Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

151
As part of the Russian Arms Expo-2013 exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin made a sensational statement that the release of Buran-type spacecraft could be resumed in the country. “The future aircraft will be able to rise into the stratosphere, space technology can already work today in both environments, for example, Buran, which is well ahead of its time. In fact, all these spaceships are the 21st century and whether we like it or not, we will have to return to them ”, RIA quotes Dmitry Rogozin News. At the same time, domestic experts disagree on the rationality of such a step. Yes, and believe everything that Russian officials say, perhaps not worth it. A striking example is a much smaller project to resume the production of transport aircraft "Ruslan", which, in fact, advanced no further than talk on this topic.

At one time, the program "Energy-Buran" very costly to the Soviet budget. For 15 years of this program (from 17.02.1976 to 01.01.1991), the USSR spent 16,4 billion rubles on it (at the official exchange rate more than 24 billion US dollars). During the period of maximum intensity of work on the project (1989 year), this space program was allocated up to 1,3 billion rubles (1,9 billion dollars) annually, which accounted for 0,3% of the total budget of the Soviet Union. In order to understand the scale of these figures, you can compare the program with the construction of AvtoVAZ from scratch. This large-scale Soviet construction cost the state 4-5 billion rubles, while the plant still functions today. And even if we add here the cost of building the entire city of Togliatti, the amount will be several times less.

“Buran” is an orbital spacecraft-cosmoplan of the Soviet reusable transport space system (MTCS), which was created as part of a larger program “Energy - Buran”. It is one of the 2-x implemented MTCT orbital programs in the world. The Soviet Buran was a response to a similar US project called the Space Shuttle, which is why it is often called the Soviet shuttle. Its first and, as it turned out, the only flight of the reusable spacecraft "Buran" performed in fully unmanned mode 15 November 1988 of the year. The lead developer of the Buran project was Gleb Evgenievich Lozino-Lozinsky.

Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

In total, the 2 ship was fully built under the Energy-Buran program in the USSR, another was under construction (readiness level 30-50%), another 2 spacecraft were laid. The reserve for these ships after the closure of the program was destroyed. Also within the framework of the program, 9 technological layouts were created, which differed in their configuration and were intended for a variety of tests.

“Buran”, like its overseas counterpart, was intended for solving defense tasks, launching various spacecrafts and facilities and their maintenance into near-earth orbit; the delivery of personnel and modules for assembling in-orbit interplanetary complexes and large-sized structures; development of equipment and technologies of space production and delivery of products to Earth; the return to Earth of exhausted or defective satellites; other passenger and cargo transportation along the Earth-to-space-to-Earth route.

Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics. Tsiolkovsky Yuri Karash expressed his doubts about the need to revive the system. According to him, the Buran was an analogue of the American shuttle, the decision to build which was made by Richard Nixon. Therefore, the problems faced by the Americans, it is quite possible to project on the Buran.

To begin with, we will answer the question, why the Space Shuttle system was created. Here were a number of factors, one of which can be called the pioneering cosmic enthusiasm that reigned even then in the world. People assumed that they would soon explore outer space as intensively and as extensively as they did with unknown territories on Earth. It was planned that a man would fly into space long and often, and the number of customers delivering their cargo into space would be impressive. Therefore, at the time of the emergence of the idea of ​​building the Space Shuttle system, the people who offered it believed that they would fly into space almost every week.


And this in turn triggered the law of large numbers. That is, if you do something often enough, then the price of such a single action decreases, the project developers believed that the price of one flight of the Shuttle would be almost equal to the price of a regular transport plane. Naturally, it turned out that this was far from the case, but only when the Space Shuttle really began to fly into space. On average, he did not make more than 4-5 flights per year, and therefore the launch cost was huge - the amount reached 500 million dollars, which significantly exceeded the cost of launching one-time carriers. Thus, the project was not justified from a financial point of view.

Secondly, the Space Shuttle project was designed as weapons. It was supposed to equip it with bomb weapons. In this case, the spaceship could descend over the territory of the enemy, drop the bomb, and then go back into space, where it would be out of reach for the enemy’s air defense weapons. However, the Cold War came to an end, and secondly, in the same period of time, a very strong qualitative leap made rocket weapons, respectively, and the device did not justify itself as a weapon.

Thirdly, it turned out that shuttles are a very complex and insufficiently reliable system. It turned out under rather tragic circumstances, when 26 January 1986, the shuttle exploded Challenger. At this point in the United States realized that putting all the eggs in one basket is not profitable. Before that, they believed that the presence of their space shuttles would make it possible to abandon Delta, Atlas and other disposable launch vehicles, and everything could be put into orbit using space shuttles, but the Challenger crash clearly demonstrated that it was not worth it. As a result, the Americans still completely abandoned this system.

When Dmitry Rogozin announces the resumption of programs like the Buran, a quite reasonable question arises: where will these ships fly? It is very likely that the ISS will go out of orbit by 2020, and then what? Why would Russia have such a ship to just fly into space on the 2-3 of the day, but what is there to do in these 2-3 of the day? That is, we have a beautiful, but at the same time completely whimsical and ill-conceived idea, believes Yuri Karash. With this system, Russia will simply have nothing to do in space, and commercial launches today are very well carried out with the help of ordinary disposable launch vehicles. Both the American Space Shuttle and the Soviet Buran were good when it was necessary to put a large load of 20 tons in the cargo hold and deliver it to the ISS, but this is a fairly narrow circle of tasks.

Moreover, not everyone agrees that the very idea of ​​returning to Buran-type systems does not have the right to life today. A number of experts believe that if there are competent tasks and goals, such a program will be necessary. This position is held by the president of the St. Petersburg Federation of Cosmonautics Oleg Mukhin. According to him, this is no step back; on the contrary, these devices are the future of astronautics. Why did the United States in its time refused to shuttle? They simply did not have enough tasks for them to ensure that the ship was justified from an economic point of view. They had to make at least 8 flights annually, but at best, they were in 1-2 orbit once a year.

The Soviet Buran, like its overseas counterpart, was well ahead of its time. It was assumed that they could throw 20 tons of payloads into orbit and take as many of them back, plus a large crew in 6 people, plus landing on an ordinary airfield - all this can certainly be attributed to the future of world space exploration. At the same time, they can exist in various modifications. Not so long ago in Russia there was a proposal to build a small Clipper 6 local spacecraft, also winged and with the possibility of landing on an airfield. Everything here, ultimately, depends on the tasks and funding. If there are tasks for such devices - assembling space stations, assembling at stations, etc., then such ships can and should be produced.

Information sources:
-http: //www.odnako.org/blogs/show_29156
-http: //www.vz.ru/news/2013/9/25/652027.html
-http: //www.buran.ru
-http: //ru.wikipedia.org
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

151 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    2 October 2013 08: 07
    Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
    And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?
    1. +20
      2 October 2013 08: 13
      If the project is not a blizzard, then its complete modernization. to develop space you need multi-purpose spacecraft
      1. +2
        18 November 2016 21: 36
        Quote: King
        multi-purpose spacecraft needed

        For flights into space, it is better to use devices with an airplane launch.
    2. +13
      2 October 2013 08: 14
      Quote: svp67
      Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

      In addition to technical issues, which are practically not solvable for the country today, there is also the economy. MTCS of the Shuttle - Buran type will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - sent raw materials - removed products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery and return).
      1. +12
        2 October 2013 08: 19
        For example, easy repair and refueling of satellites and spacecraft. It would have been much more useful to save the Phobos-ground SC with Atqar Makar. As an example of this kind of use of the Shuttles, see how the Americans flew on a shuttle to Hubble and repaired it.
        1. +5
          2 October 2013 11: 37
          Put him glasses) Yes, for such operations it is convenient to use
          1. +4
            2 October 2013 12: 35
            Conveniently. But not for free. belay
            1. 0
              25 October 2016 20: 01
              Quote: Bear52
              Conveniently. But not for free

              Maybe a cheaper new launch
        2. 0
          2 December 2016 17: 32
          And in the Union with ext. fuel fly up to Hubble and unscrew the nut in any way? Due to the lower mass, such an operation will be decently cheaper.
      2. +21
        2 October 2013 08: 28
        I remember the flight of the Buran on November 15, 1988. I was proud of my country. But even then they said that they are very costly and are unlikely to pay for themselves. And so it happened (at least among the Americans, and they know how to count). All the same, these were technologies of the late 70s, early 80s. More advanced programs are needed.
        1. +4
          2 October 2013 08: 46
          But even then they said that they are very costly and are unlikely to pay for themselves.

          Quote: xetai9977
          Need more advanced programs.

          You already decide, either inexpensive or advanced, this is firstly, and secondly, these things do not pay off, discoveries in this area serve completely different purposes! If you really want to, then the money will not be an obstacle, it all depends on how to manage this achievement in the future.
          1. +9
            2 October 2013 10: 02
            I do not agree with you. Purely scientific devices, for example, designed to study outer space, do not generate income. And others, as part of the earlier said, the national economy should bring income. In Soviet times, they said that every ruble invested in space brings 9 rubles of income. Naturally, spacecraft are an expensive pleasure, and you need to calculate everything so that you are not in the red. If astronautics will bring only losses, then who will need it?
            1. +6
              2 October 2013 10: 39
              Quote: xetai9977
              Purely scientific devices, for example, designed to study outer space, do not generate income.

              Not only scientific, but also military vehicles. In order to make any device, first interested parties appear and the goal of its creation or the purpose, so to speak, is worked out. And you are talking only about the financial side of the issue!
              Quote: xetai9977
              In Soviet times, it was said that every ruble invested in space brings 9 rubles of income.

              And now they say a lot of things, but this does not mean that it is true!
              Quote: xetai9977
              Naturally, spacecraft are an expensive pleasure, and you need to calculate everything so that you are not in the red.

              It’s simply not possible to calculate everything. And you definitely won’t get profit unless you sell this device or donate it to a second or third party. So that money comes from you.
              Quote: xetai9977
              If astronautics will bring only losses, then who will need it?

              Military, and, accordingly, the state for defense! It’s true only if the heads of this state are given not only to wear a hat!
              There is a good saying - the GOAL justifies the means! And notice there is not a word about money in it!
              1. 0
                2 October 2013 17: 22
                Shoot the sparrow from the gun, but for your personal money
          2. 0
            2 October 2013 23: 58
            You already decide, either inexpensive or advanced, this is firstly, and secondly, these things do not pay off, discoveries in this area serve completely different purposes! If you really want to, then the money will not be an obstacle, it all depends on how to manage this achievement in the future.

            And how interesting it is for Americans - they learn to launch inexpensively, and even with private hands, and it seems that they are not the most ancient technologies.
            It seems like experience both ours and the American proved the Shuttle-Buran type ships a dead end option, because it is much more expensive per kg of removed weight than older missiles ...
            Well, the future is more likely for something like the X-35, as I understand it, with cheap commercial missiles.
            Again gospropagan ... PR.
      3. +11
        2 October 2013 08: 30
        Quote: mark1
        Quote: svp67
        Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
        And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

        In addition to technical issues, which are practically not solvable for the country today, there is also the economy. MTCS of the Shuttle - Buran type will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - sent raw materials - removed products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery and return).

        You are absolutely right. BUT nobody says that "Buran" is the project of today. By the time it is finished (I really, really hope so) in orbit there may be many tasks for it. Satellites (withdrawal, repair, etc.), can make their station (if the country pulls), military functions. And in general, if during the time of Stalin, Korolev thought about the economic justification of the flight of Belka and Strelka, then Yuri Gagarin, there would be no cosmonautics. Space is the FUTURE. The future of all mankind. This is science. These are new technologies (which in Russia they do not know how to implement, but they know how to invent). This is, after all, a possible response to US military programs. And you write about the technical side. Of course, the difficulties will be colossal, but if we just step aside and score on them, then we simply will not have a future.
        1. +2
          2 October 2013 10: 43
          Quote: Mitek
          And in general, if in the days of Stalin, the Queen thought about the economic feasibility of the flight of Belka and Strelka, then Yuri Gagarin, there would be no astronautics.

          Then they thought how to convey a megaton charge to New York, and astronautics was a by-product of the implementation of those projects.
        2. +6
          2 October 2013 11: 13
          Quote: Mitek
          Russia may resume production of Buran-type spacecraft

          In my opinion, Rogozin has read fantastic books.
          If we talk about the revival of the program ,, Buran ,,, it is necessary first of all to revive the NGO ,, Lightning ,,. Where produced and developed reusable ships.
        3. +1
          2 October 2013 16: 21
          If you fantasize a little, then some interesting tasks for him loom.
          Do not forget that in orbit there is now a lot of garbage, which is super expensive.
          some of these fragments have spent decades in orbit, and from the point of view of science, the effects of cosmic radiation on a variety of materials are very important and interesting, and as a further development, this is the construction of a protection for higher-level spacecraft.
          Well, there’s a lot more to come up with for him. The same delivery of builders back to the spacecraft, which is best built in space, collecting in pieces, and not directly derived from the surface.
      4. +1
        2 October 2013 11: 36
        Alternatively, such ships can be used if we get to Helium-3, which has huge reserves on the moon. Build a station on the moon to mine it, in orbit a sorting point, and then yes, then such a toy is necessary. And so ... they will allocate money to those who most of all need them to put in their own pocket, and ultimately they will say that the program has not paid off .. sadly, comrades ..
        1. POBEDA
          0
          7 October 2013 03: 23
          And the station in orbit should be called "Luna sorting", as on the railway)))
        2. aba
          0
          19 October 2016 20: 33
          Alternatively, such ships can be used if we get to Helium-3, which has huge reserves on the moon.

          In my IMHO, the Buran program is appropriate if Russia revive its own space station. A refusal to participate in the ISS has already been announced.
          1. 0
            25 October 2016 20: 10
            Quote: aba
            Buran program is appropriate if Russia revive its own space station

            Any cargo into orbit can be thrown with a disposable carrier. Sense in Buran will appear only on condition of a cost-effective return cargo. It is problematic to reduce 20 tons of payload from orbit.
      5. +2
        2 October 2013 14: 21
        Quote: mark1
        MTCS of the Shuttle - Buran type will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - sent raw materials - removed products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery and return).

        Apparently, mass space exploration will begin after the construction of the first thermonuclear power plant, just then the question will arise of the extraction and transportation of helium-3 from the moon to the Earth.
      6. postman
        0
        2 October 2013 14: 45
        Quote: mark1
        when organizing the production of something of value in orbit, he sent the raw materials, took off the products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery-return).

        No. Economic profitability arises when the number of starts from 50-70 per year.
        There will be a demand, the offer will justify itself
        Otherwise, the industry WILL NOT CAME with the production of LV and remote control for such a number of launches.
        TRUTH, this does not apply to Buran: EVERYTHING is there, except for the airframe and cheap maneuvering and down-loading rocket engines with 16 tons of thrust.
        1. +1
          2 October 2013 18: 18
          Quote: Postman
          TRUTH, this does not apply to Buran: EVERYTHING is there, except for the airframe and cheap maneuvering and down-loading rocket engines with 16 tons of thrust.

