5 ms·

So this was originally made to carry the USSR's Buran space-shuttle-like project. I'd never heard of Buran before, but I have heard many critiques of the US's s

by tgb 10y ago

So this was originally made to carry the USSR's Buran space-shuttle-like project. I'd never heard of Buran before, but I have heard many critiques of the US's space shuttle program. Yet Buran looks almost identical from a cursory view. Why would the Soviet's independently develop a highly flawed project? This article does a decent job answering that: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a9763/did-the-soviets-actually-build-a-better-space-shuttle-16176311/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a9763/did-the-...

corford 10y ago
OT but if you've never heard of Buran, you might like this blog post: http://russiatrek.org/blog/history/two-abandoned-spaceships-of-energy-buran-project/ http://russiatrek.org/blog/history/two-abandoned-spaceships-... It's rammed with fantastic photos by Ralph Mirebs of the hangers at the Baikonur Cosmodrome used to house it (complete with an ageing, abandoned Buran inside).
izacus 10y ago
> Why would the Soviet's independently develop a highly flawed project? Probably a few reasons: * At the point of starting Shuttle operations, the flaws of the design weren't as apparent, especially not to general public. * Even though it LOOKS similar, it's actually not all that similar in design. The main difference is that it doesn't actually carry engines (which are the most expensive and problematic part of Shuttle due to their planned reuse) - Buran was taken into orbit by an expendable Energia rocket, which "solved" the problems with expensive engine rebuilds and testing. * At the end of the day, Buran never got past the prototype stage. It flew a single mission (empty, fully automated), landed and was then shelved. Only two prototypes were ever built.
- Retric 10y ago
  It's not just rebuilding engines it's returning their weight that's a problem. The high temperatures are a result of pressure not friction. A smaller and or less dense craft has a vastly easier time during reentry. A shuttle actually works fairly well at around 1/5 the size. Lower thermal stress means no tiles. It would have a single ideally swappable engine large on board fuel and no external fuel tank. Still needs SRB's but those actually work fairly well.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    My understanding is that it got fatally compromised as either a 3 letter agency or the pentagon wanted to use it for satellite maintenance/retrieval. Never happened, but it still resulted in a hybrid design that was basically suitable for neither. In the end it may well have continued flying as a kind of "national pride" issue.
    - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      > a 3 letter agency or the pentagon wanted to use it for satellite maintenance/retrieval. Never happened I think they did do satellite maintenance from the shuttle a few times, most notably on the Hubble telescope.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Speaking from memory, but AFAIR the biggest impact of those military requirements on the Shuttle design were coming from the "nonstandard" orbits and orbital schedules those missions would require.
        icegreentea 10y ago
        The Air Force requested the ability for the shuttle to take off from Vandenburg Airforce Base, go into polar orbit, and then land back at Vandenburg at the end of that one orbit. This required that the Shuttle have ~1000nm of cross range (that is that once it deorbits, it needed to deviate from its ballistic path by 1000nm). This required big ass wings (which the shuttle got). The Airforce also helped drive the payload (weight and dimension) requirements, but I feel that this is secondary to the cross-range requirement.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    A shuttle actually works fairly well at around 1/5 the size As I'm sure you know, the USA actually has an operational tiny "shuttle". But for others here, I wanted to link to it, because it's cute. It looks just like a baby shuttle. I put the word "shuttle" in quotes, because it's actually not a shuttle, but an unmanned reusable orbital spy spaceplane. Or is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 http://phys.org/news/2016-05-super-secret-x-37b-space-plane-nears.html http://phys.org/news/2016-05-super-secret-x-37b-space-plane-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tgb 10y ago

corford 10y ago

OT but if you've never heard of Buran, you might like this blog post: http://russiatrek.org/blog/history/two-abandoned-spaceships-of-energy-buran-project/ http://russiatrek.org/blog/history/two-abandoned-spaceships-... It's rammed with fantastic photos by Ralph Mirebs of the hangers at the Baikonur Cosmodrome used to house it (complete with an ageing, abandoned Buran inside).

izacus 10y ago

> Why would the Soviet's independently develop a highly flawed project? Probably a few reasons: * At the point of starting Shuttle operations, the flaws of the design weren't as apparent, especially not to general public. * Even though it LOOKS similar, it's actually not all that similar in design. The main difference is that it doesn't actually carry engines (which are the most expensive and problematic part of Shuttle due to their planned reuse) - Buran was taken into orbit by an expendable Energia rocket, which "solved" the problems with expensive engine rebuilds and testing. * At the end of the day, Buran never got past the prototype stage. It flew a single mission (empty, fully automated), landed and was then shelved. Only two prototypes were ever built.

Retric 10y ago
It's not just rebuilding engines it's returning their weight that's a problem. The high temperatures are a result of pressure not friction. A smaller and or less dense craft has a vastly easier time during reentry. A shuttle actually works fairly well at around 1/5 the size. Lower thermal stress means no tiles. It would have a single ideally swappable engine large on board fuel and no external fuel tank. Still needs SRB's but those actually work fairly well.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  My understanding is that it got fatally compromised as either a 3 letter agency or the pentagon wanted to use it for satellite maintenance/retrieval. Never happened, but it still resulted in a hybrid design that was basically suitable for neither. In the end it may well have continued flying as a kind of "national pride" issue.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    > a 3 letter agency or the pentagon wanted to use it for satellite maintenance/retrieval. Never happened I think they did do satellite maintenance from the shuttle a few times, most notably on the Hubble telescope.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Speaking from memory, but AFAIR the biggest impact of those military requirements on the Shuttle design were coming from the "nonstandard" orbits and orbital schedules those missions would require.
      - icegreentea 10y ago
        The Air Force requested the ability for the shuttle to take off from Vandenburg Airforce Base, go into polar orbit, and then land back at Vandenburg at the end of that one orbit. This required that the Shuttle have ~1000nm of cross range (that is that once it deorbits, it needed to deviate from its ballistic path by 1000nm). This required big ass wings (which the shuttle got). The Airforce also helped drive the payload (weight and dimension) requirements, but I feel that this is secondary to the cross-range requirement.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  A shuttle actually works fairly well at around 1/5 the size As I'm sure you know, the USA actually has an operational tiny "shuttle". But for others here, I wanted to link to it, because it's cute. It looks just like a baby shuttle. I put the word "shuttle" in quotes, because it's actually not a shuttle, but an unmanned reusable orbital spy spaceplane. Or is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 http://phys.org/news/2016-05-super-secret-x-37b-space-plane-nears.html http://phys.org/news/2016-05-super-secret-x-37b-space-plane-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]