Energia - Buran Space Transportation System

[Incarn]

How was it better?

in terms of carrying capacity, in terms of crew size, in terms of payload dimensions, in terms of flight duration, in terms of fuel reserves, in terms of characteristic speed, in terms of the thrust of orbital engines, in terms of digitalization and automation, in terms of aerodynamics - in terms of all functionality.

For example, the basic version of the crew size for a ship of the second series is 4 cosmonauts in ejection seats, 2 on one guide rail, with sequential pairwise ejections:
The best thermal protection design - pay attention to the internal thermal protection (on the right side of the picture), under the sections of the frontal thermal protection of the leading edge of the wing - the Buran would have survived the Columbia disaster:

 

[Incarn]

Photo from the archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
It is not on the website www.buran.ru

 

[Byeman]

in terms of carrying capacity, in terms of crew size, in terms of payload dimensions, in terms of flight duration, in terms of fuel reserves, in terms of characteristic speed, in terms of the thrust of orbital engines, in terms of digitalization and automation, in terms of aerodynamics - in terms of all functionality.

The best thermal protection design - pay attention to the internal thermal protection (on the right side of the picture), under the sections of the frontal thermal protection of the leading edge of the wing - the Buran would have survived the Columbia disaster:

wrong. The shuttle could carry 7-10 crew, payload bays were the same, flight duration unproven, fuel reserves? (meaningless), characteristic speed? is meaningless, Thrust of orbital engines is meaningless (total impulse is what matters), digitalization and automation, it was way behind, how was aerodynamics more advanced

The photo shows the same design as US orbiters.

 

[Willythekid]

Photo from the archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
It is not on the website www.buran.ruView attachment 748185

Amazing! Thanks Vadim!!

 

[Willythekid]

in terms of carrying capacity, in terms of crew size, in terms of payload dimensions, in terms of flight duration, in terms of fuel reserves, in terms of characteristic speed, in terms of the thrust of orbital engines, in terms of digitalization and automation, in terms of aerodynamics - in terms of all functionality.

For example, the basic version of the crew size for a ship of the second series is 4 cosmonauts in ejection seats, 2 on one guide rail, with sequential pairwise ejections:View attachment 748173

Additional images!

Source: buran.ru

 

[NMaude]

Additional images!

Source: buran.ru

View attachment 748194

View attachment 748195

View attachment 748196

It's a pity this arrangement wasn't used in the Space Shuttle.

 

[Incarn]

wrong. The shuttle could carry 7-10 crew, payload bays were the same, flight duration unproven, fuel reserves? (meaningless), characteristic speed? is meaningless, Thrust of orbital engines is meaningless (total impulse is what matters), digitalization and automation, it was way behind, how was aerodynamics more advanced

The photo shows the same design as US orbiters.

You are very mistaken.
Firstly, we are talking about technical characteristics, not about achievements in real flights.
Secondly:
- the maximum crew of Buran is 10 people, but in normal flights 4 people are saved in ejection seats. The shuttle crew rescue system at the launch complex and during descent is ridiculous.
- the estimated flight duration of Buran is 30 days, which is ensured, among other things, by a combined propulsion system with common cryogenic fuel (on ships of the second series, the duration of autonomous orbital flight is increased to 180 days due to large-area solar panels);
- maximum fuel reserve - 7 tons more than the shuttle;
- the thrust reserve of the orbital maneuvering engines and the characteristic speed reserve allow Buran to plunge into the atmosphere to an altitude of 55 km above the Earth, followed by an aerodynamic maneuver to rotate the orbital plane and return to space;
- Buran’s automation is significantly higher than that of the shuttle - there are 50 hierarchical on-board systems integrated into a single automatic complex; Buran could, in an unmanned flight, automatically enter orbit, approach and automatically dock with a manned station, deliver or remove a module with its manipulator, place it in its cargo compartment and land on Earth in a fully automatic mode - it was a flying robot for war in space, with missile and laser weapons on board;
- the dimensions (width and length) of the Buran’s cargo compartment are larger than those of the shuttle, and the carrying capacity (cargo weight during launch and landing) is also greater;
- Buran has more effective (structurally more advanced) thermal protection - Buran would have survived the situation in which Colombia died (see my post above);
- the shuttle, due to the very heavy engines in the tail, has a very narrow range of flight alignments (in fact, the shuttle is unable to launch and return the declared masses of cargo) - the Buran has a much (several times) higher range of operational alignments.

I can go on for a long time))

The shuttle was lucky that Buran did not start flying, and the average person could not compare them properly. But even on the first flight, Buran made an automatic landing, which the shuttle could not repeat in 130 flights over 30 years of operation.

PS: You wrote: "The photo shows the same design as US orbiters."
Do you judge by external resemblance? Then a thoroughbred racehorse is a copy of a cow

 

[Byeman]

PS: You wrote: "The photo shows the same design as US orbiters."
Do you judge by external resemblance? Then a thoroughbred racehorse is a copy of a cow

This is what I was referring to:
"The best thermal protection design - pay attention to the internal thermal protection (on the right side of the picture), under the sections of the frontal thermal protection of the leading edge of the wing - "

That is what I was referring to. It is the same design as the US shuttle and hence Buran would not have survived.

And what thoroughbred racehorse? Buran wasn't even worth flying again.

 

[Byeman]

You are very mistaken.
Firstly, we are talking about technical characteristics, not about achievements in real flights.
Secondly:

- the estimated flight duration of Buran is 30 days, which is ensured, among other things, by a combined propulsion system with common cryogenic fuel (on ships of the second series, the duration of autonomous orbital flight is increased to 180 days due to large-area solar panels);
- maximum fuel reserve - 7 tons more than the shuttle;
- the thrust reserve of the orbital maneuvering engines and the characteristic speed reserve allow Buran to plunge into the atmosphere to an altitude of 55 km above the Earth, followed by an aerodynamic maneuver to rotate the orbital plane and return to space;
- Buran’s automation is significantly higher than that of the shuttle - there are 50 hierarchical on-board systems integrated into a single automatic complex; Buran could, in an unmanned flight, automatically enter orbit, approach and automatically dock with a manned station, deliver or remove a module with its manipulator, place it in its cargo compartment and land on Earth in a fully automatic mode - it was a flying robot for war in space, with missile and laser weapons on board;
- the dimensions (width and length) of the Buran’s cargo compartment are larger than those of the shuttle, and the carrying capacity (cargo weight during launch and landing) is also greater;
- Buran has more effective (structurally more advanced) thermal protection - Buran would have survived the situation in which Colombia died (see my post above);
- the shuttle, due to the very heavy engines in the tail, has a very narrow range of flight alignments (in fact, the shuttle is unable to launch and return the declared masses of cargo) - the Buran has a much (several times) higher range of operational alignments.

I can go on for a long time))

The shuttle was lucky that Buran did not start flying, and the average person could not compare them properly. But even on the first flight, Buran made an automatic landing, which the shuttle could not repeat in 130 flights over 30 years of operation.

Quite the opposite. Very knowledgable on both vehicles.

Ok, if we are talking about technical characteristics, then you are very wrong. But, unproven and unflown "technical characteristics" are meaningless. If a capability is not built or demonstrated (like solar arrays), then it doesn't count. There were many proposals to enhance the US, too numerous to list here but just as valid as the unbuilt 'technical characteristics" of Buran

a. the US shuttle mission duration could have been extended with solar panels. Unmanned flight of an orbiter is needless. Just deploy a cheaper satellite which can last even longer than 180 days.
B. "fuel reserve"? Of what system? It is a meaningless measure.
c. The aero plane change was never demonstrated, so not relevant. Plus since the only flight of Buran showed TPS issues, doubtful that it could survive such a maneuver.
D. Buran’s "automation". Don't make me laugh. Soviet computer technology and application to spacecraft is and still is woefully behind the US. The shuttle had more computation capability than Buran. The shuttle had more computers than Buran. The US just did not choose to automate certain tasks. And I know that Buran would not be able to "automatically dock with a manned station, deliver or remove a module with its manipulator, place it in its cargo compartment and land on Earth in a fully automatic mode". |

E. "missile and laser weapons on board" That is nothing but Cold War propaganda.
F. Cargo bay sizes are the same. As far as mass capability, another meaningless point, the additional capacity would have been wasted on structurally inefficient cargo. Soviet spacecraft use heavier construction than western spacecraft.
g. Wrong about the thermal protection. The first Buran could not have flown again.
h. The US shuttle could launch and return the declared masses of cargo".
i. The fact that the shuttle never did an unmanned landing is meaningless according to you. the shuttle has the "technical characteristic" to perform an unmanned landing but "not an achievements in real flights".

Yes, you can go on with the disinformation

a. I was in the USAF shuttle program office and was very knowledgeable about shuttle capabilities. I also was informed on Soviet space capabilities. I also worked the Shuttle-Mir program and early ISS missions and was able to talk with my Russian counterparts about Shuttle-Buran differences.

 

[Willythekid]

I add new images to our collection!
Source: buran.ru

 

[Willythekid]

Source: buran.ru

 

[alberchico]

The previous reply brings up an interesting question about this shuttle. On every single image of it upon its return it is heavily scorched in a way that as far as I know no space shuttle ever endured. Was that heat damage expected or was the thermal protection not enough for the job ? If the Buran program not been cancelled would subsequent shuttles have had significant modifications made to provide better thermal protection ?

 

[Byeman]

The shuttle was lucky that Buran did not start flying, and the average person could not compare them properly.

the average person would never have been able to compare them. The USSR would never have release enough information to enable it.

 

[publiusr]

Would the metal TPS for X-33 Venture Star have worked for Buran? I can just imagine an updated version with J-79 jets mounted above the wing…

 

[Archibald]

The very shuttle concept, Buran or US, was an evolutionary dead end. The orbiters were kinda "super payload fairings": manned, winged, reusables. But payload fairings nonetheless: expensive ones. Shuttle-C and Energyia are proof of that.

 

[Incarn]

This is what I was referring to:
"The best thermal protection design - pay attention to the internal thermal protection (on the right side of the picture), under the sections of the frontal thermal protection of the leading edge of the wing - "

That is what I was referring to. It is the same design as the US shuttle and hence Buran would not have survived.

And what thoroughbred racehorse? Buran wasn't even worth flying again.

You are mistaken again.
On Columbia, a section of the frontal edge of the wing was destroyed, revealing the front wing spar exposed to plasma.
In addition, the frontal sections on the shuttle are mounted end-to-end, which creates a gap that needs to be protected with a pad.

On Buran, the front wing spar is is protected by its own heat protection tiles. Therefore, destruction/burnout of the front wing sections does not lead to burnout of the front spar.
On the shuttle, excess heat between the leading edge sections and the spar is dumped inside the caisson volume - a very stupid decision that ruined Columbia.
On Buran, excess heat drains outward at the rear of the wing. During the inspection of Buran at Baikonur, Rockwell engineers were amazed to see HOW THE thermal protection of the wing nose should have been done
In addition, the frontal sections of the wing are mounted overlapping, and there is no gap.

Protection of the front wing spar on Buran:

The shuttle's front spar remains without its own thermal protection, like Buran's before its installation, like this:
In Buran, the front spar is covered with its own thermal protection, on top of which sections of the frontal edge of the wing are mounted:

 

[Incarn]

Quite the opposite. Very knowledgable on both vehicles.

Ok, if we are talking about technical characteristics, then you are very wrong. But, unproven and unflown "technical characteristics" are meaningless. If a capability is not built or demonstrated (like solar arrays), then it doesn't count. There were many proposals to enhance the US, too numerous to list here but just as valid as the unbuilt 'technical characteristics" of Buran

a. the US shuttle mission duration could have been extended with solar panels. Unmanned flight of an orbiter is needless. Just deploy a cheaper satellite which can last even longer than 180 days.
B. "fuel reserve"? Of what system? It is a meaningless measure.
c. The aero plane change was never demonstrated, so not relevant. Plus since the only flight of Buran showed TPS issues, doubtful that it could survive such a maneuver.
D. Buran’s "automation". Don't make me laugh. Soviet computer technology and application to spacecraft is and still is woefully behind the US. The shuttle had more computation capability than Buran. The shuttle had more computers than Buran. The US just did not choose to automate certain tasks. And I know that Buran would not be able to "automatically dock with a manned station, deliver or remove a module with its manipulator, place it in its cargo compartment and land on Earth in a fully automatic mode". |