          The aircraft itself is reusable, side boosters with engines (4 pieces) with RD-170 marching engines (thrust 740 → 806,2 tf) must be parachuted (in the first flights it was not carried out), which, at least, implies multiple use of engines. In general, only the first stage with 4 engines RD-0120 died (Link 591 → 760 tf).

          Where am I mistaken?
          1. postman
            +1
            2 October 2013 23: 33
            Quote: Bad_gr
            The aircraft itself is reusable,

            I said the glider = packaging, but the meaning of its reusability?
            THE MOST EXPENSIVE MARCH ENGINES (SHUTTLE) - DO NOT HAVE THEM ON IT. They did not fit, could not get laid down in size
            Quote: Bad_gr
            side accelerators with engines (4 pieces) with RD-170 marching engines (740 thrust → 806,2 tf) should be parachuted (it was not carried out in the first flights),

            trust my experience (how much was rummaged with the radioisotope detector): STEPS WITH LRE Do Not Save -and never saved:
            -they are "gentle" mass (strength) are sucked to a minimum (wafer structure is thin-walled, keeps under pressure of the TC)
            -Even with a splashdown of almost 100%, damage to them, TNA, alignment of the rocket engine, valves
            - the task of co-reliance: in the USA, the PH is based on the table (costs), our pH is HANGED
            The pipe always WORKS BETTER ON TENSION THAN BETTER THAN ON COMPRESSION
            WHY DO WE HANG?
            === STEPS WITH TRD save, quite easily, because. the fuel checker itself provides the strength of the stage (the essence is the turbojet engine) + no fittings


            Quote: Bad_gr
            which, at least, implies the reuse of engines.

            It was a "project" for the Politburo - not technically feasible (except perhaps by planning, using autorotation or wing and landing gear)
            Quote: Bad_gr
            In general, only the first stage with 4 engines RD-0120 died (Link 591 → 760 tf).

            THE MOST, MOST EXPENSIVE, MATERIAL-CONSUMPTION, MOST BASIC THAT PROVIDES EVERYTHING TO MONITOR MON TO NOU: Marching, SU, AC shutdowns, FITTINGS, THA, fuel tanks (to a lesser extent)
            1. +2
              2 October 2013 23: 46
              Quote: Postman
              it was a "project" for the Politburo - not technically feasible (except perhaps by planning using autorotation or a wing and landing gear)


              I agree, the project and the political game of designers aimed at continuing the financing of the project. Not every designer and technologist will immediately understand the technical aspects, but the pseudo-economic effect is obvious, so to speak.
              1. postman
                +2
                2 October 2013 23: 50
                Quote: studentmati
                I agree, the project and the political game of designers,

                Until now, no one can give a clear explanation of why S.P. Korolev returned to the hanging tanks (V-1), although the very same refused them (with P-5 in my opinion).
                Maybe it’s not healthy anymore?
                OF course for the industry it was ARCHI DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT milled bearing tanks of variable thickness FOR SUCH OBJECT ...
                BUT..
                But they did manage with the screws for the nuclear submarines, well, the STTIBR would be another machine.
                Do not know
                And with engines there they nabbed with Glushko, you read the protocols and you go nuts ..
                and Glushko RETURNED TO OXYGEN HYDROGEN LRE, you know
                1. 0
                  3 October 2013 00: 02
                  Quote: Postman
                  Maybe it’s not healthy anymore?


                  Collision of two ABSOLUTE DESIGNERS. Everyone was unacceptable to himself. Battle of the GIANTS, "I said it was right, period!"
                  The joint venture was absolutely sure that it would bring its product to mind. Glushko went in a rational, calculated way.
                2. 0
                  3 October 2013 22: 18
                  Quote: Postman
                  Glushko RETURNED TO OXYGEN HYDROGEN LRE, you know

                  ... and why, you know?
            2. +2
              2 October 2013 23: 52
              Quote: Postman
              THE MOST EXPENSIVE MARCH ENGINES (SHUTTLE) - DO NOT HAVE THEM ON IT. They did not fit, could not get laid down in size

              Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space). Created separately: reusable orbital aircraft + rocket launcher for the withdrawal of heavy loads.
              Quote: Postman
              - the task of co-reliance: in the USA, the PH is based on the table (costs), our pH is HANGED

              These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?
              For example "Proton" is on the bottom.
              1. postman
                -2
                3 October 2013 02: 13
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space).

                You're wrong.
                1.No where to "drag" it is not necessary. flights (Shuttle, Burana) to the Moon is Hollywood.
                THIS IS THE ORBITAL (low orbital) shuttle: back there
                2. although I would be here
                http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm
                "OS-120". 1975 volume 1B "Technical proposals" of the "Integrated rocket and space program"
                in the tail of the ship were placed three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11D122 developed by KBEM with a thrust of 250 tf and specific impulse of 353 sec on the ground and 455 sec in vacuum
                did not fit: neither were transferred to the central block of the pH
                1976 Glushko "Technical information" of the new version of the ship - "OK-92"
                and it turned out, what happened

                RD-170 with all the desire not to put in the aft part of the airframe
                Weight: 9750 kg
                Width: 3600 mm
                Height: 4000 mm
                Diameter: 3600 mm

                WELL NO SENSE TO BOOST- SHUTTLE More elegant (and multiple)

                Quote: Bad_gr
                These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?


                and what descendants are few?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. +1
                  3 October 2013 21: 02
                  Quote: Postman

                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space).
                  Quote: Postman
                  You're wrong.
                  1.No where to "drag" it is not necessary. flights (Shuttle, Burana) to the Moon is Hollywood.
                  THIS IS THE ORBITAL (low orbital) shuttle: back there
                  2. although I would be here
                  http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm
                  "OS-120". 1975 volume 1B "Technical proposals" of the "Integrated rocket and space program"
                  three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11D122 developed by KBEM with a thrust of 250 tf and a specific impulse of 353 sec on the ground and 455 sec in vacuum were located in the tail of the ship
                  did not fit: neither were transferred to the central block of the pH
                  1976 Glushko "Technical information" of the new version of the ship - "OK-92"
                  and it turned out, what happened

                  From the same site (http://www.buran.ru/htm/gubanov3.htm)
                  ".... Organization of the development of missiles presented a certain difficulty. IN Sadovsky was instructed to lead this direction of development, with the unification of disparate divisions. Ultimately, under the leadership of IN Sadovsky, the image of the future rocket and space transport system was formed, which , by design, was supposed to become universal.
                  The rocket was presented as an independent structure, and the payload was an orbital ship or any other spacecraft or platform. Unlike the American system, the rocket made it possible to launch spacecraft of various classes. The Space Shuttle was only a space plane with solid-propellant boosters and an outboard fuel compartment. In this scheme, with an equal launch mass, the plane would put into orbit a load three times less than a classic rocket.
                  The versatility of the complex was prompted by an important development episode. Initially, it was proposed to place the second stage propulsion system on an orbital ship, like that of the Space Shuttle. However, due to the absence of an aircraft in the country at that time for transportation from the manufacturing plant to Baikonur, and most importantly, for testing an orbital ship of significant mass in flight conditions, the orbital ship was facilitated by transferring the engines to the central tank. Orbital flight tests were understood as horizontal flight tests (GLT), in which, similar to the American Space Shuttle flights on Boeing-747, it was planned to drop the spacecraft from the carrier's flight altitude to practice free descent and maneuvering of the spacecraft when landing on Earth.
                  With the transfer of engines to the central tank of the rocket, their number increased from three to four. The fourth is a hot reserve ....

