRBs, once a SRB is started there is no stopping it.  


I do remember reading somehting where they had found a way to "shut down" an SRB by flooding the booster with carbon dioxide gas, but the weight of the system nixed that idea.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #12 on: 05/19/2006 02:46 PM »
ABE were for only flight tests and ferry flight.  The ones that were to fly into space would not have them.  So you would throwaway the SSME's every flight?

CO2 would not shut down an SRM.  There was going to be thrust termination ports on the fwd part of the SRB's.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #13 on: 05/19/2006 02:47 PM »
2: No ABEs on Buran. The only soviet orbiter to use ABE's was OK-GLI used for approach and landing tests. Buran had no provisions for mounting ABEs.
3: RTLS used a slow pitch around manuever, not a direct yaw manuever to turn back to KSC.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Zoomer30

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Buran abort modes
« Reply #14 on: 05/20/2006 09:43 PM »
I seem to remember everyone raving about the ABEs on the Buran and saying how it would make their landings safer.  Guess they could have been wrong about when they would be used.  Also I thought they used that big cargo plane for ferry flights (they had it at the Paris airshow with Buran on the back)

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Buran abort modes
« Reply #15 on: 05/20/2006 10:28 PM »
That large A/C was the Antov AN-225, also called Mriya, made just for that very purpose. Here's Google Image search on the AN-225: http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-09,RNWE:en&q=AN-225&sa=N&tab=wi
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Tags: