Brief History Of Buran

[Awang se]

[SIZE=+2]History[/SIZE] The Russian Shuttle Buran ("Snowstorm" in Russian) was authorized in 1976 in response to the United States' Space Shuttle program. Building of the shuttles began in 1980, with the first full-scale Aero-Buran rolling out in 1984.
[SIZE=+2]Test Flights[/SIZE]
The first suborbital test flight of a scale model of Buran took place in July 1983. There were five additional flights of the scale model in following years. Aerodynamic tests of the full-scale Buran analogue began in 1984. This aero-Buran was worn out after 24 test flights and would not fly again. The last of these aerodynamic test flights was in April 1988.
[SIZE=+2]Orbital Launch[/SIZE]
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
[SIZE=+2]Aftermath[/SIZE]
Although the first orbital flight of Buran was unmanned, it demonstrated much promise. The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing.
[SIZE=+2]Cancellation[/SIZE]
After the first flight of Buran, funding for the project was cut. Although the project wasn't officially canceled until 1993, much of the work was halted long before that date. There were two other Buran shuttles under construction. The second orbiter, "Ptichka" ("Little Bird" in Russian) was originally scheduled for completion in 1990. The third Buran was due in 1992. Neither was finished. In November 1995, the partially completed shuttles were dismantled at their production site. The manufacturing plant is scheduled to be converted for production of buses, syringes, and diapers.

 

[Big-E]

The manufacturing plant is scheduled to be converted for production of... syringes, and diapers.

What a terrible end for a project with such promise.

 

[abramsteve]

I agree. I always wondered what happened to the Russian space shuttles and their program.

The image of one being 'piggybacked' by a huge Antanov always impressed me.

 

[Awang se]

Last i heard a few years a go, someone auctioned the shuttle for starting price of 6 mil. don't know if there's a buyer.

The Shuttle design closely ressembled US space shuttle, but it was different in many ways. for one, it's more advance then it's american counterpart. better computer, better seramic tiles, more powerful engine etc. those energiya booster can lift the shuttle and 30 tons additional weight all the way to the orbit. the downside is, it's more expensive to maintain and the energiya booster are not reusable. it burn up in the atmosphere after being jettisoned.

 

[WAR]

Last i heard a few years a go, someone auctioned the shuttle for starting price of 6 mil. don't know if there's a buyer.

The Shuttle design closely ressembled US space shuttle, but it was different in many ways. for one, it's more advance then it's american counterpart. better computer, better seramic tiles, more powerful engine etc. those energiya booster can lift the shuttle and 30 tons additional weight all the way to the orbit. the downside is, it's more expensive to maintain and the energiya booster are not reusable. it burn up in the atmosphere after being jettisoned.

Well, if the said shuttle was more advanced than that of Americans, then why the project was abondoned?

Is it so that after the policy of Perestroika and Glasnost, perhaps the foremost priority of Russians was to make syringes and diapers etc...!!!!

A sad ending of an excellent venture.

 

[vrus]

I once saw a documentary about it and I am positive that the Buran was supposed to have military capabilities when it was first designed. I think it involved the feature of being able to destroy enemy satellites, that could cripple satellite guidance for some missiles.

Futhermore, it IS a very pitiful and sad end. Instead of creating new ICBMs, had Russia pumped funds into this marvel, it would have definitely been so much more beneficial. Once the cold war was over, there was no express requirement to make new ICBMs such as the Topol. This would have definitely benefited their space program a lot and the ISS would be more complete than it is now!

SAD STORY,REALLY. PITIABLE. SOME GREAT things are never recognised as much as they should be. I think the Ptichka still stands in Gorky Park. I also remember something about one of the prototypes being sold to an Austrailian firm for some sort of exhibition. They went broke and sold it to someone else and half-way through the shipping, they cancelled the deal. It is said that the beast was left in a car park and vandalised... How insulting to such an artifact of modern technology!

 

[aaaditya]

Well, if the said shuttle was more advanced than that of Americans, then why the project was abondoned?

Is it so that after the policy of Perestroika and Glasnost, perhaps the foremost priority of Russians was to make syringes and diapers etc...!!!!

