 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Buran Website Finds So Far |
|
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pat Flannery |
 Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Revision |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 3:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Spencer"
[quote:aa7e0ea731]the Soviet military, which was worried
(unnecessarily) about ... military uses of the US shuttle.
[/quote:aa7e0ea731]
Yes. This goes way back. IIRC the Soviets came up with their planned
Buran response to US "attack shuttle" back around 1971 or in the early
70s anyway.
The notion of a Buran filled with nukes, death rays, and poison gas is
another example of Russia's idea of how to make the world a better
place. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Smith |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ricardo Alfaro |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I had to make a small research on the Buran a while ago and saw it's
first and only flight into space. An unmanned mission using the
Buran's own computers from launch to landing, and I must admit it was
quite impressive. Russian technology, at least from my part, was much
more superior to American technology (I know people might think
contrary) but if we look at the facts: the Buran's structure allowed it
to loose virtually no great quantity of tile sheets (contrary to the
NASA disaster with Columbia - which, might I add, they knew it was an
issue since the first day of flight), secondly, the fact that the Buran
could manuver relying only on computer and memory to launch, orbit the
earth and then come back and land by itself adjusting with all the
climate and temperature changes, I think NASA has yet to learn and
lower their pride a bit. As with other American projects nowadays, the
US seems too proud of itself to allow external recommendations. For
crying out loud, these designs and layouts are public on the internet -
why hasn't NASA taken any steps to implement this technology and simply
re-design the space shuttle after the Buran? Or can't they work with
the Russians? Just another reason why NASA is questionable in this
area of space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Oberg |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ricardo Alfaro" <ricardoalfaro@gmail.com> wrote
[quote:18e36a5ebd]I had to make a small research on the Buran a while ago and saw it's
first and only flight into space. An unmanned mission using the
Buran's own computers from launch to landing, and I must admit it was
quite impressive.
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
I think that is the consensus here on this group.
[quote:18e36a5ebd]Russian technology, at least from my part, was much
more superior to American technology (I know people might think
contrary) ...
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
It's easy to be impressed by one side's technology when you don't klnow
much about the other side's, in this case, NASA's, as your subsequent
assertions demonstrate:
[quote:18e36a5ebd]but if we look at the facts: the Buran's structure allowed it
to loose virtually no great quantity of tile sheets (contrary to the
NASA disaster with Columbia - which, might I add, they knew it was an
issue since the first day of flight),
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
Nobody knows the likely flight history of Buran after 20 to 30 missions,
since it only made one mission, so this comparison is unfair.
[quote:18e36a5ebd]secondly, the fact that the Buran
could manuver relying only on computer and memory to launch, orbit the
earth and then come back and land by itself adjusting with all the
climate and temperature changes, I think NASA has yet to learn and
lower their pride a bit.
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
NASA has all the software loaded for a fully automated mission (some
critical switches remained for finger-pushing but would have been easily
automated as well), and tested it on simulator aircraft flights, so the
Buran
system has no advantage there. This so-called 'advantage' may only be
a propaganda spin on a necessity -- fly Buran as fast as possible even
though the life support systems for the crew wasn't ready (the cosmonauts
believed that the first flight would be manned, if the hardware was
completed
in time). The Buran electrical power system was also not ready -- so instead
of
fuel cells (which NASA has been flying since 1965, and since the first
shuttle
orbital flight in 1981), the vehicle was loaded with heavy chemical
batteries.
This was not a 'superior' technical achievement.
[quote:18e36a5ebd]As with other American projects nowadays, the
US seems too proud of itself to allow external recommendations.
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
The Russians have always accused us of stealing their space secrets
to copy them. Which is it?
[quote:18e36a5ebd]For crying out loud, these designs and layouts are public on the
internet -
why hasn't NASA taken any steps to implement this technology and simply
re-design the space shuttle after the Buran? Or can't they work with
the Russians? Just another reason why NASA is questionable in this
area of space.
[/quote:18e36a5ebd]
This board is full of criticisms of NASA decisions and NASA systems,
but none of your comments would survive a day's discussion because they seem
based on your own 'chip on your shoulder' and fuelled by significant
ignorance
of real NASA space activities. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 2:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Revision wrote:
[quote:ede2335428]Yes. This goes way back. IIRC the Soviets came up with their planned
Buran response to US "attack shuttle" back around 1971 or in the early
70s anyway.