                  ..... Starting from 1976, within five years (until 1981), five variants of design schemes were worked out on the basis of the original. Work was carried out from the category of "project sweat". The orbital ship took on forms and contents close to the final ones. The rocket changed its structure from a two-tank central unit to a four-tank unit, and then again a two-tank unit, the dimension and number of sustainer engines changed, the ratio of stages and engine thrust was optimized, aerodynamic forms were improved, a parachute rescue system for units A was introduced, were introduced in 1976, jet engines in an orbital ship, which made it possible to carry out deep maneuvering when landing. ..... "
                  1. +1
                    3 October 2013 21: 17
                    Layout Options
                  2. postman
                    0
                    3 October 2013 22: 03
                    Useless.
                    As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                    from Buran, jumped to Energy

                    question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                    which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?
                    In principle, the answer in history

                    there was no plane, the amateur writes
                    We had a helicopter and a V-12 (in my opinion) did not hear? for mobile ICBMs, which remained idle
                    CARRY and driven (Americans) separately for installation there is a MIC
                    Flight tests, working off ... poor fellow Americans, how did they handle that.
                    but flight tests (of a significant mass) - HOW TO return the PN? the same "transferring to the central tank"?

                    ENGINES DO NOT NEED (and will not fit)



                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    In 1976, jet engines were introduced on an orbital ship,

                    nonsense, this is just for flight tests
                    and they were expecting solid propellant solid propellant rocket engines - which were never made (by the 1st flight), and then the program was closed
                    1. 0
                      3 October 2013 22: 08
                      Quote: Postman
                      Expected solid propellant solid propellant rocket engine - which were never manufactured (for 1 flight)

                      Where does this information come from, colleague?
                      And the GTE was really supposed to be installed - for a deep maneuver during landing. This is not only for LI of one of the samples. On which they "taught" they worked out-automatic unmanned landing. By the way, there were other gas turbine engines ...
                      1. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 05: 14
                        Quote: Rus2012
                        Where does this information come from, colleague?

                        There was such an idea to use the solid propellant rocket engine (remote control of emergency separation of OK from the LV) in the ODE, to create thrust during the last phase of flight in the atmosphere

                        The Energia launch vehicle for the Energia-Buran rocket and space system includes 58 solid-fuel engines of 6 functional types developed by NPO Iskra (separation, withdrawal, braking, soft landing, etc.). The high reliability of solid propellant rocket motors was confirmed in the conditions of real launches of the Energia LV on May 15, 1987 and the Energia-Buran RCS on November 15, 1988.

                        Quote: Rus2012
                        And the gas turbine engine was really supposed to be installed - for a deep maneuver during landing.

                        Gas tubing?
                        and What "deep" maneuver is needed? For what?
                        In order to reach the eastern alternate aerodrome (Khorol)?
                        So he (Buran), and so without the turbojet engine "reached" if necessary.

                        And more than these (regular and spare) two places are NOT ANYWHERE AND IT WAS NOT PROPOSED to install the means of the Vympel radio-technical systems complex.
                        - a radio-technical system for radar control of the trajectory of the orbiter and air traffic control, consisting of:
                        track radar complex and airfield surveillance radar,

                        command and control center for controlling the movement of an orbital ship (aerodrome),

                        air traffic control tower (aerodrome),
                        Orbital spacecraft control tower (MCC)

                        And without them .... plop
                        the automatic landing system does not mean that it (the blizzard) can land on any (even prepared for VGH) strip, the Vympel shopping mall is a reference to certain coordinates (and working them out)
                    2. +1
                      3 October 2013 23: 15
                      Quote: Postman
                      Useless.
                      As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                      from Buran, jumped to Energy

                      question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                      which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?
                      In principle, the answer in history

                      there was no plane, the amateur writes
                      We had a helicopter and a V-12 (in my opinion) did not hear? for mobile ICBMs, which remained idle
                      CARRY and driven (Americans) separately for installation there is a MIC
                      Flight tests, working off ... poor fellow Americans, how did they handle that.
                      but flight tests (of a significant mass) - HOW TO return the PN? the same "transferring to the central tank"?

                      ENGINES DO NOT NEED (and will not fit)

                      I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?

                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      In 1976, jet engines were introduced on an orbital ship,
                      Quote: Postman
                      nonsense, this is just for flight tests

                      It seems to be reading from the same sites ....

                      These are the little white (coated) engines that are standard ones, and they should have been there. And the blue ones were added to practice piloting the aircraft: with them, the plane took off and landed in the atmosphere. This aircraft was not intended for space.
                      1. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 04: 48
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?

                        You, of course, just get a grasp
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        It seems to be reading from the same sites ....

                        I didn’t read it (buran.ru), I brought it for you, as the closest link, and not on this issue, but ON MARCH engines (which did not fit, see above)
                        "could not get to Baikonur" (was there no plane?
                        "drove without" ODE!

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        These are the little white (coated) engines that are standard,

                        This is nonsense!!
                        1.Return from orbit. To descend from orbit, Buran is deployed by 180gr gas-dynamic control engines, after which the main rocket engines are turned on for a short time and give him the necessary braking impulse. The ship goes on the descent trajectory, turns back forward and Performs planning with a large angle of attack.

                        Up to an altitude of 20 km, joint gas-dynamic and aerodynamic control is carried out, and at the final stage of the flight only aerodynamic controls are used. At the same time, the configuration of the device and the adopted descent trajectory (steepness of planning) allow aerodynamic braking to extinguish the speed from close to orbital to landing, equal to 300 - 360 km / h. The length of the run is 1100 - 1900 m, a brake parachute is used on the run.

                        WHERE IS THE STAFF?
                        THIS IS OK-GLI (BTS 002) for testing in the atmosphere (stands at the Speyer Museum of Technology) - was made for flight tests in the Earth’s atmosphere. In its tail section stood four turbojet enginesallowing him to take off from a regular airfield.
                        In November 1985, the first flight of the "Buran" spacecraft took place at LII with turbojet engine for testing systems of its landing on the airfield
                        2.Fuel zero
                        3. And think a bit: HOW to slow down with the first nacelle with such nacelles?
                        - they will vomit, with the root and keel, and the back
                        -T there is about 1755K (as at the end of the keel) / This is a Shuttle, but does not change the essence (temperature) /

                        -you "forgot" the plugs, for those little white ...
                        Knead a little brain and everything falls into place
                      2. 0
                        5 October 2013 10: 47
                        Quote:
                        Bad_gr
                        I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?
                        postman
                        You, of course, just get a grasp

                        Eco brought you ....
                        Let's start on the points:
                        Quote: Postman
                        As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                        I gave links on the weight of N-1 and Saturn-5 and I think that I answered on this topic.

                        About, "crawling towards the" seven ".
                        It was your statement that all our rockets are hanging, to which it was indicated that this is only for the family of "sevens", all the rest are on the table.
                        Nothing more was said about the "sevens".

                        Quote: Postman
                        question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                        which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?

                        Someone is now trying to divert the conversation away from technical issues in the direction of the economy.
                      3. 0
                        5 October 2013 10: 48
                        Quote: Postman
                        ".... there was no plane - this is written by an amateur ...
                        ENGINES DIDN'T fit (and will not fit) "


                        Well, yes, on the manufacturer’s website (http://www.buran.ru/), with dates, surnames and drawings the amateur wrote ....