E. "missile and laser weapons on board" That is nothing but Cold War propaganda.
F. Cargo bay sizes are the same. As far as mass capability, another meaningless point, the additional capacity would have been wasted on structurally inefficient cargo. Soviet spacecraft use heavier construction than western spacecraft.
g. Wrong about the thermal protection. The first Buran could not have flown again.
h. The US shuttle could launch and return the declared masses of cargo".
i. The fact that the shuttle never did an unmanned landing is meaningless according to you. the shuttle has the "technical characteristic" to perform an unmanned landing but "not an achievements in real flights".

Yes, you can go on with the disinformation

a. I was in the USAF shuttle program office and was very knowledgeable about shuttle capabilities. I also was informed on Soviet space capabilities. I also worked the Shuttle-Mir program and early ISS missions and was able to talk with my Russian counterparts about Shuttle-Buran differences.

I was asked - if Buran started flying, would it be better than the shuttle? I answered yes. Based on what has already been implemented in its design. Load capacity, cargo compartment dimensions, autonomy, automation, etc.
There was no second or other flights - but ships with these characteristics had already been built.

According to proposals for improving the shuttle: it flew for 30 years, and everything that could be done on it was done, but what was not done could not be done.

Unmanned flight of an orbiter is needless? Tell this to the Challenger and Columbia crews and their families.
Plus since the only flight of Buran showed TPS issues, doubtful that it could survive such a maneuver - Columbia's first flight lost more tiles than Buran's first flight. In terms of maneuver, Buran was designed for it, it was created for it.
Regarding automation, you are very mistaken. The chips were worse, but the software, algorithms and level of automation were much better (at that time).
The shuttle could not make an automatic landing, and the justification for the losers is that it was not needed))

"And I know that Buran would not be able to "automatically dock with a manned station, deliver or remove a module with its manipulator, place it in its cargo compartment and land on Earth in a fully automatic mode")))", - automatic docking with the Mir orbital complex was in the program for the second flight - such is the price of your knowledge))

"missile and laser weapons on board" That is nothing but Cold War propaganda" - this is the reality of the technical requirements for Buran, implemented in its design
“Cargo bay sizes are the same,” - the dimensions of the shuttle’s cargo compartment are 18.3 x 4.6 meters, Buran’s are 18.55 x 4.7 meters.
The carrying capacity of the Shattle into an orbit with an inclination of 28.5 degrees is 29,500 kg, Buran - 30,000 kg in an orbit with an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The shuttle can return cargo weighing 14,500 kg from space, Buran - 15,000 kg

"Soviet spacecraft use heavier construction than western spacecraft", - The mass of the empty shuttle when launched into orbit is 98000-99000 kg, (STS-1), when landing it is 89000-88000 kg. The mass of an empty Buran during flight during launch into space is 79,400 kg, during landing 72,000 kg.
The shuttle's dry weight is 68,040 kg, Buran's is 65,000 kg.
As you can see, you are wrong here too))

"...the shuttle has the "technical characteristic" to perform an unmanned landing but "not an achievements in real flights", - thank you, it was funny.

“Yes, you can go on with the disinformation”, - is a very convenient position when you cannot object to anything specifically.

As for me - I am a Ph.D. in aviation, and worked as a designer at NPO Molniya, which developed Buran, and I know Buran very well and its advantages over the shuttle.
The shuttle was created as a system in constant bickering between NASA and the Ministry of Defense, and Buran was immediately created against the shuttle with the main task - to be better

 

[Incarn]

The previous reply brings up an interesting question about this shuttle. On every single image of it upon its return it is heavily scorched in a way that as far as I know no space shuttle ever endured. Was that heat damage expected or was the thermal protection not enough for the job ? If the Buran program not been cancelled would subsequent shuttles have had significant modifications made to provide better thermal protection ?

Visible damage to Buran's thermal protection after the first flight was mainly superficial.
In this case, the main damage (in terms of area) was received not during the descent into the atmosphere, but from the operation of the engines of the side blocks of the first stage during insertion into orbit.

