Energia - Buran Space Transportation System

[Incarn]

Some questions about the differences then. As I understand it, on 14F70, the thermal protection system was (in order):

• Thermal protection tiles of composition:
  • High-emissivity coating (BK-12-18/15 and a different material)
  • (on the windward side tiles only) a variant of TINK quartz material
  • base of KSSK-150 pressed thermal insulator made of amorphous silica fibers on inorganic binder
• Felt
• Structural backing
• Separation layer (grid of ribs with pockets of air)
• Pressure hull

According to the drawing you posted, 7K-SM uses almost the same materials, but does not have the separation layer, with the felt and tiles attached to the pressure hull directly. This illustration, however uses the 7K-SM name and the 14F70 separation layer design. Is this a later version of the 7K-SM with the newer heat shield, or am I misinterpreting the diagrams?
View attachment 809259
Secondly, is 7K-M an alternative designation for 14F70? It pops up in a number of places but I have also seen it as the designation for a Soyuz modification from ~1972 (in Mishin's diaries for example).

Same question regarding 7K-SM and 11F732M, are they the same thing?
Karfidov mentions 7K-SM with the 11F732M designation, No.71 serial number and "preliminary documentation released in 1986" as a two-person ferry to Skif and Kaskad combat stations.

Do these illustrations show the early 7K-SM? (caption in RKK Energia 46-96 uses both 7K-SM and Zarya).
View attachment 809356View attachment 809357
And lastly, is this drawing 7K-SM with parachute recovery or 14F70 mislabeled as 7K-SM?
View attachment 809363

For 7K-SM:

 

[galopujacy_jez]

For 7K-SM:

fantastic!

 

[galopujacy_jez]

I'd be more than happy to follow your lead if you just showed me *precisely* were to right click for an English (or much more better yet, German) translation, pretty please???

there you go

 

[Incarn]

Oh My - Dearest Vadim Lukashevich, The King's English, please - this here is not some random Russian drug den/brothel...

That was a link to the original source, and the original source is always in the language of the source documents — that is why it is the original source

 

[Incarn]

11F35 spacecraft from two different series, showing the interior layout of the crew module: 2.01 on top, 1.01 “Buran” on the bottom. There are about twenty differences.
This is my first time posting this:

 

[Serge Ratte]

Lukashevich’s note does not refer to orbital bombardment. It speaks about some form of combat use. Most likely, it is referring to the destruction of the orbital infrastructure of the Strategic Defense Initiative system.

 

[Incarn]

Lukashevich’s note does not refer to orbital bombardment. It speaks about some form of combat use. Most likely, it is referring to the destruction of the orbital infrastructure of the Strategic Defense Initiative system.

Diving into the atmosphere to an altitude of 80 kilometers is not necessary to destroy the enemy’s orbital infrastructure.
As for countering enemy space assets, the plan was to equip the “Buran” with an “on-board defense system” (initially with space-to-space missiles, and later with weapon systems based on “new physical principles”).

 

[Serge Ratte]

Diving into the atmosphere to an altitude of 80 kilometers is not necessary to destroy the enemy’s orbital infrastructure.

There’s a substitution here. The technical specifications mention multiple reentries, but say nothing about strikes. The test schedule does mention strikes, but it’s unclear what the targets are. Moreover, the schedule is obscured in such a way that this cannot be determined. For flight 8, “maneuvering in the atmosphere” is listed among the objectives, but it is not the only task of the mission. Since a target is mentioned here, it suggests an orbital interception. In flight 10, the “special payloads” could “disperse” not only toward ground targets. In general, “secrecy” can be used to cover any kind of manipulation. The selective publication of the test flight table is Lukashevich’s own selectivity.

 

[Incarn]

There’s a substitution here. The technical specifications mention multiple reentries, but say nothing about strikes. The test schedule does mention strikes, but it’s unclear what the targets are. Moreover, the schedule is obscured in such a way that this cannot be determined. For flight 8, “maneuvering in the atmosphere” is listed among the objectives, but it is not the only task of the mission. Since a target is mentioned here, it suggests an orbital interception. In flight 10, the “special payloads” could “disperse” not only toward ground targets. In general, “secrecy” can be used to cover any kind of manipulation. The selective publication of the test flight table is Lukashevich’s own selectivity.

I’m saying what I know for sure.
But since we’re in a public forum, there are some things I can’t say or show.
So it’s up to you whether you believe me or not.

P.S.: The Ministry of Medium Machine Building (Minsredmash) deals with nuclear matters (ammunition, reactors, etc.).

 

[NMaude]

View attachment 809894

Translation, please.