                        ".... Air-jet propulsion system of the" Buran "orbital ship (11F35)

                        An intermediate version of the "Buran" provided for the installation of air-jet engines (WFD). This was due to the fact that all the airfields for the landing of "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, and during the day there were quite a lot of "dead" turns, landing from which it was impossible. There could be two fundamental ways out of this situation: to expand the number of airfields (but Buran was created as a military facility, and the strategic allies were located "compactly" to the borders of the USSR, while Cuba was too close to the territory of a potential enemy), or to increase the power-to-weight ratio of the atmospheric sector by installing a WFD. The designers chose the second path.
                        The well-proven AL-27F turbojet engine developed by the Lyulka Design Bureau, which had proven itself on the Su-31 fighter jet, was chosen as two WFDs for installation on the Buran orbital vehicle. .....
                        The afterburner chamber, which became unnecessary for the Buranian flight regimes, was removed from the engines, placing them on top of the fuselage at the sides of the keel in an aerodynamically shaded (in the hypersonic flight area) location. The presence of two WFDs significantly increased the available lateral range during descent from orbit and simplified the controlled landing.
                        However, for all the benefits, the presence of WFD has also generated a number of significant problems:
                        - the WFD itself had to be either seriously modified so that the engines could safely tolerate the rocket launch and prolonged exposure to space flight factors (space vacuum, temperature extremes, etc.), or organize protection against harmful effects;
                        - there were serious technical problems associated with starting engines in the rarefied upper layers of the atmosphere at high speed (the need for replenishment with oxygen, etc.) when the ship returned after a space flight. The solution of all problems, as well as the completion of engines, led to an increase in cost and a significant increase in the complexity and timing of finishing work;
                        - the presence of two WFDs on board required the equipment of a regular orbital ship with additional aviation systems (fuel with kerosene reserves on board, engine control systems, fire extinguishing systems, etc.), which, along with weight loss and centering changes, reduced the efficiency of the OK as a transport vehicle.
                        The installation of two "standard" WFDs on the Buran orbital spacecraft (but not their launch when returning from space) was tested in real atmospheric flights on an analogue aircraft BTS-02 GLI (Large Transport Vessel the second for Horizontal Flight Tests). The engines were housed in special nacelles, several recessed into the fuselage, equipped with closing covers and covered with standard plate thermal protection .... "
                      4. 0
                        5 October 2013 10: 59
                        "..... Since the test program of the BTS-02 GLI analog aircraft provided for a conventional aircraft takeoff from the airfield runway, and the power-to-weight ratio of the two non-powered turbojet engines AL-31 (2х7770 kg) was not enough, the designers installed two more forced turbojet engines AL-31F (2х12500 kg) in conventional nacelles on the sides of the fuselage, creating a small pitch-up moment to facilitate take-off (along with the increased nose landing gear height).


                        The rear part of the fuselage of an analogue aircraft BTS-02 GLI:

                        (on the left is the preparation for the flight, in the center is the side-front view, on the right is the view from the rear hemisphere).

                        Symbols:
                        1 - cover-plug of the air intake of the "standard" engine in the open position;
                        2 - nacelle of "standard" engine AL-31 with imitation of external thermal protection;
                        3 - engine nacelle fairing of an additional forced engine AL-31F;
                        4,9 - simulators of orbital maneuvering engines;
                        5 - split air brake - rudder;
                        6 - lines of the brake parachute;
                        7 - output device - nozzle of "standard" AL-31 engine;
                        8 - adjustable nozzle of the forced engine AL-31F;
                        10 - balancing shield;
                        11 - ground personnel;
                        12 - "standard" AL-31 engine in the nacelle, back view;
                        13 - compartment brake parachute;
                        14 - tail blocks ODE with simulation of control engines

                        The AL-31 engines were not yet ready for the first flight of the Buran - they had not had time to work out their de-capsulation at the stage of supersonic descent in the atmosphere and launch after being in vacuum ... "
                      5. 0
                        5 October 2013 11: 25
                        Quote: Postman
                        3. And think a bit: HOW to slow down with the first nacelle with such nacelles?
                        - they will vomit, with the root and keel, and the back
                        -T there is about 1755K (as at the end of the keel) / This is a Shuttle, but does not change the essence (temperature) /

                        -you "forgot" the plugs, for those little white ...
                        Knead a little brain and everything falls into place

                        Or maybe instead of just wrinkling the brain, just read on informed sites?
                      6. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 12: 51
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        AL-31 engines were not ready for the first flight of "Buran" yet -

                        You kolipastite someone else's nonsense (even from the "manufacturer's site", some dubious one), but without thinking.
                        Good noch mall:
                        1. The temperature that the "AL-31 engines" must withstand during descent from orbit and aerodynamic deceleration from 8 km / s - WELL THINK A LITTLE THAT and ... and take a look at the TZ tile of endings and edges!
                        And also get acquainted with the temperature conditions and the operation of the turbojet engine
                        2. The force effect of the incident flow on the "AL-31 engines" during descent from orbit and aerodynamic deceleration from 8 km / s THINK A LITTLE THAT and ... and take a look, well, at least on the power element and the casing (s) of the ODE!
                        3. They (TRD) are not needed when landing. WHAT DEPTH DO MANEUVER DO?
                        And the means of the Vympel radio-technical systems complex will be there (in depth)?
                        4. "AL-31 engines" do not run on synthine (14Tn), and there was no longer any.
                        Carry (there - back) kerosene J? + protective "caps" with TK tiles? What's the point? (See items 3 and 5)
                        4. If you already have a hot air engine (it’s not clear why), any engineer (who did not buy a diploma) will tell you: use the forward-flow guide: cheap, reliable, economical, stable, heat-resistant, less weight, less dimensions YES ON A DEVICE HAVING KINETICS of 8 km / s, not to use the speed that has "free2" is stupid.
                        Cost-close to ZERO (at least take pulsating from FAU-1)
                        There are no problems with starting, with the cost, installation, the impact of the oncoming flow (compressor blades), etc.
                        =
                        from all the above written conclusion: turbojet engine is only for LEE.
                      7. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 12: 24
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Well, yes, on the manufacturer’s website (http://www.buran.ru/),

                        buran.ru products webpage?
                        Further, you can not read and discuss neither technical nor economic issues with you ...
                        Lucky publicist Vadim Pavlovich Lukashevich
                      8. 0
                        5 October 2013 12: 46
                        Quote: Postman
                        buran.ru- the website of the MANUFACTURER?
                        Further, you can not read and discuss neither technical nor economic issues with you ...
                        Lucky publicist Vadim Pavlovich Lukashevich

                        :) And a huge amount of information on individual products with articles from first persons (including from chief designers) - did Lukashevich invent this?
                        Vyzhe there advised "A little stretch your brain" - so use your advice, and draw conclusions from the materials, and not from the bulldozer, as in your reflections on the atmospheric engines "Buran".
                      9. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 12: 54
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        and draw conclusions from materials, not from the bulldozer,

                        What for?
                        I learned this.
                        Yes, and in the garage are old (still Delsin’s, not fantasies are books, not books and sites)
                        ==========
                        What do I read bullshit about combat stations and SKIF, which had a "hyperboloid" on board ...
                        the truth systems (oddly enough) cooling, heat and radiators did not have ... And had a heating source (something at 1,6 kW)
                        Why read bragging nonsense.
                        It already happened: "If tomorrow there is a war, there is a boom in fighting on foreign territory, well, yes, they started, only in 1944

                        Or how is his "Broken Shield (or Sword) of the Empire"?
                        smirk
                      10. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 12: 57
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        and draw conclusions from the materials, and not from the bulldozer, as in your reflections on the atmospheric engines "Buran".

                        Give me them (materials)

                        where does the bastard and my thoughts?
                        By the way, reflections are better than the ceiling confirmation that the dry mass of Saturn is GREATER cm N-1 and that thin, thin-walled turbojet engines with an inlet compressor can withstand 1750K and a dynamic head of 8000km / s!
                      11. 0
                        5 October 2013 14: 41
                        Quote: Postman
                        Give me them (materials)

                        So I gave you a link to the site, where including (http://www.buran.ru/htm/biblio.htm):
                        ................................
                        .....................
                        ..................
                      12. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 14: 49
                        I don’t read such sites of "manufacturers"
                        And the literature that is indicated, according to it (some) studied.
                        What should I send an extract from the diploma?
                      13. 0
                        5 October 2013 15: 16
                        It turns out interestingly:
                        First from you
                        Quote: Postman
                        Give me them (materials)

                        Gave. I get in response:
                        Quote: Postman
                        I don’t read such sites of "manufacturers"
                        And the literature that is indicated, according to it (some) studied.
                        What should I send an extract from the diploma?