After the ship was simply washed, the thermal protection looked like this:

The same thermal protection (after restoring the top protective layer of tiles) in Paris:

The heat-protective coating of the ships of the second series (2.01, 2.02, 2.03) had a different composition and was better (it better corresponded to temperature fields and was lighter)

 

[publiusr]

I seem to remember a picture of Gorbachev near the pad—with a look of disdain on his face…a latter day Proxmire.

I’m sure he wrecked the life’s work of many of your colleagues…I’m glad I wasn’t there. Instead, I have advocated for something like Buran, in that it would be safer than Starship. If SLS can survive the coming political test, it can evolve into another Energiya. If not, well..we have your work.

 

[NMaude]

I seem to remember a picture of Gorbachev near the pad—with a look of disdain on his face…a latter day Proxmire.

Are you sure that look of disdain wasn't directed towards the Polyus mission which he was NOT happy about?

 

[publiusr]

It might have been…but my guess is that he, like Nixon—was never happier than when he was killing *anything* aerospace related. Even if Polyus wasn’t there, the result would likely have been the same.

These days, Stoke is the only outfit trying to breathe new life into a deserving concept (Bono’s) that never got a chance to prove itself.

 

[galopujacy_jez]

The previous reply brings up an interesting question about this shuttle. On every single image of it upon its return it is heavily scorched in a way that as far as I know no space shuttle ever endured. Was that heat damage expected or was the thermal protection not enough for the job ? If the Buran program not been cancelled would subsequent shuttles have had significant modifications made to provide better thermal protection ?

As mentioned by Vadim, afaik most of the visible "scorching" are deposits from the booster separation motor exhaust. The soviets had to spend quite a bit of time tweaking the location and configuration of these motors because with shorter boosters than Shuttle the exhaust plume would impinge on the orbiter (one of the notable changes in the design of Energia after 1979-81 when the design was frozen). I attached a translated version of a poster/diagram on the separation motor characteristics and design changes. The "scorched" area on Buran matches the outline of the area covered in felt insulation blankets, the zone with the *lowest* heat load on the orbiter; in the wake of the wing during reentry. On post-landing photos you can also see that on the aft fuselage (covered in white silica tiles), the APU exhaust clears away the deposits quite effectively. Most of the "serious" damage can be seen on closeups of the black tiles; with dozens of chips, scorched coatings and erosion channels, especially close to the nosecone and between the elevons. Also of course the ~8 tiles lost completely; 3 adjacent tiles next to the left wing leading edge, where significant damage to the aluminium skin underneath occurred.

 

[Archibald]

As for me - I am a Ph.D. in aviation, and worked as a designer at NPO Molniya, which developed Buran, and I know Buran very well and its advantages over the shuttle.
The shuttle was created as a system in constant bickering between NASA and the Ministry of Defense, and Buran was immediately created against the shuttle with the main task - to be better

a. I was in the USAF shuttle program office and was very knowledgeable about shuttle capabilities. I also was informed on Soviet space capabilities. I also worked the Shuttle-Mir program and early ISS missions and was able to talk with my Russian counterparts about Shuttle-Buran difference

Now that's an interesting debate ! Gotta love that forum.

 

[galopujacy_jez]

I seem to remember a picture of Gorbachev near the pad—with a look of disdain on his face…a latter day Proxmire.

I’m sure he wrecked the life’s work of many of your colleagues…I’m glad I wasn’t there. Instead, I have advocated for something like Buran, in that it would be safer than Starship. If SLS can survive the coming political test, it can evolve into another Energiya. If not, well..we have your work.

May 1987, the launch of Polyus was pushed back to occur after Gorbachev left the cosmodrome. During the same visit he approved the name Energia for the rocket, as suggested by Glushko.

 

[publiusr]

The look on his face...ugh.

Speaking of Glushko, I understand he hated liquid hydrogen.

Where America's External Tank fed an orbiter--could the reverse be true?

A Buran II would have dense kerosene inside it--with Energiya being an all LOX tank with RD-170s that got kerosene from the orbiter...which is now even closer to a regular jet plane.

A Columbia II--I might make an all-LOX orbiter with SSMEs but automated...with crew/payload atop the all hydrogen ET, for a wet workshop.