The notion of a Buran filled with nukes, death rays, and poison gas is
another example of Russia's idea of how to make the world a better
place.
[/quote:ede2335428]
Here's the Soviet KS station design that would have used four wingless
Buran shuttles as space cruisers that could sortie from it to perform
nuclear bombing from orbit: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ks.htm
which almost look like oversized Kliper spacecraft.
Then from the Buran website, here are photos of the Polyus battle
station mock-up (unless this is the real one, and they repainted it)
with the cover over the station's Cosmos tug removed, and the big red
star of the Soviet military visible on one of its side modules:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/cargo.htm
The multi-faceted widget visible on the side:
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/pole24.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/pole25.jpg
Appears to be the nuclear space mine launcher, based on the cutaway from
Mark Wade's site:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
Unless it is the anti-recoil system for the same.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ricardo Alfaro" <ricardoalfaro@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116336494.968466.228010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[quote:5a7b77a236]I had to make a small research on the Buran a while ago and saw it's
first and only flight into space. An unmanned mission using the
Buran's own computers from launch to landing, and I must admit it was
quite impressive. Russian technology, at least from my part, was much
more superior to American technology (I know people might think
contrary) but if we look at the facts: the Buran's structure allowed it
to loose virtually no great quantity of tile sheets (contrary to the
NASA disaster with Columbia - which, might I add, they knew it was an
issue since the first day of flight),
[/quote:5a7b77a236]
Which "great quantity of tile sheets" are you referringto?
[quote:5a7b77a236]secondly, the fact that the Buran
could manuver relying only on computer and memory to launch, orbit the
earth and then come back and land by itself adjusting with all the
climate and temperature changes, I think NASA has yet to learn and
lower their pride a bit.
[/quote:5a7b77a236]
Computer-wise, the shuttle could have done the same thing, they choose not
to for a variety of reasons.
And in any case, as others have noted, during the landing sequence it did
turn in an unexpected way and nearly hit a chase plane.
[quote:5a7b77a236]As with other American projects nowadays, the
US seems too proud of itself to allow external recommendations. For
crying out loud, these designs and layouts are public on the internet -
why hasn't NASA taken any steps to implement this technology and simply
re-design the space shuttle after the Buran? Or can't they work with
the Russians? Just another reason why NASA is questionable in this
area of space.
[/quote:5a7b77a236]
Because there's little about Buran that would improve the shuttle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Oberg wrote:
[quote:983425b075]Nobody knows the likely flight history of Buran after 20 to 30 missions,
since it only made one mission, so this comparison is unfair.
[/quote:983425b075]
BTW, that Buran FAQ says that they were going to put the jet engines
back on the orbiter at some future date, although I don't know why.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott M. Kozel |
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ricardo Alfaro" <ricardoalfaro@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a1db0668e3]
I had to make a small research on the Buran a while ago and saw it's
first and only flight into space. An unmanned mission using the
Buran's own computers from launch to landing, and I must admit it was
quite impressive. Russian technology, at least from my part, was much
more superior to American technology (I know people might think
contrary) but if we look at the facts: the Buran's structure allowed it
to loose virtually no great quantity of tile sheets (contrary to the
NASA disaster with Columbia - which, might I add, they knew it was an
issue since the first day of flight), secondly, the fact that the Buran
could manuver relying only on computer and memory to launch, orbit the
earth and then come back and land by itself adjusting with all the
climate and temperature changes, I think NASA has yet to learn and
lower their pride a bit. As with other American projects nowadays, the
US seems too proud of itself to allow external recommendations. For
crying out loud, these designs and layouts are public on the internet -
why hasn't NASA taken any steps to implement this technology and simply
re-design the space shuttle after the Buran? Or can't they work with
the Russians? Just another reason why NASA is questionable in this
area of space.
[/quote:a1db0668e3]
So where is the Buran today, and will it ever fly again? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kerry Ferrand |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 12:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <118kjnpr5rdku06@corp.supernews.com>, flanner@daktel.com
says...
[quote:b880a8acb2]
Appears to be the nuclear space mine launcher, based on the cutaway from
Mark Wade's site:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
Unless it is the anti-recoil system for the same.