                        That is, the literature to which I refer and from which you have been taught is not an argument for you.

                        What can I say ...
                        I probably have no more questions.
                      14. postman
                        0
                        6 October 2013 16: 02
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        That is, the literature to which I refer and from which you have been taught is not an argument for you.

                        Literature - argument, sites - no
                        (answered earlier shortly, because from a mobile phone, it’s not very convenient)
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I probably have no more questions.

                        Let’s, so - I’ll simplify the explanation so that the ABSURDITY of the turbojet engine on the ISS Buran (on fingers and with a razor) is clear
                        (unfortunately you did not perceive: 1,2,3,4- well, or DON'T READ.
                        So:
                        1. ODE Buran (photo you cited): 48 engines of three dimensions in draft
                        two engines of orbital maneuvering - 90 kN, their hollow specific thrust impulse - 362 s, the number of starts per flight - up to 15. Any of 38 control engines has a thrust of 4 kN, specific thrust impulse 275-295 s and the number of starts up to 2000 per flight. They not only control the position, but also provide the displacement of the center of mass of the orbital ship in space. And the installation of precision orientation (eight of them), each with a thrust of 200 N, only support it in a certain position.
                        application in engines electric ignition control, cooling with gaseous oxygen, use of capillary intakes. The presence of a powerful propulsion unit allows for accelerated fuel production in emergency situations, and in the future - to increase the overall efficiency of the Buran-Energiya system by switching on these engines in the active section.
                        =======
                        NOW THINK AND ON FUY you still need ballast in the form of AL-31 engines
                        moreover, "ballast" is not simple, but "gentle": heat protection, plugs, launch system, amplifiers, aerodynamic resistance, other TCs and in general the product is not intended for "visiting space"
                        WHAT FOR?
                        This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser
                        2. Yes, you say, additional fuel (for atmospheric active flight, this is extra weight .... but do not be cunning, see paragraph 1, AL-31- it is unlikely to be easier, definitely more expensive (incl. Full-scale tests), reliability - xs
                        If in the process of launching a failure of one of the engines of the Energia rocket occurred and the maneuver of the return of the Buran to the airfield near the launch complex should be implemented, then the main task of the ODE is the intensive production and discharge of fuel from the tanks for ensure the necessary alignment of the ship at the time of separation from the carrier. For this, the simultaneous inclusion of two main engines, as well as the discharge of gaseous oxygen through special nozzles. After separation of "Buran" from the emergency carrier, their work will continue until the full depletion of fuel.
                        3. In principle, no remote controls are needed for active maneuvers in the atmosphere. And so Buran’s lateral maneuver is sufficient, and 2 airfields (with Pennant) for the landing fan.
                        4. Do you say the nozzle is not designed to work in the atmosphere?
                        Answer nozzle
                        5. If so hottsa have a remote control at the last stage, PLEASE MODERNIZED (cut-off, less thrust) solid propellant rocket motor rescue systems from NPO Iskra. If you do not set yourself the goal of making a transatlantic flight, they will be enough for the eyes and ears in an emergency situation (second approach, not a favorable tailwind) at low thrust (second mode).

                        ============
                        IMHO: someone once farted about a turbojet engine for a snowstorm (full-time, and not for LI), probably confusing a flight instance with a serial one ..
                        And off we go.
                      15. 0
                        6 October 2013 21: 57
                        Quote: Postman
                        NOW THINK AND ON FUY you still need ballast in the form of AL-31 engines

                        Quote: Postman
                        This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser

                        ".... January 9, 1976 General Designer NPO Energia Valentin Glushko approves the" Technical Reference "containing a comparative analysis of the new version of the spacecraft -" OK-92 ", which became a further continuation of OS-120, but had two main fundamental differences - it lacked marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (they were transferred to the central block of the LV), but two air-jet engines (WF) appeared to provide the possibility of independent flights in the atmosphere. This was due to the fact that all the airfields for the landing of "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, therefore, during the day there were turns, landing from which is impossible. There could be two fundamental ways out of this situation: to expand the number of airfields (but Buran was created as a military facility, and the strategic allies were located "compactly" to the borders of the USSR, while Cuba was too close to the territory of a potential enemy), or to increase the power-to-weight ratio of the atmospheric sector by installing a WFD. The designers chose the second path. And although the new version had OS-120 "birthmarks" in the form of a separate propulsion system and toxic fuel components, it was a step forward.

                        After the issuance of Resolution N132-51, the development of the spacecraft's glider, means of air transportation of the ISS elements and the automatic landing system was entrusted to a specially organized NPO Molniya, which was headed by Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky. NPO Molniya (together with TsAGI) immediately proposed their options: the ship "305-1" (see the figure below) with a "load-bearing hull" scheme based on a four-fold orbital aircraft "Spiral" and the winged version "305 -2 ", close to the OK-92 variant.

                        Ultimately, OK-92 was adopted for further study, during which he first changed one powerful solid propellant engine of the emergency compartment from the launch vehicle for two small ones on the sides of the tail section, and then "lost" them too. VRD (dual-circuit turbofan D-30KP - modified engines widely used on the long-range passenger aircraft Il-62M) on the side pylons were moved upward, on opposite sides of the keel, replacing them with an AL-31 turbojet engine, and placed in semi-submerged nacelles, but later were removed and did not take part in the flight of the Buran. ..... "
                      16. 0
                        6 October 2013 22: 22
                        Quote: Postman
                        This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser

                        Incidentally, in addition to 1144 KN-2 type nuclear reactors (3 MW), the power plant on our nuclear-powered cruisers of Project 300 Orlan has 2 auxiliary boilers for liquid fuel.
                        On atomic traction, the speed is up to 32 knots, on auxiliary - up to 17 knots.
                        And there was even a case when one of the cruisers returned to base at auxiliary boilers.
                        That is, their installation paid off.
                      17. postman
                        0
                        7 October 2013 02: 54
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Incidentally, in addition to 1144 KN-2 type nuclear reactors (3 MW), the power plant on our nuclear-powered cruisers of Project 300 Orlan has 2 auxiliary boilers for liquid fuel.

                        And I'm on that hinted ... softly so.
                        Just on him.
                        And this is nonsense (auxiliary boilers):
                        Diesel locomotive and auxiliary boiler
                        Electric locomotive and ... auxiliary diesel.
                        ========
                        Weakly believe in a legend: Ustinov said: but you will get YaSU in the middle of the Indian .. and? what will you do?
                        Nevertheless, he has VTU, this is not Rogozin. This bullet, in my opinion, was launched by this one as his Karaulov from military journalism, I forgot the name ..
                        -------------> such an option is technical nonsense, like a turbojet engine for a blizzard (carry with you an APU with fittings and SU, fuel. brrr.)
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        when one of the cruisers returned to base on auxiliary boilers.
                        That is, their installation paid off.

