5 ms·

One interesting difference from the American program that had always intrigued me is that Buran was carried horizontally on a heavy launch pad with gear to erec

by thingie 16y ago

One interesting difference from the American program that had always intrigued me is that Buran was carried horizontally on a heavy launch pad with gear to erect the whole unit on the launch site, moving on pretty much ordinary railway tracks, hauled by off-the-shell diesel locomotives, while the Shuttle has to be moved in vertical position, very carefully and slowly, on a very special vehicle, that cannot be done in a stronger wind, and so on. For me, it was always like real version of the american space pen and Russian pencil urban legend. The Russian solution here is obviously superior in every its aspect.

growt 16y ago
I think the reason is that the shuttle is using the old Saturn V infrastructure and the Saturn had to be transported vertically. The infrastructure (launchpad, etc) is really expensive, so this was a rather smart choice.
pvg 16y ago
A lot of the infrastructure for storing and moving the Shuttle is inherited from the Apollo program. Whatever's going on here looks convoluted enough - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315442494_6d3239a0ff.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315442494_6d3239a0ff.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2028067672_2ba6479d74.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2028067672_2ba6479d74.jp... Seems pretty hard to tell what solution is 'obviously superior' unless you're a rocket-moving engineer or somesuch.
- oiuytghyujki 16y ago
  Supposedly Buran's launch pad is also due to this. Because it's pad was built on top of an earlier Apollo pad the shuttle launches in the wrong orientation and has to make a roll just after takeoff to head into orbit. The Russians copied this non-optimal arrangement for Buran believing that there must be some advantage that they didn't know about but Nasa had discovered,
  - Luc 16y ago
    So the Soviets copied this with no more than a shrug of the shoulders? That's kind of hard to believe. Those engineers were just as good, if not better, than the ones in the west... Any rocket needs roll, pitch and yaw to get into the right orbit, or to reduce stress along a certain axis, or to orient comms antennas towards the ground. Saturn V did this too.
    - pvg 16y ago
      That specific thing does sound a little urban-legendy but there's no shortage of known cases of precise copying of technical details of some design, especially in early iterations or when the copiers didn't yet fully understand what they were copying. The aspect of this I find more surprising is that the Soviet space program went so far in emulating the entire idea of a reusable space plane, well after it must have become quite clear just from the US experience that it's very hard, very expensive and likely incapable of meetings its original design goals.
      - Luc 16y ago
        They started development in 1974, so only a few years after work on the Space Shuttle started. I'm not sure at what point it became clear that the Shuttle was not living up to expectations, but anyway Buran's development didn't exactly go smoothly either. This is a better article than Wikipedia's: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
- thingie 16y ago
  Shuttle needs to be assembled and erected (though in the opposite order?) somewhere and somehow as well. (And requires a giant hall to do so.) But yes, of course, I tell it mostly as a joke to counter the space pen story. I'm sure that there is some reasonable rationale for this solution.
burgerbrain 16y ago
The Buran was also capable of landing entirely by itself, something I don't believe the shuttle can do even now.
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? Do you mean that Buran can land without computer assistance?
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    I mean that the Buran could (and did) land without human assistance. It basically did what the air-forces new toy did earlier this year, but back in 1988.
    - pavel_lishin 16y ago
      You mean the pilots could jettison themselves into space, and the thing would auto-land? Or that they didn't need any support ground-side to set it down?
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        The Buran's single launch was completely unmanned, as in, there were no people in it. Supposedly the software for the UI inside the craft wasn't even installed or operational. The craft landed itself, NASA shuttle style, on a runway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29#Flight_into_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29#Flight_i...
      - georgecmu 16y ago
        He means that it didn't need pilots. The one time it was launched into orbit and landed, it was completely automatic.
- rriepe 16y ago
  The shuttle always lands by itself. Looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2dCWZ92ew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2dCWZ92ew If you've seen the shuttle on the back of a 747, that's just for transport, not landing.
bane 16y ago
It's likely that the Shuttle design may be lighter as it only has support weight in one direction while the Buran design requires it to have load bearing structures for two orientations.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  Wouldn't you want structural integrity in all planes upon landing?
  - bane 16y ago
    Yeah, but I'm guessing that the stress loads of the entire assembly are quite different than the shuttle by itself. (again, no facts to back this up, just conjecture)
smackfu 16y ago
OTOH, the "very special vehicle" already existed from the Apollo program so it was pretty practical to reuse it. There is actually a lot of history from the Apollo program on why they chose to use what they did. Trains and barges were considered as well as the crawler they ended up using. Remember that Cape Canaveral is on a marsh, and that they had to make a turn between the VAB and the launch pads.
- smackfu 16y ago
  Here is the documentation I was thinking of: Choosing a method: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-3.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-3.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-4.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-4.html Details on the crawler: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch13-1.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch13-1.htm...