Columbia II would be unmanned...the key being, whatever is the least dense propellant --that goes into the ET/Energiya core block outside the airframe--with the orbiter having the densest liquid.

Elon doesn't like wings--I don't like big resonating tanks--it is why Skylon is so spindly.

 

[Incarn]

As mentioned by Vadim, afaik most of the visible "scorching" are deposits from the booster separation motor exhaust. The soviets had to spend quite a bit of time tweaking the location and configuration of these motors because with shorter boosters than Shuttle the exhaust plume would impinge on the orbiter (one of the notable changes in the design of Energia after 1979-81 when the design was frozen). I attached a translated version of a poster/diagram on the separation motor characteristics and design changes. The "scorched" area on Buran matches the outline of the area covered in felt insulation blankets, the zone with the *lowest* heat load on the orbiter; in the wake of the wing during reentry. On post-landing photos you can also see that on the aft fuselage (covered in white silica tiles), the APU exhaust clears away the deposits quite effectively. Most of the "serious" damage can be seen on closeups of the black tiles; with dozens of chips, scorched coatings and erosion channels, especially close to the nosecone and between the elevons. Also of course the ~8 tiles lost completely; 3 adjacent tiles next to the left wing leading edge, where significant damage to the aluminium skin underneath occurred.

View attachment 748365
View attachment 748366

I counted 10 lost tiles; there were more damaged (chips of the upper surface, etc.)

 

[Incarn]

When creating Buran, the design of the shuttle was studied in detail, “under a microscope” - so as not to repeat its mistakes.
All design solutions of the shuttle were known down to the smallest details. The information was analyzed, studied, and all data on the shuttle was systematized in secret reports that Buran's designers had. For example, in this:
And their own mistakes made during the design of Buran were corrected in the creation of the ships of the second series (when their design began, the shuttle had already been flying for several years).
The ships of the second series are different ships, based on the experience of designing the first Burans.

Nobody knows about the ships of the second series in the West, and I talked a little about them in my article a few years ago, as far as possible (sorry, in Russian):

 

[galopujacy_jez]

When creating Buran, the design of the shuttle was studied in detail, “under a microscope” - so as not to repeat its mistakes.
All design solutions of the shuttle were known down to the smallest details. The information was analyzed, studied, and all data on the shuttle was systematized in secret reports that Buran's designers had. For example, in this:View attachment 748445
And their own mistakes made during the design of Buran were corrected in the creation of the ships of the second series (when their design began, the shuttle had already been flying for several years).
The ships of the second series are different ships, based on the experience of designing the first Burans.

Nobody knows about the ships of the second series in the West, and I talked a little about them in my article a few years ago, as far as possible (sorry, in Russian):

Great stuff as always. I was wondering; I noticed the Izd. 305-2 page has been "under construction" for quite a while now, do you have any more information or drawings you are able to share here? Information on this version is very hard to find in the "standard" sources. Usually just a mention that it was obviously the interim version finalized before 1979 which "competed" with 305-1, "big Spiral" and that it was "very similar to the final orbiter".

 

[NMaude]

Speaking of Glushko, I understand he hated liquid hydrogen.

Glushko was obsessed with hypergolic propellants, he was also an arsehole.

 

[Byeman]

Where America's External Tank fed an orbiter--could the reverse be true?

A Buran II would have dense kerosene inside it--with Energiya being an all LOX tank with RD-170s that got kerosene from the orbiter...which is now even closer to a regular jet plane.

No, not enough room to hold the required amount of kerosene

A Columbia II--I might make an all-LOX orbiter with SSMEs but automated...with crew/payload atop the all hydrogen ET, for a wet workshop.

Again, not enough room for the LOX. And no reason for wet work shop. Don't understand, NASA is not going build another station even.

Elon doesn't like wings--I don't like big resonating tanks--....

Based on what engineering or experience should we heed your opinion?

 

[Byeman]

I was asked - if Buran started flying, would it be better than the shuttle? I answered yes.

It doesn't mean you are right..

According to proposals for improving the shuttle: it flew for 30 years, and everything that could be done on it was done, but what was not done could not be done.

Wrong. There was a lot undone.

Unmanned flight of an orbiter is needless? Tell this to the Challenger and Columbia crews and their families.

