Military Review

Project "Buran": how we created the world's best shuttle

49
The American Space Shuttle was unlike anything else. He was the first reusable spacecraft and promised to be a cheap and safe means of delivery to orbit. In the 70s, the United States abandoned disposable launch vehicles and put everything on a reusable solution, building five shuttles.


But in 1988, the world learned that the Soviet Union also has a space shuttle. In the "Buran" developed over the course of about 10 years, billions were invested. Despite the fact that it was launched only once, the Soviet shuttle was a more successful and practical project than the American one.

Despite the obvious similarities between the Space Shuttle and the Soviet shuttle, they didn’t have much in common. The most significant difference was in the method of launching the spaceplane into orbit. The first one reached space thanks to three engines built into the shuttle, as well as two external rocket boosters. The Buran, on the other hand, was launched into orbit by the super-heavy carrier rocket Energia.

49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. solzh
    solzh 12 March 2018 16: 11
    +1
    Interestingly, and now, after 30 years, is there a replacement for Buran? And second, why don’t we fly to the moon, but only manage with flights to the ISS?
    1. Mar.Tirah
      Mar.Tirah 12 March 2018 16: 52
      +4
      There are no technologies that can do this. I mean, safe for astronauts. We also fly in low orbit on the ISS, so as not to expose the crews to solar radiation. There are no and never were spacesuits capable of completely protecting people. That's why there is no faith in the USA, their flight to the moon.Buranovskie technology was stolen by the Americans, and they built the shuttle, the first projects of winged spacecraft
      In the second half of the 50s in TsAG began the study of hypersonic manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. The first official references to "spacecraft" ("spaceplanes") - devices such as aircraft capable of flying at extremely high altitudes and in near-Earth space - appeared in 1958 in the plans of the USSR Ministry of Defense, outlining the main directions of activity of the Soviet Air Force for the next 25 years. It was assumed that the devices being developed will be able to reach speeds above M = 10 and flight heights of more than 60 km.
      Soon, the OKB-23 and OKB-256 of the State Committee for Aviation Engineering began developing projects for manned "spaceplanes" launched into orbit by a three-stage modification of the R-7 ICBM. Http://ussrtw.ru/forum/showthread.php? 392-% D0
      %91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 12 March 2018 16: 58
        +10
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        Buranovskie technologies were stolen by the Americans, and the shuttle was built on them

        Md recourse
        1. Mar.Tirah
          Mar.Tirah 12 March 2018 17: 00
          +1
          I understand !!!!! Do you prefer Russians in felt boots?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 13 March 2018 08: 22
            0
            And when did the USA steal a time machine?
            1. Pingo
              Pingo 13 March 2018 08: 56
              0
              when they stole tiles from the British for thermal protection, the USSR had to make analogues
              wisely she (STS) still did not use
    2. Artek
      Artek 12 March 2018 22: 54
      0
      these systems of ours and theirs are too similar, this is not casual.
      1. Pingo
        Pingo 12 March 2018 23: 30
        +3
        Airbus from Boeing at least distinguish appearance?
        1. Artek
          Artek 13 March 2018 07: 48
          0
          Quote: Pingo
          Airbus from Boeing at least distinguish appearance?


          this is easily explained, the whole world of air transportation is divided and this is done on the basis of rules common to both. In short, both owners are simply equal in rights, therefore they have the same companies, or maybe only one owner.
          1. Pingo
            Pingo 13 March 2018 08: 56
            0
            these are air carriers, not air carriers that distinguish
            1. Artek
              Artek 13 March 2018 09: 12
              0
              Quote: Pingo
              these are air carriers, not air carriers that distinguish


              divide and rule, or what? We know that they have passed. The fact that our carriers buy foreign air carriers like this suggests one thing that the leaders of these "our" companies are also those who work out the general global rules for both production and transportation-consumption.
              1. Pingo
                Pingo 13 March 2018 09: 16
                0
                commercial secret of technology developers, and rollbacks to air carriers passed?
                1. Artek
                  Artek 13 March 2018 09: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Pingo
                  commercial secret of technology developers, and rollbacks to air carriers passed?


                  Yes, no kickbacks, why kickbacks to yourself?
                  1. Pingo
                    Pingo 13 March 2018 10: 04
                    +2
                    To "yourself"? The Russian Tupolev or Ilyushin plant cannot place bribes from sale to a buyer in a foreign bank, and Russian banks do not give money for leasing Russian equipment to an air carrier. As a result, air junk comes to Russia after Uganda or, more rarely, brand new airbases. Still money is well withdrawn abroad because the entire technical service and regular qualification training of pilots on simulators is located abroad.
                    To myself, this is in Russian Railways, which is not a state-owned enterprise even once, but a bunch of small firms of one famous clan,
                    As a result, a ticket across half of Europe is cheaper than a ticket on a Russian suburban train. A Russian domestic ticket at the same distance is more expensive than the western one 3 times.