                        This indicates the unreliability of SU.
                        ------------------------------------------
                        It’s so cool, probably oars and a sail should be foreseen on destroyers, what if the GSU refuses?
                        and on cars, chain drive and pedals.
                      18. postman
                        0
                        7 October 2013 03: 05
                        I think this legend arose .... then, to "justify" the uniqueness of "Buran"
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        This was due to the fact that all the airfields for landing "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, so during the day there were turns, landing from which is impossible
                        .
                        Some garbage:
                        - "Soyuz" and "Vostoka", military satellites, orbital stations and ... they that "hang" over the territory of the USSR, or "Might not be required"?
                        Note Buran, in contrast to the above, he himself could make a maneuver (without any turbojet engine), which is about 1000 km.
                        -Tsp = 2pr / v = 2p (r (3) / gM) (1/2) = Period of the satellite’s revolution around the Earth = equal to the orbit length (2pr) divided by satellite velocity v
                        For 200km (DOE) - something like 42 minutes
                        And?
                        How long is the USSR along the meridian?
                        What can happen (URGENT) in 35 minutes that an emergency descent is required?
                        -If the gathering was not at the calculated point ... where could these shuttles (turbojet engines) deliver the shuttle? Where is the fuel?
                        Same to me transatlantic liner
                        ===========
                        legend shit shorter
                      19. 0
                        7 October 2013 10: 47
                        Quote: Postman
                        shit shorter

                        Sorry dear forum users postman и Bad_gr , I followed your discussion with interest, but once again I'm sorry, but in it now
                        Mixed in a bunch of horses, people,
                        And the volleys of a thousand guns
                        Merged into a long howl ...

                        shorter shit happened
                        request
                      20. postman
                        0
                        7 October 2013 12: 32
                        On the contrary, it’s nice that at least someone is reading.
                        But horses and people didn’t get mixed up in the matter under discussion, it’s all the allegory’s fault.
                        Question about turbojet engines, and about Buran in general
                        My opinion: "Why does a goat need a button accordion"? Well, what I tried to explain. and "crap" is about nonsense: the declared need for a turbojet engine and ... and the ABSENCE OF SUCH NECESSITY, as well as a technical lapse.
                        1. there is no need to leave orbit for 35 minutes (there wasn’t, and what to do with unions, East)
                        2. If there was, anyway, no turbojet engines could reach Canada (say) to the Baikonur
                        3. to carry with you two extra gondolas with turbojet engines, with fittings, with a fuel tank, with thermal protection 99,9% of the time on a DOE ... it makes no sense = every gram counts
                        4. If you really want to (1), you would use an ODE (pulsed, multi-mode, for 100 starts, only a brake impulse) or a solid propellant rejection system
                        5. will not withstand the turbojet engine aerodynamic and temperature effects with 200 km and a speed of 8 km / s but no work on the technical specifications, the plug (again weight) was not carried out
                        6. If you really want (p1) to have an AIR-reactive (no oxidizing agent needed) - you would use straight-through pipes (cheap, cheerful, simple, reliable) that can work under the conditions of p.5. with)???
                        output a turbo (equipped with a compressor) jet engine is needed ... to start the shuttle movement when it has zero speed, i.e. takeoff and flight tests. TRD is an option for LI.

                        Well, about "Buran" and its supposedly technical superiority over the Shuttle .... it's just funny to read on buran.ru
                        at the same time, I (for example) am an ardent supporter of Russian cosmonautics, but why manipulate the facts and make myself laugh the whole world?

                        ====
                        Either the GK divorced the Politburo, or the Politburo and GK, together with the KGB, wanted to divorce the USA
                      21. 0
                        7 October 2013 13: 23
                        Quote: Postman
                        1. there is no need to leave orbit for 35 minutes (there wasn’t, and what to do with unions, East)

                        Well and the rest.
                        I will not spread my thoughts on the tree, I will say only one thing _ Buran, in my opinion, this MILITARY the spaceship and everything that seems absurd from the side in some kind of applications can be absolutely adequate and in demand, well, at least offhand
                        Quote: Postman
                        the need to exit the orbit within 35min
                        wink
                        hi
                      22. postman
                        0
                        7 October 2013 18: 51
                        Quote: Cynic
                        at least offhand

                        "Diamond"?
                      23. 0
                        7 October 2013 19: 17
                        Quote: Postman
                        "Diamond"?

                        It’s clear that the matter is dark.
                        It seems that Almaz did not officially launch military manned stations, but DOS Salutes in some places passed like Diamonds. Yes, and peace, too.
                        No wonder he was drowned, and the Yusovtsy plowed the entire ocean floor in the area of ​​flooding.
                      24. postman
                        0
                        7 October 2013 19: 42
                        Quote: Cynic
                        It’s clear that the matter is dark.

                        This is understandable, as with Buran.
                        Quote: Cynic
                        and Yusovtsy plowed all the ocean floor in the area of ​​flooding.

                        well, Space-954 fell in Canada ...
                        and this is not Buran, this is YaSU "US-A" and a satellite of the marine space reconnaissance and target designation system.
                        what?
                        I don’t even know if the USSR paid 3 million Canadian dollars of compensation
                        ==========
                        "It is not worth it"
                        , that is, turbojet engine
                      25. 0
                        7 October 2013 20: 10
                        Quote: Postman
                        well, Space-954 fell in Canada ...

                        Actually, I talked about the Mir orbital station and the space iron cemetery in the Pacific
                        http://my.mail.ru/video/mail/chas7979/38/1133.html#video=/mail/chas7979/38/1133
                      26. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 14: 50
                        Quote: Postman
                        head with 8000km / s!

                        8000m / s - of course,
                        and now the bootlegg will begin
                      27. postman
                        0
                        5 October 2013 12: 38
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I gave links on the weight of N-1 and Saturn-5 and I think that I answered on this topic.

                        Yes?
                        I gave you the technical data (MANUFACTURER DATA AND NASA DATA)
                        The dry mass of Saturn is LESS cm N-1, and coincides with the data that I brought.
                        You brought bullshit
                        CM pH and dry weight of the module.
                        You know that it is permissible for the GDP (he is an economist) to compare the weight of the shuttle PN on the GOE and the weight of the snowstorm on the NOU, and say that the snowstorm was several times more output than the shuttle, then the reader of the "MANUFACTURER'S SITE" (buran.ru) / caught haha ​​for a long time / - this is unacceptable
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        It was your statement that all of our rockets

                        1. it was a question why?
                        2. Seven and her followers, it’s still rockets, not rockets, and they are west.
                        and what you bring on the launch pad is military missiles, mine (as a rule)
                        And the seven and its lineup were nevertheless thought by Korolev somewhat differently, again, study the dry weights of the RN, you will understand, only pliz not on the "manufacturer's website"
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Someone with technical issues right now

                        not at all. technical excellence is directly related to the economy.
                        This phrase was about:
                        1. At the Shuttle EVERYTHING except for the Central Heating Bureau is SAVED (and the Central Heating Bureau cannot be saved even by water, even from 20 km, and it almost falls from 100 km)
                        2. IN Buran burned EVERYTHING (!), Except for the glider and the ODE (it is cheap, relatively)
                        NO WORK TO RESCUE Block C (the most expensive with the most expensive liquid-propellant rocket engines) - WAS NOT PERFORMED, not developed, and there were no throws. These are all "legends of our rook", a pill for the military and the Central Committee.
                        DO NOT RESCUE (2 starts), did not try and could not, this is technical nonsense.
                        What is the meaning of the (economic) ISS BURAN?
                        It’s easier to reusable capsules: it landed, sandblasted, ablative applied and on the way into orbit for a new one (I exaggerate), why the hell do I make a garden?
              2. 0
                3 October 2013 15: 02
                Quote: Bad_gr

                These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?
                For example "Proton" is on the bottom.

                I also doubted how good it is to hang, the thrust comes from the nozzle anyway, so it turns out that the rocket always stands on the bottom during the flight, and the load there is already more than its weight. Chet pereklinilo comrade.
                1. postman
                  -1
                  3 October 2013 22: 05
                  Quote: Max Otto
                  Chet pereklinilo comrade.

