• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Happy 20th birthday, Buran!

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
It was 20 years ago, 15.11.1988...



(c) RKK Energia - taken from www.buran.ru
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
43
Oustanding system, really.
Agree.

Received my copy of Energiya-Buran (*) last week and just understanding what a great achievement it was. Another oportunity lost for Human Kind.

(*) http://www.amazon.com/Energiya-Buran-Soviet-Shuttle-Springer-Exploration/dp/0387698485/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226771603&sr=8-1
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,359
Reaction score
222
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Archibald said:
Oustanding system, really.
Actually, Buran took the best aspects of the American Space Shuttle... and discarded them. Energia: great idea. Buran: dumb. What possible purpose is served by a reusable payload shroud? A waste of capability.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
74
it was a wonderful Project
sad it end with soviet union 1991

Legend around Buran
in 1988 NASA work on STS-26 mission first flight after Challenger
Congressmen ask NASA "Can you launch the Shuttle unmanned ?"
answer NASA "not, that technical impossibly"
then year later Soviet launch Buran Unmanned (with low tech)


for those how live in Europe
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Energiya-Buran-Soviet-Shuttle-Springer-Exploration/dp/0387698485/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1226826628&sr=11-1
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,394
Reaction score
161
A question about Buran origins.
This book
Energiya-Buran De Bart Hendrickx, Bert Vis

It tell us that the Soviet built Buran because they feared that the US space shuttle was a disguised nuclear bomber.

I mean, in 1975 aparently they mistook the shuttle for a nuclear bomber because of two facts
- NASA 60 flights a years looked unrealistics. In short, the soviets asked "what will NASA do with 30*60 = 1800 tons a year in LEO ??!!"

- At the same time, Vandenberg SLC-6 is modified for shuttle launch... single orbit missions = nuke Moscow or Leningrad ? (we all know that Vandenberg was to be used to launch spysat)

Is this a urban legend, a myth ?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
it can be formulated as usual attempt to make afraid political leaders of agressive intents of opposite side and get funds for big boys' toys
A game, loved at both sides of Atlantic. US BMDO interceptors in Europe is another fresh example. Solomonov, father of Topol-M and Bulava, openly describes a scenario of secretly putting nike warheads on EIS interceptors for a surprise attack on Moscow...
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
74
- At the same time, Vandenberg SLC-6 is modified for shuttle launch... single orbit missions = nuke Moscow or Leningrad ? (we all know that Vandenberg was to be used to launch spysat)
not only Spysat also Test launch of ICBM during Cold War: Atlas ,Titan I&II, Minuteman, MX
and Military Shuttle flights from 1987

by the way, are there USAF study for Shuttle as Orbital Bomber ?!
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
58
Incredible Space System it's too easy to judge it only as "a copy of a Shuttle".
Instead was a technical challenge of its own a proof (another one) of the Russian Genius....
 

Jschmus

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I read online that the Russian military favored the development of a smaller lifting body-style craft, but their goverment pushed for the same type of capability as the US, to maintain the "balance of power".
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,394
Reaction score
161
Don't know how this is feasible or not... ::)

Take some MIRV from a nuclear missile (land or submarine based).

Put a load of them in the shuttle bay. Send the Shuttle in orbit from Vandenberg. Once in orbit, open the bay, eject the nukes.

The nukes re-enter thanks to a small rocket motor which slows them down

Then close the bay doors, and return to Vandenberg after a single orbit.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
950
Reaction score
17
Archibald said:
Don't know how this is feasible or not... ::)

Take some MIRV from a nuclear missile (land or submarine based).

Put a load of them in the shuttle bay. Send the Shuttle in orbit from Vandenberg. Once in orbit, open the bay, eject the nukes.

The nukes re-enter thanks to a small rocket motor which slows them down

Then close the bay doors, and return to Vandenberg after a single orbit.
Sounds like the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System - toyed with during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

The only problem is if this system were developed virtually all low-orbit space launches would have to be treated as potential attacks...
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Michel Van said:
- At the same time, Vandenberg SLC-6 is modified for shuttle launch... single orbit missions = nuke Moscow or Leningrad ? (we all know that Vandenberg was to be used to launch spysat)
not only Spysat also Test launch of ICBM during Cold War: Atlas ,Titan I&II, Minuteman, MX
and Military Shuttle flights from 1987

by the way, are there USAF study for Shuttle as Orbital Bomber ?!