A sad ending of an excellent venture.

because it was more expensive to maintain and was not reusable ,also the soviet union collapsed and russia faced economic difficulties as a result of which they did not have adequate funds to continue with the shuttle programme.

 

[Distiller]

Buran stands in Moscow in Gorky Park on the river, park of an amusemt park.
But it's only a shell, and even that is in a rather poor condition.

 

[y_raj]

because it was more expensive to maintain and was not reusable ,also the soviet union collapsed and russia faced economic difficulties as a result of which they did not have adequate funds to continue with the shuttle programme.

all space shuttles are reusable my friend!:

Last i heard a few years a go, someone auctioned the shuttle for starting price of 6 mil. don't know if there's a buyer.

The Shuttle design closely ressembled US space shuttle, but it was different in many ways. for one, it's more advance then it's american counterpart. better computer, better seramic tiles, more powerful engine etc. those energiya booster can lift the shuttle and 30 tons additional weight all the way to the orbit. the downside is, it's more expensive to maintain and the energiya booster are not reusable. it burn up in the atmosphere after being jettisoned.

I think the same with An-225 mriya which carried it. after rusting for long it has been revived or bieng revived.

 

[Francois]

http://www.astronautix.com/data/8307nieo.pdf

 

[DaBunny]

http://www.astronautix.com/data/8307nieo.pdf

You win.

 

[general]

Buran is a sad ending of a new technological era.it was fully automated whe nit flew,no pilots in it.

I wonder why it was scrapped.Ruskies still send satelites,why not use Buran

 

[Awang se]

Well, not all are lost. some of the tech remain in used. those energiya boosters for example are still in use. it can loft quite a weight.

 

[Firehorse]

If the US shuttle program was/is a waste of $, as NASA administrator had to admit, and the Russians were smart to cut their losses in the bud & not to follow suit- after they've proved capable of designing & producing what turned out a better craft.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm

www.aerospaceweb.org/.../spacecraft/q0153.shtml

But the concept is a costly dead end, literally and figuratively.
ICBMs age and need replacements eventually. Topol is suppose to be a base model for the naval Bulava SLBM, now being tested, to arm their new SSBNs.

 

[nevidimka]

This is just one of examples proving that the russians most of the time can come out with something much better when they put thier effort, mind, towards thier goal. They are just brilliant.

This just makes me wonder at times, how would the electronic age be had the russians participated in developing those technologies as well.

Imagine the state of silicon wafers, electronics, RAM's, circuit boards, computers would be now with russian influence. I believe we would be 7-8 years more advanced then these techologies at its current state.

 

[Awang se]

all space shuttles are reusable my friend!

i meant the Energiya Booster. to save cost, Russia didn't developed a specialized reusable booster rocket. instead they configure it to cling at the back of the massive Energiya Heavy Lift Booster, one of the most powerful rocket ever made. this Energiya Booster is not reusable. the shuttle is otherwise. The energiya can lift the whole shuttle plus 30 tons to orbit by itself without the shuttle ever need to light up it's engine.

 

[Chrom]

i meant the Energiya Booster. to save cost, Russia didn't developed a specialized reusable booster rocket. instead they configure it to cling at the back of the massive Energiya Heavy Lift Booster, one of the most powerful rocket ever made. this Energiya Booster is not reusable. the shuttle is otherwise. The energiya can lift the whole shuttle plus 30 tons to orbit by itself without the shuttle ever need to light up it's engine.

Reusable shuttle (and to lesser extent Buran) cost the order of magnitude more to launch than single-use rocket. This is the main reason why Buran was abandoned.

Now, the question, why it was ever developed if it is so ineffective? (And why SS was developed?) Well, the popular theory is for military purpose. The main advantage of SS and Buran was ability to bring large payload from space. This was very essencial for SDI-like projects. Big complex SDI space lasers would need regular inspections and repair, thus the need to bring them back to Earth. Once USA abandoned such planes, the Buran was burried.

Many peoples think USA never had intention to build SDI and that was smart bluff. While this is partially true, still there were many ongoing projects in USA for this subject, and large amount of money were spend. Noone by the time (even in USA) was really sure what it is impossible to build such SDI system - and USSR as always spend large amount of money to be not left behind in case SDI will make it to fruition.

