Humor The purpose of Buran uncovered

[T.Neo]

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.

Yes. Because you can see no glory in any spacecraft other then an ugly tin can.

 

[Ghostrider]

Yes. Because you can see no glory in any spacecraft other then an ugly tin can.

I fail to see any glory in a beautiful spacecraft that takes me nowhere. I'd rather take the ugly tin can if it works.

 

[Urwumpe]

What happened to form follows function?

 

[tl8]

For a funny topic, this is a surprisingly weird twist...

 

[T.Neo]

I fail to see any glory in a beautiful spacecraft that takes me nowhere. I'd rather take the ugly tin can if it works.

"Nowhere" only depends on where you want to go...

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the most beautiful spacecraft are the first generation Molniya satellites.

(Of course, with GOCE as close contender)

 

[T.Neo]

I think the most beautiful spacecraft are the first generation Molniya satellites.

Looks like a sunflower...

 

[Ghostrider]

Looks like a sunflower...

Sunflower seeds, hmmm...

Nom nom.

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes. Because you can see no glory in any spacecraft other then an ugly tin can.

The Space Shuttle, which is the first and still the only winged reusable manned spacecraft, has carried hundreds of astronauts and tons of payload into low earth orbit. It is right now used to assemble the largest object ever build in low earth orbit. Although Apollo does not matter in this context, it has carried humans to the Moon and back. It has demonstrated human capabilities rather successfully.

I still fail to see the glory and technological achievments of Buran, especially while trying to compare just the look in the technological achievments context...

 

[Urwumpe]

I still fail to see the glory and technological achievments of Buran, especially while trying to compare just the look in the technological achievments context...

Depends. From a cultural point of view, Buran does not matter much. No astronauts, no famous missions.

But in terms of engineering, Buran has shown some important technologies, which are really worth remembering and really had been flown in space. For example, the RCS of Buran is based on Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen, not toxic storable propellants like all other spacecraft. It was really able to land automatically and unmanned, despite difficult conditions (strong crosswinds, snowfall). It's energia Launcher was really the first application of Hydrolox rocket engines in Russia.

 

[SiberianTiger]

And we are still flying Zenits, btw.

 

[Moonwalker]

The Space Shuttle was not designed to be used unmanned. Unlike Buran, the Shuttle succeeded as a manned vehicle from its first launch. Despite the capability to fly fully unmanned, which is not a big deal at all and not something NASA could not develope, the computers still was one of the weak spots of Buran.

I also don't see an advantage of the RCS of Buran. Toxic propellants are continuing to be used.

The problem of Buran was that it was a hurried race. Just an answer to the US Shuttle. I don't think that there was ever serious intentions in the long term. It was a big show to demonstrate comparable capabilities to that of the USA. At the end, the part of the Buran program which was a real achievement, as I mentioned earlier already, was the Energija system indeed. But the orbiter itself is not something people all over the world look at and point on it with much astonishment, for certain reasons. There is actually not much to argue about it. Beside claims that it was meant for stealing Skylab or people who like the look of Buran...

 

[SiberianTiger]

The problem of Buran was that it was a hurried race. Just an answer to the US Shuttle. I don't think that there was ever serious intentions in the long term. It was a big show to demonstrate comparable capabilities to that of the USA. At the end, the part of the Buran program which was a real achievement, as I mentioned earlier already, was the Energija system indeed.

Not really. Enegria + Buran had tall plans of use, mostly for military space applications. Also, Buran was essential to the USSR's independent effort to build a next generation modular space station.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Space Shuttle was not designed to be used unmanned. Unlike Buran, the Shuttle succeeded as a manned vehicle from its first launch. Despite the capability to fly fully unmanned, which is not a big deal at all and not something NASA could not develope, the computers still was one of the weak spots of Buran.

The reason why Buran was able to fly unmanned was rather simple: The Soviet spaceflight testing rules, which said that the first test flight has to be unmanned.

I also don't see an advantage of the RCS of Buran. Toxic propellants are continuing to be used.

Had a much higher specific impulse and was less dangerous in accidents, as the propellants did not ignite on contact.

The reason why such a technology is not used is also simple: It is expensive and not common. And not even especially flight-proven. It is hard to justify it's use, just look how long it took electrical thrusters to become accepted.

 

[RangerPL]

Wasn't Buran's heatshield superior to that of the STS as well?

 

[Urwumpe]

Wasn't Buran's heatshield superior to that of the STS as well?

Well, according to the manufacturer, yes. But the only reliable claim is that the tiles are better placed on Buran, as their corners follow the air flow. Also Buran has better aerodynamics, it has a much better hypersonic L/D.

 

[zerofay32]

The interesting point of Buran was the MPS. I would be interesting in knowing the turn-around time for it. By not having the MPS reusable I bet it would be faster than STS. Also, not having to take the MPS to orbit increased Burans payload. But we can only speculate of course.

Zerofay32

 

[Urwumpe]

The interesting point of Buran was the MPS. I would be interesting in knowing the turn-around time for it. By not having the MPS reusable I bet it would be faster than STS. Also, not having to take the MPS to orbit increased Burans payload. But we can only speculate of course.

Well, the problem is: The STS turn around times had been once great on the paper, but proved to be extremely long in the reality. Buran will likely have had similar problems, but maybe not to the extremes of the STS. The SSMEs are annoying, but only a small problem. The TPS is on both planes a problem.

 

[zerofay32]

Well, the problem is: The STS turn around times had been once great on the paper, but proved to be extremely long in the reality. Buran will likely have had similar problems, but maybe not to the extremes of the STS. The SSMEs are annoying, but only a small problem. The TPS is on both planes a problem.

Very true. In the early documents, the turn around time for STS was 4 months I think. But what would be a better solution for the TPS?:hmm: I guess that the material is fine if the stack was in a different orientation for launch. Or somehow have the TPS covered for launch.

 

[Urwumpe]

Larger TPS tiles instead of smaller would have been better. The small TPS tiles had been created for the sake of economics, which worked out well until you suddenly had the problem that you need a special tile for each location anyway. Of the thousands of tiles on the shuttle, each is unique.

Loosing one of the small tiles is tolerable in some locations, but on the other hand, larger tiles would have allowed better ways of attaching them on the surface of the shuttle, making it harder to loose one unit.