Sorry to say this folks, but this is getting strange. Vandenberg was picked simply because it was a launch facility that permitted the Shuttle to launch to polar orbit without overflying populated areas in the early parts of the flight. Could it have been used for Shuttle carriage of military (recon) satellites? Well of course. After all, the US openly announced that some of the Shuttle launches from there would carry classified payloads, as did some out of Kennedy.

Shuttle orbital bomber for a surprise attack on Moscow? That's really going to fool 'em. Develop a weapon that takes weeks to get ready, is very much out in the open, that after orbit has to wait through multiple passes before it's in position to launch a bomb that will take a substantial amount of time to descend, being tracked all the way, to a nation that has operational ASAT and ABM capability? Ever heard of an SLBM?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
74
The US Military wanted the shuttle
to put DoD reconnaissance satellite and Communication Sats
in Orbit and salvage and repair them with Shuttle, cheap and easy

and also was the idea to manned satellite inspector (see older Project SAINT & SAINT II)
were the Shuttle would have rendezvoused with hostile satellites and inspected
and destroys it if necessary.

and the reality?
STS-4 (Classified DoD payload),
STS-51-C (Magnum ELINT satellite),
STS-51-J (Two DSCS-III satellites)
1986 Challenger catastrophe
next 2 year no flights, 1989 USAF abandon the Shuttle project at Vandenberg AFB

STS-27 (Lacrosse satellite) during launch SSRB nose cap hitting the orbiter, over 700 damaged tiles !
STS-28 ( Satellite Data System), STS-33 (Magnum ELINT satellite)
STS-36 (KH-11 satellite ?) original to be launch from Vandenberg AFB ?
STS-38 (Magnum ELINT satellite), STS-39 military science experiments,
STS-53 (Classified DoD satellite launch) last major payload for the Department of Defense

during STS-41-G mission the Orbiter Challenger was hit by a Soviet laser

The Soviet Terra-3 laser testing centre was used to track Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunction of on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.
source on all: wikipedia

and Buran ?
is very likely same Mission as US DoD
and resupply Mir and Polyus orbital station
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Michel Van said:
The US Military wanted the shuttle
to put DoD reconnaissance satellite and Communication Sats
in Orbit and salvage and repair them with Shuttle, cheap and easy

and also was the idea to manned satellite inspector (see older Project SAINT & SAINT II)
were the Shuttle would have rendezvoused with hostile satellites and inspected
and destroys it if necessary.

and the reality?
STS-4 (Classified DoD payload),
STS-51-C (Magnum ELINT satellite),
STS-51-J (Two DSCS-III satellites)
1986 Challenger catastrophe
next 2 year no flights, 1989 USAF abandon the Shuttle project at Vandenberg AFB

STS-27 (Lacrosse satellite) during launch SSRB nose cap hitting the orbiter, over 700 damaged tiles !
STS-28 ( Satellite Data System), STS-33 (Magnum ELINT satellite)
STS-36 (KH-11 satellite ?) original to be launch from Vandenberg AFB ?
STS-38 (Magnum ELINT satellite), STS-39 military science experiments,
STS-53 (Classified DoD satellite launch) last major payload for the Department of Defense

during STS-41-G mission the Orbiter Challenger was hit by a Soviet laser

The Soviet Terra-3 laser testing centre was used to track Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunction of on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.
source on all: wikipedia

and Buran ?
is very likely same Mission as US DoD
and resupply Mir and Polyus orbital station
USAF/DoD was supposed to be a big customer of the Shuttle. In fact, it was USAF that wanted the large crossrange capability that has never been used. This was always public knowledge. It was openly stated that it would be used for military as well as civil payloads. It also was openly stated that Vandenberg was needed to launch into polar orbits, a mostly military need.

Rendezvous, inspection and possible destruction of hostile satellites, though, seems a bit far fetched. For one thing, the Shuttle wouldn't be that good at it, and it was not a quick reaction system. Second, destruction of another nation's satellites would bring down a whole world of hurt internationally For another thing, there are easier (and cheaper) ways to do it. Fourth, it would be easier for the hostile to evade than for the Shuttle to catch it. Finally, if the satellite was really hostile, and if the owner really believed a Shuttle might be used to destroy it, countermeasures could be installed (as in, a gun). US was never going to have that many Shuttles that it could afford to lose a few approaching hostile units.

