Energia - Buran Space Transportation System

Thought you might find this interesting: photos of Buran on the pad during the May 1988 rollout with the Buran decal airbrushed out. They were released in late September 1988 to coincide with Discovery's Return To Flight mission, but before the name "Buran" was officially released as the name of the orbiter.

1733597004271-jpeg.751345
1733596982572.jpeg

And in color as published by TASS (re-released by RGANTD), and in Aviation Week - this time with "Buran" blacked out:

1733597122794.jpeg 1733597068950.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 1733597004271.jpeg
    1733597004271.jpeg
    100.8 KB · Views: 675
115th anniversary of the birth of the Father of Buran, Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky

December 25, 1909, Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky was born. The boy from a noble family received a good home education, then became an engineer. Already in 1932 he created the country's first afterburner for a turbojet aircraft engine. Then there was work on MiGs, on orbital airplanes, and then the pinnacle of his career - the creation of Buran. Whoever is strong in space is also strong on Earth, he believed.

lozin (2).jpg

bburan27_2.jpg
 
1984 December 29: The prototype of the Buran orbiter, designated BTS-002 GLI, conducted the first taxi tests on the runway in Zhukovsky. The crew was Honored Test Pilot of the USSR Igor Petrovich Volk and test pilot Rimantas Antanas Stankevičius.

original.jpeg


52bce30ea51cb620089d67bbe5314099-DeNoiseAI-raw.jpg
 
Last edited:
Energiya--like SLS--would qualify as Stage-and-a-half to orbit I should think...only the straps-ons would be a nuisance nearby

But farmers didn't have to worry as much about the main core...not just because of cleaner propellants.

Columbia kept the SSMEs (making it an LV of sorts)--but the power heads hit the ground at... Mach 2?

Something Buran would never be accused of.
SS has double the number of power heads that Columbia had during its break-up.

Forget the arguments I made in the past about wet workshops, fewer main engines, etc.

An argument can be made that a Buran type orbiter is not only safer for its occupants what with wings --but that an Energiya/SLS stage-and-a-half flight profile is safer to aircraft than that of Starship/SuperHeavy.
 
publiusr said:
Energiya--like SLS--would qualify as Stage-and-a-half to orbit I should think...only the straps-ons would be a nuisance nearby
Click to expand...
Any "strap-ons" in the form of solid or liquid parallel staged boosters qualify as a stage (collectively for any numbers of boosters shedded at the same point in time) in themselves, rather than a "nuisance", since they actively contribute thrust and therefore delta v during ascent, so Energia (NOT Energiya) was a three stage system (boosters, core stage, orbiter), whereas the STS was a two and a half stage system (boosters, external tank, orbiter), since in both cases the orbiter had to perform the circulation boost on its own as a kick stage. I know, rocket science is hard...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Any "strap-ons" in the form of solid or liquid parallel staged boosters qualify as a stage (collectively for any numbers of boosters shedded at the same point in time) in themselves, rather than a "nuisance", since they actively contribute thrust and therefore delta v during ascent, so Energia (NOT Energiya) was a three stage system (boosters, core stage, orbiter), whereas the STS was a two and a half stage system (boosters, external tank, orbiter), since in both cases the orbiter had to perform the circulation boost on its own as a kick stage. I know, rocket science is hard...
Click to expand...
Energia does require an additional circularisation burn after core stage separation but 1. the needed impulse is tiny compared to what Energia delivers by itself and 2. the vehicle performing the insertion need not be part of the Energia system itself; it can be an optional third stage but it could also be the payload, meaning that the launch provider only supplies a two stage vehicle. If you were to put a Soyuz spacecraft into an empty Energia payload container, the Soyuz would still need to perform the insertion, but I struggle to see how one would call it "Energia's third stage". You can also imagine trying to market the vehicle and saying to someone "yes, Energia is a three stage system, except for the third stage, which is not part of the Energia system, because Energia only has two stages". It's a three stage system in the sense of delta v calculation, but then so is every other two stage vehicle where the payload uses its own propulsion to reach the target orbit. I think saying that it's a two stage vehicle with an optional third stage or that it requires an additional impulse by the payload is more helpful than just calling it three stage.
 
galopujacy_jez said:
Energia does require an additional circularisation burn after core stage separation but 1. the needed impulse is tiny compared to what Energia delivers by itself and 2. the vehicle performing the insertion need not be part of the Energia system itself; it can be an optional third stage but it could also be the payload, meaning that the launch provider only supplies a two stage vehicle. If you were to put a Soyuz spacecraft into an empty Energia payload container, the Soyuz would still need to perform the insertion, but I struggle to see how one would call it "Energia's third stage". You can also imagine trying to market the vehicle and saying to someone "yes, Energia is a three stage system, except for the third stage, which is not part of the Energia system, because Energia only has two stages". It's a three stage system in the sense of delta v calculation, but then so is every other two stage vehicle where the payload uses its own propulsion to reach the target orbit. I think saying that it's a two stage vehicle with an optional third stage or that it requires an additional impulse by the payload is more helpful than just calling it three stage.
Click to expand...
I clearly was referring to the Energia/Buran configuration, i.e. "boosters, core stage, orbiter", as *explicitly* outlined in my post, in comparison to the STS. Like the STS Shuttle Orbiter, Buran had two integral orbital maneuvering engines in the form of the Joint Propulsion System (Объединенная Двигательная Установка). The analogy stands.
 
publiusr said:
Energiya--like SLS--would qualify as Stage-and-a-half to orbit I should think...only the straps-ons would be a nuisance nearby
Click to expand...
Wrong. SLS is 3 stages. The upperstage is required for orbital insertion.

publiusr said:
But farmers didn't have to worry as much about the main core...not just because of cleaner propellants.
Click to expand...
no, because it went in the ocean like the shuttle ET or SLS core.
publiusr said:
Columbia kept the SSMEs (making it an LV of sorts)--but the power heads hit the ground at... Mach 2?

Something Buran would never be accused of.
Click to expand...
Airliner jet engines coming off are more of a concern than rocket engine powerheads.

publiusr said:
SS has double the number of power heads that Columbia had during its break-up.

Forget the arguments I made in the past about wet workshops, fewer main engines, etc.

An argument can be made that a Buran type orbiter is not only safer for its occupants what with wings --but that an Energiya/SLS stage-and-a-half flight profile is safer to aircraft than that of Starship/SuperHeavy.
Click to expand...
a meaningless argument much like debating about the number of angels that can fit on the hit of pin.

a Energiya/SLS breakup is going to have more heavier and larger objects survive than SS.

also, Energiya/SLS is more of a risk of than SS because they are expendable. Once SS gets the kinks worked out, it will be a more reliable system.

And Energiya/SLS have more dense items than powerhead that would survive entry such as booster attach fittings, thrust beams, etc
 
Last edited:
The Museum Complex of Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Sverdlovsk Oblast) has started restoring the legendary Buran spaceship - Izdeliye 2.01, the only flying copy in Russia. In a year's time, it will become part of a large-scale exposition about Soviet cosmonautics.

✔ The hull is being scanned to recreate lost parts: engines, fairings and glazing.

✔ Drawings from the 1980s have been partially lost - restorers are working with archival data.

✔ A separate pavilion is being built for Buran with exhibits of the Energia-Buran program.

71b265e6-4c89-4c29-a9c9-79cd0afdb705.jpg
 
Willythekid said:
The Museum Complex of Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Sverdlovsk Oblast) has started restoring the legendary Buran spaceship - Izdeliye 2.01, the only flying copy in Russia. In a year's time, it will become part of a large-scale exposition about Soviet cosmonautics.

✔ The hull is being scanned to recreate lost parts: engines, fairings and glazing.

✔ Drawings from the 1980s have been partially lost - restorers are working with archival data.

✔ A separate pavilion is being built for Buran with exhibits of the Energia-Buran program.

View attachment 757453
Click to expand...

3heroes.ru

Доставка космического корабля Буран -

Весогабаритные характеристики: Автопоезд - Фюзеляж 40000 х 8600 х 6500 мм / 65000кг: Автопоезд - Консоли и киль 20000 х 9000 х 4500 мм / 45000кг.
3heroes.ru 3heroes.ru

:oops:
 
boxkite said:
What happened to the underside of the nose? Is it a non-original part?
Click to expand...
If you mean the nosecap that's sticking out it's because the VDNKh orbiter does not have any silica tiles and is just painted to have the same pattern. The nosecap (like the wing leading edge panels) simulates the shape of the reinforced carbon-carbon part of flight-worthy orbiters, so it's meant to be flush with tiles that this orbiter doesn't have.
 
Last edited:
Willythekid said:
Book “Fuel Element Based Power Installations for Lunar Orbital Vehicle and Buran Orbital Vehicle” by Sergey Khudyakov, an honored labor veteran of RSC Energia.
Click to expand...
...
 

Attachments

  • razrabotka-energoustanovok-na-osnove-schelochnyh-toplivnyh-elementov-dlya-lunnogo-orbitalnogo-...pdf
    9.7 MB · Views: 26
IMO if the USSR had collapsed in 1993 instead of 1991 I have no doubt that the Buran would've flown a second time.
 
publiusr said:
Columbia kept the SSMEs (making it an LV of sorts)--but the power heads hit the ground at... Mach 2?

Something Buran would never be accused of.
SS has double the number of power heads that Columbia had during its break-up.
Click to expand...
Buran still has landing gear struts.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom