Posted on 11/28/2005 11:12:45 AM PST by mym
Edited on 05/30/2006 11:17:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Soviet Union did indeed build its own version of the American Space Shuttle that was known as Buran ("snowstorm" in Russian). The US had made the decision to develop its reusable spacecraft in 1972. Since the US Defense Department had plans to use the Shuttle for military missions, Moscow felt the need to respond with a comparable craft in order to maintain strategic parity with the West. The Reusable Space System (MKS) was subsequently approved in June 1974 with NPO Energia given responsibility for the project the following October. Though only the first spaceworthy vehicle built was actually named Buran, the entire project came to be known by this designation.
(Excerpt) Read more at aerospaceweb.org ...
Lack of maintenance will do it every time.
Just goes to show you that bad ideas have a life of their own and never go to a willing death.
For me the last picture is very sad.
From what I've read, another major difference between Shuttle and Buran was that the Buran could fly remotely.
The Shuttle must be manned to take off and land.
First flew in 1988? I thought for sure it flew before that and burned up over Australia.
The ONLY flight of the system was unmanned.
With all their experience in long-term space habitation, they couldn't copy the US life support system as well. Sad.
This, however, jumps out at me:
this owner also went bankrupt and was forced to abandon the Analog Buran in a Bahraini junkyard ...There the vehicle remains to this day...
What a terrible way for a dream-ship to end.
==I've heard historians speculate that the trans-siberian railroad was so costly that it brought down the Russian Government.==
Naa, I'll never beleive this point.
Trans-siberian railroad was built by 1903. And Russian revolution was in 1917.
Railroads are profitable, while spacecrafts (to be honest) practically not.
That, and the capacity to carry several extra crew members. I'm guessing they would have been "political officers" who could make sure the Buran was piloted to a landing on the correct runway, so to speak.
(steely)
==With all their experience in long-term space habitation, they couldn't copy the US life support system as well.==
Russian engineers didn't need to copy US life support system.
Lack of money is the answer. Collapsing USSR is background.
No, unmanned flight is a plus, not a minus.
If some awful thing happened abord a shuttle that disabled the crew, nobody could bring it down.
And, if all you are doing is a restocking mission, most of the 30 tons could be supplies, without wasting weight on food, water, oxy, people, and the fuel to boost all that.
There is no evidence that the Buran enviro stuff was lacking.
The configuration comparison picture looks like it has come out of a unit list in the manual of an RTS game.
==The main route, the Trans-Siberian, runs from Moscow to Vladivostok via southern Siberia and was built between 1891 and 1916.==
Yes, right. Sorry for wrong info.
Comparable?
It's practically a copy!
IIRC, the Shuttle can do both autonomously. (Indeed, it takes off autonomously every single launch.) Autoland capability exists as well. The astronauts, however, are naturally reticent to allow it.
I thought that there was some lever or mechanical linkage that had to be flipped over or toggled to enter land mode, and that this linkage was manual?
Sure it can take off by itself, but I never heard of any remote flying capability or of the ability to land on its own.
If it could be flown from the ground, then this mode would have been tested, and I never heard of such a test. Likewise remote landing- this to me would be a basic safety requirement that would have been tested at some point.
Both capabilities woud be quite useful.
I was making a JOKE.
The spacecraft that burned up over Australia was Skylab.
Skylab was launched on 14 May 1973. It fell from orbit on 11 July 1979.
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm
To further cut costs, and keep the weight from growing prohibitive, the Shuttle became the first manned spacecraft to fly without any kind of crew escape system, relying on certain components (solid rockets, wing tiles, landing gear) to function with complete reliability 3 . NASA also decided not to make the Shuttle capable of unmanned flight, so that the first test flight of the vehicle would have astronauts on board. This was a major departure for the traditionally conservative agency, which had relied on redundant systems wherever possible, and always tested unmanned prototypes of any new rocket. It showed how confident NASA had grown in its ability to correctly predict, simulate, and design for high reliability.
......................
The Soviet Shuttle, the Buran (snowstorm) was an aerodynamic clone of the American orbiter, but incorporated many original features that had been considered and rejected for the American program, such as all-liquid rocket boosters, jet engines, ejection seats and an unmanned flight capability. You know you're in trouble when the Russians are adding safety features to your design.
Buran was a very well built craft, along with its boosters.
Would have been better than the shuttle, but even the Soviets were smart enough to see that just because we had a shuttle they didn't need one. Too complex, too expensive, and unnecessary.
I love the fact that we are going back to capsules and, will be landing on solid earth like the Russians have done since the first flight.
OK, I get it now. lol
The only real barrier to unmanned capability (if indeed there really is a barrier) would be in the ability of the Shuttle to accept commands from the ground, as opposed to Astronaut keypad inputs. I know that some commanding is (or can be) performed from the ground, without crew interaction. I also know that autoland capability does exist and has been simulated extensively, although it has never been used.
Yes, an opinion piece. That was the first good hit that popped up. I once read an article that mentioned the linkage that had to be moved, I'll see if I can dig it up.