Pat
I wouldn't put much faith in that particular version of the cutaway,[/quote:b880a8acb2]
there seems to been alot of umm imagination used in translating it from
the original Russian version. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kerry Ferrand wrote:
[quote:7e167f0b4d]I wouldn't put much faith in that particular version of the cutaway,
there seems to been alot of umm imagination used in translating it from
the original Russian version.
[/quote:7e167f0b4d]
There's still a lot of mystery surrounding Polyus, and what exactly what
was inside of it is still a matter of some speculation; I always had a
hard time buying the fact that it was supposed to carry nuclear space
mines, as that would be a direct treaty violation.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| George Evans |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
in article 118e1ga7pmti3a1@corp.supernews.com, Pat Flannery at
flanner@daktel.com wrote on 5/15/05 1:19 AM:
<snip>
[quote:7be0547a1a]Buran reentry profile and heating:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/algoritm.htm
[/quote:7be0547a1a]
Is the picture at the top of this page real? I've never seen the Shuttle
this far out of control. Wow!
George Evans |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kerry Ferrand |
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <118nk87rl14h59a@corp.supernews.com>, flanner@daktel.com
says...
[quote:ba70a4be81]
Kerry Ferrand wrote:
I wouldn't put much faith in that particular version of the cutaway,
there seems to been alot of umm imagination used in translating it from
the original Russian version.
There's still a lot of mystery surrounding Polyus, and what exactly what
was inside of it is still a matter of some speculation; I always had a
hard time buying the fact that it was supposed to carry nuclear space
mines, as that would be a direct treaty violation.
Pat
Yeah I've been trying to gather solid info on this thing since it flew -[/quote:ba70a4be81]
my ideas of what was on the actual flight vehicle: electro-optical
rendevous and targeting system with test targets, some sort of
moderately powerful laser - possibly part of the afore mentioned
targeting system. Test/mockup version of a power/fuel supply for a high
energy chemical laser. The 'anti-recoil' system seems to have actually
been a system to stop the chemical exhaust of the HEL from acting like
thrusters in orbit..somehow splitting the exhaust into 2 directions that
cancel out, nicknamed "trousers"(possibly). Probably all sorts of other
sensors were crammed in there. Not sure how finely pointable the thing
could have been - all RCS thrusters on the TKS end as far as I recall.
Anyway there are probably people who actually worked on it out there
reading this and having a giggle at what's still speculation all these
years later.
K |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
George Evans wrote:
[quote:00441764bf]
Is the picture at the top of this page real? I've never seen the Shuttle
this far out of control. Wow!
I'm not sure either, I thought that bank angle was pretty severe myself.[/quote:00441764bf]
That's a a photo of the actual Buran, not the jet testbed, so its of the
landing approach after the return from space. Unfortunately, the video
which would probably show the banking maneuver (top left at the bottom
of the page) isn't on the site anymore.
The photo at the page top shows a green grassy area with a grove of
trees in the background, but the videos of the landing show a desolate
area covered in brown wild grass and scrub brush, so I'm thinking the
top one may have been doctored.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kerry Ferrand wrote:
[quote:963ba959b0]There's still a lot of mystery surrounding Polyus, and what exactly what
was inside of it is still a matter of some speculation; I always had a
hard time buying the fact that it was supposed to carry nuclear space
mines, as that would be a direct treaty violation.
Pat
Yeah I've been trying to gather solid info on this thing since it flew -
my ideas of what was on the actual flight vehicle: electro-optical
rendevous and targeting system with test targets, some sort of
moderately powerful laser - possibly part of the afore mentioned
targeting system. Test/mockup version of a power/fuel supply for a high
energy chemical laser. The 'anti-recoil' system seems to have actually
been a system to stop the chemical exhaust of the HEL from acting like
thrusters in orbit..somehow splitting the exhaust into 2 directions that
cancel out, nicknamed "trousers"(possibly). Probably all sorts of other
sensors were crammed in there. Not sure how finely pointable the thing
could have been - all RCS thrusters on the TKS end as far as I recall.
Anyway there are probably people who actually worked on it out there
reading this and having a giggle at what's still speculation all these
years later.
[/quote:963ba959b0]
That sounds a lot more likely than the nuclear space mine launcher. I
always thought that the two pods on the bottom looked like they housed
some sort of target launchers for either a laser or cannon to fire at,
although they could be gas release experiments like the Russians
claimed- the gas being a possible shield against laser attack that would
absorb or defocus the beam.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:02 pm
|
|