See, here you don't know what you are talking about. Columbia flew a research module that carried biological and material science experiments to be performed by the crew. Hard to do experiments in a manned module without a crew.

“Cargo bay sizes are the same,” - the dimensions of the shuttle’s cargo compartment are 18.3 x 4.6 meters, Buran’s are 18.55 x 4.7 meters.

a. .25 and .1 meters are noise level differences. Also, the shuttle's cargo bay is actually larger. The 60 feet by 15 feet is the size of payload.

"Soviet spacecraft use heavier construction than western spacecraft", - The mass of the empty shuttle when launched into orbit is 98000-99000 kg, (STS-1), when landing it is 89000-88000 kg. The mass of an empty Buran during flight during launch into space is 79,400 kg, during landing 72,000 kg.
The shuttle's dry weight is 68,040 kg, Buran's is 65,000 kg.
As you can see, you are wrong here too))

Wasn't referring to the orbiters but spacecraft carried by them. But anyways, the shuttle dry weight include 10000kg of engines that the Buran doesn't have.

 

[Byeman]

I seem to remember a picture of Gorbachev near the pad—with a look of disdain on his face…a latter day Proxmire.

Wrong, that is an inane statement. it was because of the payload

I’m sure he wrecked the life’s work of many of your colleagues

It was rightfully canceled. There never was a need for it and even the smaller version. It cost too much and there was no payloads for it.

…I’m glad I wasn’t there.

Why would you want to be there? Did you want to live under Communism?

Instead, I have advocated for something like Buran, in that it would be safer than Starship.

No, it would not be. Just stop and get it out your mind. A transportation system has to be based on cost or else, it is not viable. And part of the cost is being safe. You have no proof that a winged orbiter would be safer than an orbiter

If SLS can survive the coming political test, it can evolve into another Energiya. If not, well..we have your work.

no, even if it survives, it will not evolve anymore. it is a dead end.

 

[Byeman]

Buran was immediately created against the shuttle with the main task - to be better

If it was so much better, why did it only fly once?

 

[NMaude]

The Buran only flew once because of the rapidly deteriorating economic and political situation in the Soviet Union.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@Byeman, your relentless negativity is unhelpful. I deleted a post which I found very disrespectful. If you continue you will be banned from this topic.

 

[_Del_]

Wasn't referring to the orbiters but spacecraft carried by them. But anyways, the shuttle dry weight include 10000kg of engines that the Buran doesn't have.

Given that deliberate decision enabled Energiya to carry payloads other than a manned orbiter, I'm not sure that is a plus for the STS and not ultimately a minus.

It was rightfully canceled. There never was a need for it and even the smaller version. It cost too much and there was no payloads for it.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in acknowledging different technical approaches and achievements with Energiya or Buran. There's no reason they couldn't have built a functioning shuttle program or payloads appropriate to it with time and money. You yourself just went on about how Challenger needed crew for a manned mission payload as though it was axiomatic for a shuttle system to develop and fly those payloads.

You are probably right, directionally speaking, as both STS and Buran were lighting money on fire, ironically, chasing reusability in the name of economic efficiency.
Both still represented monumental engineering achievements. Go have a Coke and a smile, friend.

 

[galopujacy_jez]

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in acknowledging different technical approaches and achievements with Energiya or Buran. There's no reason they couldn't have built a functioning shuttle program or payloads appropriate to it with time and money. You yourself just went on about how Challenger needed crew for a manned mission payload as though it was axiomatic for a shuttle system to develop and fly those payloads.

You are probably right, directionally speaking, as both STS and Buran were lighting money on fire, ironically, chasing reusability in the name of economic efficiency.
Both still represented monumental engineering achievements. Go have a Coke and a smile, friend.

I can see the point they're making; to my understanding STS was originally meant to effectively replace the US fleet and become a universal launcher, dozens of payloads and missions were devised with the Shuttle in mind, upper stages were developed etc. Meanwhile, Buran was meant to merely complement the existing fleet, and as a result everything that could be launched on R-7 variants stuck with the R-7, payloads for Proton stuck with Proton, etc. And when you design a conventional spacecraft to launch on Buran, there's a good chance it could have flown on the Proton instead, for 1/6 the price. Buran's goals were military and throughout the program it struggled to find payloads other than military experiments and station modules, the latter of which were designed to launch on expendable rockets anyway.