Googling the shutle and "unmanned flight" or "autonomous landing" yields no good hits, just references to the X34 or 37, which can do autonomous landings.
I know, it was weak.
But the fact that they made a "successful" copy of our shuttle, with a very good automatic pilot, but couldn't capitalize upon their own strengths (environmental systems) in time for the maiden voyage is very amusing.
No, they never intended to fly the first few flighs with any life support on it. The Soviets were notorious for building several versions of craft, and extensively testing it. They realized that the Buran was a money pit, they did a flight of it to save face, and very wisely scrapped the program. They are geniuses for doing that. We are stuck with a costly crappy unnecessary shuttle flying up to an under built, costly, unnecessary space station. Cheap simple liquid fueled rockets to put men in space, big assed solid rockets to put cargo up, its the only way to do it.
I have a few Buran pins from when I visited Russia. I had the chance to see the Buran test article in Sydney, but the cost was very high, and it wasn't really the Buran, any more than the Enterprise is the Space Shuttle.
BTW, Enterprise (the shuttle test article) is now at the new Smithsonian Air and Space museum at Dulles airport.
Well, here is one clue. Mission Control can call for an abort, but the crew has to push an ABORT button after turning an abort selector switch
http://www.space-shuttle.com/abortmain.htm
Which abort mode is selected depends on the cause and timing of the failure causing the abort and which mode is safest or improves mission success. If the problem is a space shuttle main engine failure, the flight crew and Mission Control Center select the best option available at the time a space shuttle main engine fails.
If the problem is a system failure that jeopardizes the vehicle, the fastest abort mode that results in the earliest vehicle landing is chosen. RTLS and TAL are the quickest options (35 minutes), whereas an AOA requires approximately 90 minutes. Which of these is selected depends on the time of the failure with three good space shuttle main engines.
The flight crew selects the abort mode by positioning an abort mode switch and depressing an abort push button.
Here it is. Someone must manually deploy the landing gear. That's the lever or linkage I remembered. The linked article also discusses other aspects of "autonomous flight" (as compared to remote flight) and while some of the testimony is confident that it could be done, others mention major software and hardware changes.
....................................
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy86869.000/hsy86869_0.htm
Q3b. What technical barriers, if any, need to be addressed to develop a fully autonomous Shuttle?
A3b. There are no technical barriers to such a development. The only significant modification necessary is to automate the landing gear deployment process, which today is manually controlled by the Shuttle pilot.
Once the button is pushed, however, the Shuttle response is essentially autonomous.
And none of these are "autoland" options per se.
Autonomous vs. remote-controlled is indeed a huge difference. Autoland is "autonomous," and (aside from the landing gear) is already there. I cannot imagine that it would take major S/W or H/W changes to change this to a ground commanded operation (it's the sort of stuff that's been done on satellites for decades). An autonomous release of the gear is likewise not that big a deal.
What you wouldn't want is to have a piloted landing with autonomous gear-down: that's asking for trouble.
Right. So back to the main point, Buran was remote capable and had some autonomous capabilities off the shelf.
The Shuttles are not, and would require modifications to make them so.
I think thay should make the fleet remote/autonomous. After the "we really did fix the foam problem", wouldn't it have been nice to send the thing up unmanned, on a noncritical resupply mission or something, rather than staff it up and hope the thing worked.
And, hey, why not build an upgraded Buran- 120 tons of lift is a significant upgrade from what we've got.
Wonder how much the Russians would charge for a set of drawings?
The Shuttles have also flown 100 missions as-is, and there's really no particular need to do otherwise.
And, hey, why not build an upgraded Buran- 120 tons of lift is a significant upgrade from what we've got.
I think thay should make the fleet remote/autonomous. After the "we really did fix the foam problem", wouldn't it have been nice to send the thing up unmanned, on a noncritical resupply mission or something, rather than staff it up and hope the thing worked.
Nah. The point of the Shuttle is that it's manned. If you're gonna use it as an unmanned vehicle, it'd be lots easier and cheaper (not to mention increasing payload) to make an expendable to do the same tasks.
I noticed that the second orbiter airframe was named "Ptichka".
What does Ptichka mean in English?
I have to say, as someone who has worked on NASA projects, the above sentence really frightens me. There's a reason why Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were all tested extensively without crews. The STS was the first spaceflight system to carry men during its shakedown flights. Young and Crippen had big brass ones, that's all I'm saying...
I found it odd that even the "drop off the 747" flights were manned.
My discussion with r9eth was about the apparent deliberate and persistent notion that the Shuttles would always be manned by someone who was concious.
A manual-only lever for the landing gear means that no matter what ground controllers can do by remoting the computers, if someone is not there and healthy, the Shuttle will be forced into a gear-up landing.
Yup, brass ones for sure, right up there with Yeager.
Check out Fire in the Sky and Hope Eyrie at
http://www.prometheus-music.com/eli/virtual.html
These songs capture some of that spirit for me.
==What does Ptichka mean in English?==
Little bird.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.