I know such a charge was made at the beginning of the Shuttle era, but that was just propaganda. I have no doubt that at least some folks on our side thought about it for a few minutes, but then they no doubt shook their head and said, "Naaaah".
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
Some artifacts from tiny exibition dedicated to 20th annyversary.

Leading edge RCC section. Damn heavy, BTW!
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
Zvezda K-36RB ejection seat with manikin in a shy pose, protecting his dingbats with hands, wearing Strizh (Swift) launch&entry suit.
Boots are *awesome* - you'd have a right footwear for case of ejecting at Mach 3.5
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: RAP

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
58
Spaziba Gregory!!!!!! :D

For sure my colleague Raimondo Fortezza would be pleased to see his Shuttle paper-model flanked by the Buran paper-model as well!!!
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
186
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I understand that there were going to five orbiters in total in the Buranprogram. Does anyone know if there was a list of names that they were considering for the other four orbiters? IIRC, the second orbiter had the informal nickname "Ptichika", Russian for "Little Bird." I have read that the second orbiter was going to be named Baikal, while other sources say that she would be called Burya, Russian for "Tempest." I have read that program for the Soviet space shuttle was called Burya. From my sources, the orbiters would have likely been named for storms. Are there three additional names starting with Bur, Russian for "Storm", that might have been used?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
And now go the facts

First Buran (airframe 1.01) initially was named Baikal, even with the name painted (in red) while ground tests, but later it was changed for black-lettered Buran with other font used. Video of Buran when it was Baikal being transported for ground RCS/OMS tests http://www.buran.ru/video/avi/baikal01.avi

Here 'Baikal' name can be seen - if you have sharp eyes.





Ptichka is an unofficial nickname - 'birdy' that never would be considered to name an orbiter seriously.

According to some Baikonur veterans, second flight-worthy orbiter (1.02) should have been named Burya (sic)

Names for the other three (2.01 - 2.03) were never assigned.

The whole Soviet space shuttle program initially was called 'Reusable Space System Buran', and its launcher for a long time was called Buran as well as a part of system. Then launcher got its own name, energia, and system name became energia-Buran.

Photos&videos (c) RKK Energia courtesy Vadim Lukashevich, www.buran.ru
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,214
Reaction score
74
here nice collection of rare Picture from Buran Program

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/11/rare-photos-of-russian-buran-space.html

also good page
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html

and no-plus-ultra about Buran
http://www.buran.ru
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
1
IIRC the reason for having the Space Shuttle able to glide back to Earth was beacuse it would be used for sending satellites for the SDI/Star Wars system, which gave it a need to be able to come back home by orbiting around the Earth and glide to ground without the Soviet defences being able to intercept it, or something like that.

Buran was partially meant to deliver parts of a military space station that would compensate for USA:s SDI.

Mind you, I'm a layman and I can't (yet) find the webpage I found this originally.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
85
flateric said:
According to some Baikonur veterans, second flight-worthy orbiter (1.02) should have been named Burya (sic)
Interestingly, when Myasishchev and Lavochkin competed for a cruise missile program in the 1950s, their respective projects were called Buran and Burya!
 
S

sublight

Guest
Very nice hi res pictures of Buran leftovers. I don't think you've seen these....

http://www.themysteryworld.com/2010/12/abandoned-remains-of-russian-space.html
 

Mr London 24/7

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
373
Reaction score
3
Stored unfinished Buran's?: news to me at least, a striking picture I thought from Nikon's 'Project Spotlight' by David de Rueda which has also been featured in the Guardian recently:

http://nikonlife.eu/events/project-spotlight/media-gallery/

, which led me to more and better from a slightly earlier date by Ralph Mirebs (3/6/15):

http://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html


Note: these are from interior of Baikonur Site 112 'MZK' Building - not 'MIK' Building before earlier roof collapse.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
Mr London 24/7 said:
which led me to more and better from a slightly earlier date by Ralph Mirebs (3/6/15):
http://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html
Nick 'Ralph Mirebs' is an original author of photos.
Another stunnig set of Energiya-M test article from him (or her)
http://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/220278.html
 

antigravite

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
677
Reaction score
12
Hi just a question… Does anybody here has the name of the company who was responsible for manufacturing buran tiles? This is for some sort of museum project (attribution from a collector), thx.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
https://technologiya.ru/en/2
 
Top