Humor The purpose of Buran uncovered

[Ghostrider]

Perhaps something that has no glory to you- some people actually glorify technological achievments instead of ugly crafts such as the Saturn IB or Apollo spacecraft.

Technological achievements have value only if they actually serve a purpose. A STS-like system that flew once unmanned and hence didn't prove any usefulness isn't up to par with "ugly" Apollo spacecrafts that actually performed historical tasks.

 

[T.Neo]

Technological achievements have value only if they actually serve a purpose. A STS-like system that flew once unmanned and hence didn't prove any usefulness isn't up to par with "ugly" Apollo spacecrafts that actually performed historical tasks.

Only value to you. Buran flew, it existed, being the second orbital spaceplane in history. Buran did not only fly once because it was a worthless system, but because other reasons prevented further development.

And performing historical tasks does not prevent the Apollo spacecrafts from being asthetically inferior to STS and Buran.

And what is the worth of landing on the Moon only six times and then abandon it...

 

[Andy44]

And what is the worth of landing on the Moon only six times and then abandon it...

What is the worth of flying a space shuttle 100+ times, losing 14 crew along the way, and abandon it?

What is the worth of any of this stuff?

 

[T.Neo]

What is the worth of flying a space shuttle 100+ times, losing 14 crew along the way, and abandon it?

Extensive knowledge of operating in LEO, along with an orbiting research station. Of course, what was promised was not delivered.

There is also a historical value. The first orbital spaceplane is certainly a historical achievement.

Also, accidents happen. People will unfortunately die from them sometimes, especially in spaceflight. After 20+ years of the shuttle we now know how not to build and operate a spaceplane.

What is the worth of any of this stuff?

Exploration. To explore is to be human.

 

[Andy44]

Exploration. To explore is to be human.

What is "to be forced to pay for other humans to explore for political purposes"?

 

[T.Neo]

What is "to be forced to pay for other humans to explore for political purposes"?

Tax. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the cost of the space program to each individual is rather low...

 

[Hielor]

There is also a historical value. The first orbital spaceplane is certainly a historical achievement.

And landing on the moon isn't?

What is "to be forced to pay for other humans to explore for political purposes"?

Tax. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the cost of the space program to each individual is rather low...

Approximately $80 per US citizen above age 18, if divided equally.

I think I'd happily pay far more than that to see a successful space program.

 

[T.Neo]

And landing on the moon isn't?

I never said landing on the Moon was not historic...

 

[doggie015]

Guys, I can sense a fire about to start here... please calm down before Elvis has to be called in. Thank you.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Also, the notion of using Buran to retrieve Skylab, which was a converted S-IVB stage, is ridiculous and ruins the credibility of the speaker.

Yes, for sure. Ever listened to a sailor's yarning? This is the same thing, and the reporter just failed to recognize one. Many things veteran Cosmonauts and pilots say must be accepted as tongue-in-cheek stuff...

 

[Andy44]

Approximately $80 per US citizen above age 18, if divided equally.

I think I'd happily pay far more than that to see a successful space program.

Well, that's nice, but paying is not a request, it's a command.

 

[Hielor]

Well, that's nice, but paying is not a request, it's a command.

I believe another forum member had great ideas about how to do taxes.

I think there are other government expenditures that are far more wasteful than NASA.

 

[T.Neo]

Approximately $80 per US citizen above age 18, if divided equally.

That is per year, or for the entire program since the 60s?

I think I'd happily pay far more than that to see a successful space program.

Give NASA all the money in the world and they will still mill around in LEO, without good enough motivation to do otherwise.

 

[Ghostrider]

Only value to you. Buran flew, it existed, being the second orbital spaceplane in history. Buran did not only fly once because it was a worthless system, but because other reasons prevented further development.

Since it never flew manned, we'll never know.

And performing historical tasks does not prevent the Apollo spacecrafts from being asthetically inferior to STS and Buran.

Are you joking? Since when does aesthetics come into consideration when evaluating technology? :lol:

And what is the worth of landing on the Moon only six times and then abandon it...

Far more than landing only ONCE and then abandon it. Seriously, if Apollo had done just an unmanned flight and then was abandoned - for ANY considerations - how could have anyone said it was superior to Mercury and Gemini, which had flown manned more than once? Would you buy a car that was only tested once by remote control?

We know the STS capabilities and limits because the thing has been tested and flown a great number of times, and some of that information has come the hard way. We have nothing of the sort on Buran, sorry. There is not enough evidence of its design being "superior" or even "equal" to the Shuttle. All we have is data from one unmanned test flight and some speculation, which is simply not worth examining.

 

[T.Neo]

Don't hold such a soulless view on technology and history.

 

[Ghostrider]

Don't hold such a soulless view on technology and history.

Soulless != Critical. For instance, I'm an Amiga owner and fan, and at the time the Amiga was around it outperformed the PCs of the day - which is a given fact. This however does not mean that had Commodore not sunk, today's Amiga-based machine would have held that superiority which was already eroding badly towards the end of the era. I have no evidence to say anything of the sort or to the contrary of it.

Same with Buran: it flew once, unmanned. There was no true test of crew-machine integration, no true test of its life-support systems, no test of any robotic arm on board. Because of this lack of hard evidence we have no way of saying it would have outperformed, or not have outperformed, the STS.

Does anyone think the Soviet LK could have performed a successful Moon landing? We cannot say, it was not attempted. But precisely because we have no way of knowing, it's all idle speculation.

 

[T.Neo]

Because of this lack of hard evidence we have no way of saying it would have outperformed, or not have outperformed, the STS.

I didn't say that Buran was superior to the STS...

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm sorry but I can not see any single peace of glory by comparing Buran with STS or, which is nonsense anyway, with Apollo.

If one closes both ears, both eyes, and if one strongly denies the technological and historical facts of STS, then it is of course possible to talk about glory and technological achievment in relation to Buran. Then it is even possible to claim that Buran was meant of stealing Skylab.

But to be realistic: Buran was a late copy of the US orbiter. The program did not end just because of budget cuts, but also because of technological problems, especially with the life support systems and the computers. Buran flew once, and that unmanned. After landing it looked quite burnt if you take a look especially to the aft fuselage. After only one mission the thermal protection system looked as twice as old as that of the Shuttles after lots of missions and years. The public won't sure get, as usual, inconvenient data and truths of Buran. But anybody just needs to take a look to the flight deck of Buran to realize that this vehicle was not even close to become what the US Shuttles are. That's why it never was ready to fly manned. It was just told to be a manned vehicle.

The only part of the Buran program which was something new and a technological achievment was the Energija system.

 

[simonpro]

That said, STS cannot "attack" anything, and a manned space weapons system was an obsolete idea by the 1970s.

Polyus disagrees.

Technological achievements have value only if they actually serve a purpose.

It would've served just as good a purpose as the shuttle.:lol:

I think I'd happily pay far more than that to see a successful space program.

I think you mean "a successfull MANNED space program." The unmanned program is very successful and is also somewhat cheaper.

 

[Urwumpe]

Approximately $80 per US citizen above age 18, if divided equally.

It is 0.58% of the federal budget and thus 0.58% of the federal partition of the taxes. At the height of the Apollo program it was still just 5%.

If I did not calculate wrong, you pay just about $10,000 on the average for federal taxes every year as whole (2979 billion USD per 180 million citizens between 19 and 64). 0.58% of $10,000 is still just $58.0.