                    Technical solutions in Boeings and Airbases are different, individual units or engines may be the same. Or the company will be fined for plagiarism without a patent.
                    1. Artek
                      Artek 13 March 2018 12: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Pingo
                      The Russian Tupolev or Ilyushin plant cannot place bribes from sale to a buyer in a foreign bank, and Russian banks do not give money for leasing Russian equipment to an air carrier. AT


                      if our design bureaus still have sovereignty, they have been begging for a long time. Or maybe they already belong to someone not ours, those who are not interested in Russian planes. For example, why did they sell half of the company Helicopters and what do you think, those who bought will be interested in the development of our helicopter industry? The same thing with airplanes. The same thing with Gazprom, like the company "national", but in fact for a long time Russia does not belong.
                      1. Pingo
                        Pingo 13 March 2018 22: 31
                        +1
                        Having sovereignty, they have been working on contracts for a long time, most of these same Boeings and Airbases were designed by anyone, but not Boeing and Airbus.
                        It was about the fact that 1. banks that were helped from the Russian treasury were clamped down by Russian aircraft manufacturers, 2. there is a corruption scheme due to which it is more profitable for carriers (and even pilots with flight engineers to hang out beautifully) to transport people on imported air junk instead of the normal price for new ones 3. Russian planes, XNUMX. because of such prices of Russia, with its enormous distances, the transport collapse that leads to the state collapse is anti-people.
      2. Igool
        Igool 13 March 2018 02: 14
        +1
        The laws of aerodynamics are the same for everyone. Therefore similar forms
        1. Artek
          Artek 13 March 2018 07: 56
          +1
          Quote: Igool
          The laws of aerodynamics are the same for everyone. Therefore similar forms


          It’s not necessary to drive the blizzard for a plebs. Take the Spiral and the Buran, so they are different, because they were really made according to different rules, although the laws of aerodynamics are the same. After the pin / dos were combined ... the whole world was with muna, and the party and the government indulged them in this, and then wrote off H1, it becomes clear why the gimlet and the shuttle are so similar, apparently agreed to exchange information.
          1. Pingo
            Pingo 13 March 2018 08: 54
            0
            That's it, Spiral up to Mach 6, Buran more than 22
            1. Artek
              Artek 13 March 2018 09: 21
              0
              Quote: Pingo
              That's it, Spiral up to Mach 6, Buran more than 22


              Arctic fox, what section of flight are you talking about? The one that before landing or what? This is nonsense. So that the Spiral is picked up by the atmosphere at a lower speed than the Buran (if so) says that the Spiral is better calculated than the Buran / Shuttle, but I’m talking about this. Buran and Shuttle have the same disease, but this was done so that our engineers would suddenly not do something better than pin_dosnikof, so they clamped this program in and out and did not listen to smart people who said that we did not need Buran, especially in this form.
              1. Pingo
                Pingo 13 March 2018 10: 40
                0
                about the one at which the maximum speed in the atomosphere,
                In general, the spiral program was invented, the BOR should have been displayed by R-7, see the second comment under the article.
                the conclusion by such an accelerator is the worst option, so that there is a reason to abandon the system that poses a threat to American satellites and aircraft carrier formations.
                Either the second stage is lifted with a heavy subsonic aircraft and an air start, or the usual vertical launch of the entire launch vehicle, it is much simpler, cheaper and more practical.
              2. Pingo
                Pingo 13 March 2018 10: 52
                +1
                as an example, SpaceShipOne launches, abandoning D-21 launches with SR-71 and their subsequent launches with B-52, although the SR-71 was quite ready
                the clown Musk of the New Years with his first stages and Martian programs returned without parachutes, and then he does not “plan” any terrestrial horizontal hypersonic accelerators.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. svp67
    svp67 12 March 2018 16: 16
    +3
    Project "Buran": how we created the world's best shuttle
    Unlike the Tsar Cannon, which did not fire, the Tsar Bell, which did not ring, and the Tsar Tank, which could not move, the Tsar Shuttle flew into space at least once.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 12 March 2018 22: 29
      +3
      "But our Soviet scientists are not fiercely proved that it’s not caliber, but ducks!"
      The Tsar Cannon shot (you slept soundly), the Tsar Tank started off, because it got stuck in a swamp (wipe your glasses), the Bell, yes ..... "Tsar Buran" killed the USA.
      1. svp67
        svp67 13 March 2018 04: 19
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        The Tsar Cannon shot (you slept soundly)

        What and for whom? Since you were awake, you should have seen it ....
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        the tsar tank started, for it got stuck in a swamp