 

[kato]

Big complex SDI space lasers would need regular inspections and repair, thus the need to bring them back to Earth.

Or you could inspect and repair them in space. Like the US did with the comparably-sized and -complex Hubble Space Telescope, or like Russia trained with station-to-station transfers between Mir and Salyut 7 in the mid-80s (something that hasn't been repeated since then for lack of opportunity btw, a transfer of some crew from one satellite to another using a third spacecraft).

In the US, STS was particularly built to accomodate certain outgrown satellite designs (Keyhole) that wouldn't fit on a Delta IV or similar due to their diameter and shape alone, let alone their weight.

Awang Se:

Energiya per se is not in use. There were exactly two launches of full Energiya rockets - the first one for the Skif-DM Polyus testbed, the second for Buran. In case you mean Zenit-1, that's actually the reverse - the Energia Strapon booster was a modification of the Zenit-1 stage, with both applications (standalone and booster) developed in tandem, to great commonality. Zenit-1 was specifically developed as a standalone launcher though, it's not a derival/re-use of the Energiya booster.

 

[Chrom]

Or you could inspect and repair them in space. Like the US did with the comparably-sized and -complex Hubble Space Telescope, or like Russia trained with station-to-station transfers between Mir and Salyut 7 in the mid-80s (something that hasn't been repeated since then for lack of opportunity btw, a transfer of some crew from one satellite to another using a third spacecraft).

Small repair would be possible in space. More complex repair is not. Either way, space shuttle is needed even for repair in space.

Station-to-station transfer obviosly do not require space shuttle - again, any rocket will do. Such rocket could be used in space almost indefinitly - whereas SS must return to earth in 1 month. Again, this is due to much more complex and fragile design of SS.

In the US, STS was particularly built to accomodate certain outgrown satellite designs (Keyhole) that wouldn't fit on a Delta IV or similar due to their diameter and shape alone, let alone their weight.

Larger rocket could easely bring such sattelite to space. Russia followed that way, and it proved to be much more effective.

Awang Se:

Energiya per se is not in use. There were exactly two launches of full Energiya rockets - the first one for the Skif-DM Polyus testbed, the second for Buran. In case you mean Zenit-1, that's actually the reverse - the Energia Strapon booster was a modification of the Zenit-1 stage, with both applications (standalone and booster) developed in tandem, to great commonality. Zenit-1 was specifically developed as a standalone launcher though, it's not a derival/re-use of the Energiya booster.

Without Buran, there was no need to bring 100+ tons object in space. If only ISS project would be launched 5-6 years earler, Energiya could be used to bring large ISS modules to space. Entire ISS desing could go different way with possiblity to lift 100+ ton modules - but it came too late. Energiya already shared the fate of Buran and couldnt be ressurected without insance spendings.

 

[kato]

Small repair would be possible in space. More complex repair is not. Either way, space shuttle is needed even for repair in space.

The (series of) repairs of HST was a bit more complex. Servicing Mission (SM) 1 took 10 days and installed new instruments and replaced equipment on HST (including solar panel arrays, gyroscopes, and a ton of electronics). SM2 installed more instruments. SM3A again installed a new uprated computer, and SM3B again replaced solar panels (with a new design) and instruments.
These are not small/minor repairs. And you don't need a Shuttle for them. An orbital tug ala TKS fitted with a storage module and some kind of robotic crane arm would be more than enough for these missions.

Without Buran, there was no need to bring 100+ tons object in space.

Sure there was - SDI. Polyus Skif-DM was somewhere around 80 tons as well. Sure, it was botched together as a quick answer to SDI, and ultimately failed, but that's a project you would have needed Energiya for.
The original projects for Vulkan (such as LEK or VME) were proposed with downsized modules for Energiya as well. Although of course VPK put a stop to most of that (in particular LEK and VME) in the late 70s, as they only wanted a Shuttle copy. And in the early 80s, Russia was examining an entire deployment system including interorbital tugs for 100-ton-class satellites.
And then there was always the Russian plans for Mir-2, which would have extensively used Energiya (without Buran).