Author Topic: The Buran Thread (Read 485138 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 10/18/2005 03:30 am »

Amazing find by our writer Sergi, video courtesy of Energia.

The one and only flight (unmanned) of the Russian Space Shuttle Buran (Snowstorm).

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD

-----

EDIT:

Later, four unseen videos were recovered by Russian sources, converted from tape to digital format and uploaded in L2's Buran section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags;tagid=1173

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #1 on:** 10/18/2005 03:30 am »

Screenshots:

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #2 on:** 10/18/2005 03:33 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #3 on:** 10/18/2005 03:34 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #4 on:** 10/18/2005 03:35 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #5 on:** 10/18/2005 03:36 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #6 on:** 10/18/2005 03:37 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #7 on:** 10/18/2005 03:38 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #8 on:** 10/18/2005 03:39 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #9 on:** 10/18/2005 03:39 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/18/2005 03:40 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #11 on:** 10/18/2005 03:40 am »

SimonShuttle · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/18/2005 10:16 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?

JamesSpaceFlight · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/18/2005 02:35 pm »

Quote

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?

The US Orbiters have more flight experience, that counts for a lot more.

Slower and softer as no SSMEs on a Burn, just two oversized OMS Pods, and no cargo. A lot less heavy.

Longer flume as it was a lot more coming out the bottom end (SRBs - but not solids) - the ET powered those as we as some more engines on the bottom of the tank I believe.

Avron · « **Reply #14 on:** 10/18/2005 02:52 pm »

Wonder if there was any issues with foam loss?

Terry Rocket · « **Reply #15 on:** 10/18/2005 02:58 pm »

Quote

Avron - 18/10/2005 9:52 AM

Wonder if there was any issues with foam loss?

They painted theirs and used Freon I believe I read somewhere.

MKremer · « **Reply #16 on:** 10/18/2005 03:16 pm »

The 'strap on' boosters were liquid propellant (LOX/kerosene).

Lots of info and history of the Energia booster here:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

More pics of the Energia and Energia/Buran here:

Energia pictures

Do Shuttles Dream · « **Reply #17 on:** 10/18/2005 09:34 pm »

I didn't know there was another Shuttle. What happened to her?

MKremer · « **Reply #18 on:** 10/19/2005 12:48 am »

Dunno what happened to the flight model. Several accounts have had it either sitting outside at the space center slowly decaying from exposure to the elements, or gutted and sitting collecting dust in some hangar.

There's a pretty complete history of the Russian Buran program here:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

Flightstar · « **Reply #19 on:** 10/19/2005 12:52 am »

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.