by thingie 16y ago

growt 16y ago

I think the reason is that the shuttle is using the old Saturn V infrastructure and the Saturn had to be transported vertically. The infrastructure (launchpad, etc) is really expensive, so this was a rather smart choice.

pvg 16y ago

A lot of the infrastructure for storing and moving the Shuttle is inherited from the Apollo program. Whatever's going on here looks convoluted enough - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315442494_6d3239a0ff.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315442494_6d3239a0ff.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2028067672_2ba6479d74.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2028067672_2ba6479d74.jp... Seems pretty hard to tell what solution is 'obviously superior' unless you're a rocket-moving engineer or somesuch.

oiuytghyujki 16y ago
Supposedly Buran's launch pad is also due to this. Because it's pad was built on top of an earlier Apollo pad the shuttle launches in the wrong orientation and has to make a roll just after takeoff to head into orbit. The Russians copied this non-optimal arrangement for Buran believing that there must be some advantage that they didn't know about but Nasa had discovered,
- Luc 16y ago
  So the Soviets copied this with no more than a shrug of the shoulders? That's kind of hard to believe. Those engineers were just as good, if not better, than the ones in the west... Any rocket needs roll, pitch and yaw to get into the right orbit, or to reduce stress along a certain axis, or to orient comms antennas towards the ground. Saturn V did this too.
  - pvg 16y ago
    That specific thing does sound a little urban-legendy but there's no shortage of known cases of precise copying of technical details of some design, especially in early iterations or when the copiers didn't yet fully understand what they were copying. The aspect of this I find more surprising is that the Soviet space program went so far in emulating the entire idea of a reusable space plane, well after it must have become quite clear just from the US experience that it's very hard, very expensive and likely incapable of meetings its original design goals.
    - Luc 16y ago
      They started development in 1974, so only a few years after work on the Space Shuttle started. I'm not sure at what point it became clear that the Shuttle was not living up to expectations, but anyway Buran's development didn't exactly go smoothly either. This is a better article than Wikipedia's: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
thingie 16y ago
Shuttle needs to be assembled and erected (though in the opposite order?) somewhere and somehow as well. (And requires a giant hall to do so.) But yes, of course, I tell it mostly as a joke to counter the space pen story. I'm sure that there is some reasonable rationale for this solution.

burgerbrain 16y ago

The Buran was also capable of landing entirely by itself, something I don't believe the shuttle can do even now.

pavel_lishin 16y ago
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? Do you mean that Buran can land without computer assistance?
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  I mean that the Buran could (and did) land without human assistance. It basically did what the air-forces new toy did earlier this year, but back in 1988.
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    You mean the pilots could jettison themselves into space, and the thing would auto-land? Or that they didn't need any support ground-side to set it down?
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      The Buran's single launch was completely unmanned, as in, there were no people in it. Supposedly the software for the UI inside the craft wasn't even installed or operational. The craft landed itself, NASA shuttle style, on a runway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29#Flight_into_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29#Flight_i...
    - georgecmu 16y ago
      He means that it didn't need pilots. The one time it was launched into orbit and landed, it was completely automatic.
rriepe 16y ago
The shuttle always lands by itself. Looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2dCWZ92ew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2dCWZ92ew If you've seen the shuttle on the back of a 747, that's just for transport, not landing.

bane 16y ago

It's likely that the Shuttle design may be lighter as it only has support weight in one direction while the Buran design requires it to have load bearing structures for two orientations.

IgorPartola 16y ago
Wouldn't you want structural integrity in all planes upon landing?
- bane 16y ago
  Yeah, but I'm guessing that the stress loads of the entire assembly are quite different than the shuttle by itself. (again, no facts to back this up, just conjecture)

smackfu 16y ago

OTOH, the "very special vehicle" already existed from the Apollo program so it was pretty practical to reuse it. There is actually a lot of history from the Apollo program on why they chose to use what they did. Trains and barges were considered as well as the crawler they ended up using. Remember that Cape Canaveral is on a marsh, and that they had to make a turn between the VAB and the launch pads.

smackfu 16y ago
Here is the documentation I was thinking of: Choosing a method: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-3.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-3.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-4.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch6-4.html Details on the crawler: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch13-1.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch13-1.htm...