        I agree, the wording is not successful, but it doesn’t change the main thing, this tank turned out to be “stillborn” and it may well be that the meadow turned out to be wet, it would be worse if it was put on a series ... The Tsar Shuttle is better in all respects and should be pitied that he appeared at the wrong time.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 13 March 2018 05: 52
          +1
          The Tsar Cannon shot

          Recently, C-P was sent or sent for repair. An examination of the bore was carried out, which showed that there was at least one shot.
          The Tsar Cannon, like any piece creation of cannon craftsmen, shot at the time of surrender, moreover, the master who cast it himself shot from it. Of course, she shot buckshot (peep), because clearly not intended for firing nuclei.
          1. svp67
            svp67 13 March 2018 09: 52
            +1
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            An examination of the bore was carried out, which showed that there was at least one shot.

            Honestly, I have no doubt about that. Upon surrender, wad ... that's all. Without this, they would not have paid. There are also documents of the "Pushkar Decree", which describes where and when the guns were used, the "Moscow shotgun", namely, the so-called "Tsar Cannon" is not mentioned where. As in the case of the Tsar Tank, they apparently realized that the concept of this weapon was meaningless. You can not infinitely increase the diameter of the barrel.
            As with the Tsar-Tank, all the moanings of his designer in the lack of engine power are in “the poor's favor”, the very concept of the design is dead end. It turned out to be a wet meadow enough for it to bog down.
            1. Pingo
              Pingo 13 March 2018 11: 04
              0
              the examination gave that, as it should be at the time of delivery,
              in a swamp he got stuck
              1. svp67
                svp67 13 March 2018 11: 08
                0
                Quote: Pingo
                the examination gave that, as it should be at the time of delivery,

                This is your fantasy. Examination established only the presence of soot. And the surrender was carried out not far from the place of production, namely idle shooting.
                Quote: Pingo
                in a swamp he got stuck

                In a swamp, this tank would Drown.
                However, the rear steer roller, due to its small size and improper distribution of the weight of the machine as a whole, almost immediately after the start of the tests got stuck in soft ground.
                1. Pingo
                  Pingo 13 March 2018 11: 20
                  0
                  and traces characteristic of buckshot, to remove unnecessary questions look at about the same guns in the Turks.
                  how deep should a swamp be for such a tank? "in the swamp" they write, those who saw this tank in it back in the 1970s
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 13 March 2018 11: 33
                    0
                    Quote: Pingo
                    in the swamp "they write, those who saw this tank in it back in the 1970s

                    Wow, you ... powerfully. In the 70s he sees what, as early as the 20s, they dismantled metal ...
                    Quote: Pingo
                    and traces characteristic of buckshot,

                    This is a fantasy when examining a shotgun in the 80s:
                    The secret of this exhibit was revealed only in 1980, when it needed to be restored.
                    The cannon was removed from the carriage and placed on a large trailer using a large truck crane. Then the weapon was taken to Serpukhov, where it was restored. At the same time as repair work, experts from the Artillery Academy examined the exhibit, made the appropriate measurements, but no one saw the report. However, the surviving drafts allow us to conclude that the Tsar Cannon is not a cannon at all.

                    The secret of the weapon lies in its device. At the very beginning, the diameter of the channel into which the projectile is placed is 90 cm, and at the end it is 82 cm. At a distance of 31,9 cm, the channel is conical. Next is the charging chamber. The diameter at the beginning is 44,7 cm and at the end 46,7 cm. The length of such a chamber is 173 cm. A flat bottom is characteristic. In this regard, it was stated that the Tsar Cannon is an ordinary bombardment involving firing of stone cores. A gun is usually called a gun whose barrel length is more than 40 calibers. And this gun has a length of only four calibers, the same number of bombards. As a shotgun, such a weapon is extremely inefficient.
                    Bombards are a large-sized wall-masonry tool that destroys the fortress wall. The carriage was not used for them, since the trunk was simply dug into the ground, and two trenches were dug nearby for artillery calculation, since such guns often burst. The rate of fire of such weapons is up to 6 shots per day.

                    When exploring the canal of the gun, particles of gunpowder were found. This suggests that the gun at least once, but fired. Of course, this could be a test, so to say test shot, since the gun did not leave Moscow. And who could be shot at from within the city? Another refutation of the use of the gun is the absence of any marks in the barrel, including longitudinal scratches left by the stone cores.
                    1. Pingo
                      Pingo 13 March 2018 12: 26
                      0
                      This tank was dismantled for scrap only in perestroika.
                      the stone core is not buckshot
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 13 March 2018 13: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Pingo
                        This tank was dismantled for scrap only in perestroika.