 

[Archibald]

I can see the point they're making; to my understanding STS was originally meant to effectively replace the US fleet and become a universal launcher, dozens of payloads and missions were devised with the Shuttle in mind, upper stages were developed etc. Meanwhile, Buran was meant to merely complement the existing fleet, and as a result everything that could be launched on R-7 variants stuck with the R-7, payloads for Proton stuck with Proton, etc. And when you design a conventional spacecraft to launch on Buran, there's a good chance it could have flown on the Proton instead, for 1/6 the price. Buran's goals were military and throughout the program it struggled to find payloads other than military experiments and station modules, the latter of which were designed to launch on expendable rockets anyway.

This. As you say, Buran was not created to replace the Soviet ELV fleet. Buran was started as a symmetrical answer to the US Shuttle four years late (Nixon's decision, January 5, 1972 vs the February 23, 1976 decree that also started Mir).

The reason relates to Brezhnev and renowned matematician Keldysh.

It is really a head-scratching story. But it is from serious, multiple sources.

1-The Air Force (and the NRO hidding in plain sight behind them) needs a Shuttle pad at Vandenberg AFB to lift KH-9 satellites in polar orbit with the Shuttle. The Shuttle payload bay length is dimensionned 60 ft long using KH-9 as a "future spysats template".
2-They also want a single-orbit mission, deployement and retrieval (DRM-3A)
3-Meanwhile the Soviets are livid at NASA flight rates: one per week, 52 per year, 700 flights from 1978 to 1990.
4-WDF will NASA do with 21 000 tons in orbit ? (700*30) ? can only be something ABM like (not there yet) SDI
5-Keldysh and a team of matematicians are put on that case, around 1973-74
6-Then they learn about the Vandenberg base in construction: SLC-6
7-As it happens, the single-orbit mission trajectory pass very close from Moscow
8-Team Keldysh connect dots that should not be connected - and goes into panic mode

9- "The single orbit mission from Vandenberg is to drop a Polaris warhead on Moscow !"

10- Keldysh goes to almost-senile Brezhnev, tells him about 9- : Brezhnev starts Buran.

 

[galopujacy_jez]

This. As you say, Buran was not created to replace the Soviet ELV fleet. Buran was started as a symmetrical answer to the US Shuttle four years late (Nixon's decision, January 5, 1972 vs the February 23, 1976 decree that also started Mir).

The reason relates to Brezhnev and renowned matematician Keldysh.

It is really a head-scratching story. But it is from serious, multiple sources.

1-The Air Force (and the NRO hidding in plain sight behind them) needs a Shuttle pad at Vandenberg AFB to lift KH-9 satellites in polar orbit with the Shuttle. The Shuttle payload bay length is dimensionned 60 ft long using KH-9 as a "future spysats template".
2-They also want a single-orbit mission, deployement and retrieval (DRM-3A)
3-Meanwhile the Soviets are livid at NASA flight rates: one per week, 52 per year, 700 flights from 1978 to 1990.
4-WDF will NASA do with 21 000 tons in orbit ? (700*30) ? can only be something ABM like (not there yet) SDI
5-Then they learn about the Vandenberg base in construction: SLC-6
6- As it happens, the single-orbit mission trajectory pass very close from Moscow
7- Keldysh and a team of matematicians are put on that case, around 1973-74
8-They connect dots that should not be connected (spysats ? what's that ?) - and go into panic mode
9- the single orbit mission from Vandenberg is to drop a Polaris warhead on Moscow
10- Keldysh goes to almost-senile Brezhnev, tells him about 9- : Brezhnev starts Buran.

Afaik the nuclear strike report was signed by Keldysh *after* the program was approved, but the fears and potentially the preliminary reults of the study certainly played a big part in the decision. Also important to note the 820 tonne pa return capability planned for Shuttle, which TsNIIMash reported would be consistent with space weapon testbed deployment and return for modifications.

 

[Archibald]

@Incarn , do you ever heard about that story ? As I said it comes from pretty serious sources - but most of them from the "west" side of the fence. I'll be glad to have some hidsight from Russia proper.