                        Then the EVIDENCE. At that time there were already plenty of cameras, the pictures had to stay.
                        Quote: Pingo
                        the stone core is not buckshot

                        "What peas against the wall ..."
                    2. Pingo
                      Pingo 13 March 2018 22: 43
                      0
                      I saw a photo in Google, and in serious articles these facts are mentioned
                      "in a wet meadow" modern technology could not get so long to bring out the hardest parts
                      such a barrel would simply have torn from the core, from such cannons they shoot peas at the open gates at those going for an assault, or at breaking through so that they can then be closed again. the strength of the barrel cannot be appreciated with a wad, any weapon is still at least aimed and the dispersion is estimated at the gamblers.
      2. Pingo
        Pingo 13 March 2018 11: 38
        0
        in short, the Tsar Cannon and the Tsar Tank communist propaganda lied to the fool to discredit the Russian Empire, and kept silent about the Tsar-plane Sikorsky in the fight against tsarism
        about the Tsar-shuttle lying is now repainted and inherited by its democratic democratic when it came time to slander the USSR
        with Tsar Bell, the damage is obvious, interesting, as a result of which, by the way, it’s also a big damage.
  3. mavrus
    mavrus 12 March 2018 18: 11
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Project "Buran": how we created the world's best shuttle
    Unlike Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell and Tsar Tank, Tsar Shuttle, at least once, but flew into space

    And what is the Tsar Tank? Honestly, I have not heard. Another Tsar bomb was.
    1. Dimmedroll
      Dimmedroll 12 March 2018 20: 49
      0
      Probably German Mouse.
    2. Moore
      Moore 13 March 2018 03: 58
      +3
      This refers to this product of Lebedenko, who still moved, but was really stuck.
    3. svp67
      svp67 13 March 2018 04: 11
      +1
      Quote: mavrus
      Another Tsar bomb was.

      Which, thank God they didn’t blow up ... her "little daughters" were enough
  4. nafanal
    nafanal 12 March 2018 19: 41
    +1
    Yes, from the very beginning it was clear. The shuttle is a dead end. Therefore, the Soviet Union did not rush to catch up with the amers .. We built one to show that we did not use our finger. A flight to the moon is a pipe dream today. There are no technologies for the flight and safety of astronauts. Not to mention Mars
    1. Pingo
      Pingo 12 March 2018 23: 28
      0
      If the solar system has something to do this only in the belt of atheroids, then there are dangers.
  5. kig
    kig 13 March 2018 08: 18
    0
    Why does this "news" have no author? The country must know its heroes!
    Author, you take a closer look at the video, or something. It does not say at all about what you write in the headline.
  6. shuravi
    shuravi 13 March 2018 11: 37
    +2
    What an idiotic article title? What did Buran become a shuttle?
    Shuttles of the USSR before the United States engaged in:

    1. Peter Ivanov
      Peter Ivanov 25 March 2018 00: 40
      0
      Verily! And it was the intelligence of Australia that gave the USA a photo of this “Paw”, which made the North American military-industrial complex tighten up!
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 13 March 2018 12: 00
    +2
    Tell me, sucker, what does our Buran need to REBEAR EVERY TIME to build a heavy-class rocket cooler than a shuttle which, theoretically, from one-time Pribluda - only a tank and fuel ?! Yes, in practice, a lot of things that the Americans did not burn out ... But what is the tides of snowstorm?
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 13 March 2018 19: 37
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      Tell me, sucker, what does our Buran need to REBEAR EVERY TIME to build a heavy-class rocket cooler than a shuttle which, theoretically, from one-time Pribluda - only a tank and fuel ?! Yes, in practice, a lot of things that the Americans did not burn out ... But what is the tides of snowstorm?


      Read the circumstances of the catastrophes of the American shuttles and understand.
    2. Pingo
      Pingo 13 March 2018 22: 40
      0
      "only a tank" is a large expensive and complex construction (almost the entire second stage) around which the entire shuttle was going
      When Buran was first launched, the first stage rescue systems were removed (but compartments for their placement can be seen), the second engine rescue systems have not yet been installed.
      stray in the form of solid fuel for shuttle boosters is expensive and very toxic when burned
      partially-reusable Energy could bring out without Buran many times more than the stupid STS with the shuttle.
  8. Borik
    Borik 20 March 2018 21: 05
    +2
    Quote: solzh
    Interestingly, and now, after 30 years, is there a replacement for Buran? And second, why don’t we fly to the moon, but only manage with flights to the ISS?


    There is no replacement for Burana. But we don’t fly to the moon - we’re afraid that we will get lost.
  9. Peter Ivanov
    Peter Ivanov 25 March 2018 00: 37
    0
    "Project "Buran": how we created the world's best shuttle"
    Not you !!!! NOT YOU!!!
    "Buran" and "Energy", like all military and peaceful space, created the USSR and the Soviet people!