                  Genossa - wedges you, I feel regularly.
                  Have you heard about boosting tanks?
                  Then you can build an epurek
                  And about the decrease in the mass of the TC (second flow rate), what thread do you understand?
            3. 0
              17 February 2018 05: 34
              Quote: Postman
              believe my experience (how much was rummaged around with a radioisotope detector): DO NOT SAVE STEPS WITH LRE-and never saved:
              -they are "gentle" mass (strength) are sucked to a minimum (wafer structure is thin-walled, keeps under pressure of the TC)
              -Even with a splashdown of almost 100%, damage to them, TNA, alignment of the rocket engine, valves

              Only a few years passed and Musk successfully completed the "impossible."
              It turns out that these first steps are not so “tender”. Indeed, let’s take a look at the first stage of Falcon 9. When leaving the launch pad, it has an axial thrust of 760 tons, plus a second stage with a mass of about 110 tons at the top. Agree, if it can withstand such compression loads, then a light push during a jet landing, it can also withstand, because until the very last moment fuel remains in it.
      7. No_more
        0
        2 October 2013 16: 26
        Now the tasks are actually much more for such an apparatus.
        1. postman
          0
          2 October 2013 16: 42
          Quote: No_more
          Now the tasks are actually much more for such an apparatus.

          There are no such tasks.
          in any case, I don’t know.
          Olegitch probably knows, he’ll write on Twitter soon

          ===
          can you bring?
          1. No_more
            0
            3 October 2013 12: 28
            At a minimum, telecommunications are growing very fast. I say, because I am currently working in this area as a technical analyst.
            Navigation satellites and communication satellites are launching much more often now, because information exchange volumes are growing. Now, for example, data centers (data centers) are being built more actively, and there are even ships on ships. These centers need good satellite channels. Internet connection speeds are growing, in general the industry is developing.
            Again, these satellites become garbage having developed fuel, and yet they would have to be refueled and there would be no need to launch a new one. They could also be serviced to upgrade in orbit (of course, this should be provided for when designing the satellite). And this is another task for a cheap reusable ship, which is economically more profitable than a disposable rocket.
    3. +7
      2 October 2013 08: 20
      Quote: svp67
      Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

      You know, I believe that space is always needed. this is the future. this is science-intensive production, this is the theory and practice of science. this is the future battlefield. This is the country's security in the end.
    4. discard
      0
      2 October 2013 09: 23
      If Rogozin said this, it is very necessary.
      He knows exactly what Russia cannot live without.
      1. 0
        3 October 2013 01: 06
        Here you are joking, but it seems to someone that you even "happen ...
    5. AVV
      +2
      2 October 2013 09: 24
      In general, there are more questions than answers! The budget is already bursting at the seams !!! And there are a lot of programs that need grandmas, and here you will have to choose in accordance with the country's priorities, and not just shake the air !!!
    6. +3
      2 October 2013 09: 51
      Quote: svp67
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

      By itself, Buran and all related equipment is a donut hole!
      A program should be worked out, for what purposes are such enormous investments? At the moment, we have something to withdraw, and most importantly, to return from orbit in droves.
      I understand if an automatic plant for the production of ultrapure silicon for electronics, rare-earth smelting, or the cultivation of biological cultures were built in our orbit.
      Again, the time goes in front and other apparatuses are required on new principles, and the time of Buran has probably already passed .......... we need a new car.
      1. +6
        2 October 2013 10: 48
        The future, of course, belongs to reusable systems, but it is not even funny to talk about the recreation of the "Buran" at a time when there is a clear degradation of the space industry.
        "Cadres decide everything" - the motto sounded even under Stalin and is no less relevant now. Is someone in the government thinking about it?
        We are talking about Buran, and in the future we are building a new spacecraft not with the Clipper shape, but in the form of a cone, as was the case with Apollo. A couple more steps in this direction and we'll come to powder rockets.

    7. AK-47
      +1
      2 October 2013 11: 40
      Quote: svp67
      ... but is it needed right now ...?

      Need is not necessary, but the soul warms.
    8. 0
      2 October 2013 13: 44
      Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

      Quote: svp67
      But is it necessary right now ...?


      It all depends on how you use it. This is not only the setting, reorientation, transfer of military satellites to the required orbit, but also maintenance, monitoring the satellites of the probable enemy, and in case of emergency - operational destruction, clearing the operational field over the territory of Russia.
      However, we do not consider the possibility of targeted destruction of the control bodies of potential aggressors. How to evaluate the financial costs of the above program, at the outbreak of hostilities against our homeland?
      1. Nikone
        0
        3 October 2013 22: 16
        Fiction have read?
    9. The comment was deleted.
    10. honest jew
      +4
      2 October 2013 15: 01
      for what shisha?
    11. +6
      2 October 2013 16: 22
      If earlier I simply suspected that Rogozin was another balabol, then after this article I was sure of this completely.
    12. +2
      2 October 2013 18: 34
      Quote: svp67
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

      5 days ago . all this was discussed. sorry to waste time, I thought Rogozin gave another pearl, but it's all the same. It is old and foolish to return to the same topic.
    13. +1
      2 October 2013 19: 10
      Quote: svp67
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?

      Quote: svp67
      And the "carrier rocket", and the launch pad, personnel training ... There are many questions, the main one, is it necessary right now ...?


      Rogozin about "Buran" (59:30) and many more (42:40) ...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQJrKYF83w
    14. 0
      16 October 2016 06: 39
      As far as I know, Buran is actually an idea of ​​the Politburo. The men who were more competent in space affairs gave preference to the Spiral project, though not so spectacular, but more effective (including in military aspects).
  2. +2
    2 October 2013 08: 10
    Of course the dough will be dumped quite a bit in this event. And everything is like ours: heroically we overcome the same ruined earlier. Let's see what happens from this venture.
    1. Docklishin
      +4
      2 October 2013 08: 29
      And this is our national character trait - to make yourself a bunch of problems, and then heroically get out of them. Wrote without sarcasm. When I don’t want to do something, I recall this expression.
  3. +3
    2 October 2013 08: 17
    Of course, there is a desire for the country to regain its advanced position in outer space, but again, depending on the price.
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 15: 14
      had the honor of being on the first rally of VAKO in 1989
      (All-Union Aerospace Society)
      we still called it "space Komsomol"
      there I held that famous ceramic tile in my hands
      which was used on Buran
      damn it is very light, I could not even believe that it can withstand such temperatures

      And that flight of the BURANA is of course the triumph of our Soviet cosmonautics
      only to not be used again for political purposes
      I still think that then its designers were simply betrayed by politics
      1. Volkhov
        +2
        2 October 2013 20: 10
        The buran was basically wrong, like the shuttles, and very close to the fate of Colombia - it had an annular crack in the nose fairing, several broken tiles - a little more and there would have been an avalanche discharge and destruction. It is not of that form and oversized, it is only suitable for Rogozin for delirium, although this is also a signal - like people, wake up, look at us and do not listen anymore ...
  4. Docklishin
    +3
    2 October 2013 08: 27
    I liked the article - plus. It seems to me that at this stage of development of our country, it would be nice to implement less costly projects. Which in the future can bring more tangible economic benefits. For example, the same Clipper, the development of space tourism. And in parallel to use Protons, Hangara. In some source (I do not know whether it is true or not) I read that the Buran project was the basis for testing technologies for the development of orbital fighters (Spiral). Z. s. Put Mir back into orbit. And then somehow it turns out inconveniently, China has ... And we are in a "hostel" with other countries ...
  5. +4
    2 October 2013 08: 33
    So far this is an empty bazaar, but I would really like it to be materialized. Oil and gas tend to run out, and technology has the ability to progress, with the right attitude. In particular, this technology is one of the few that the Chinese will even tear at least * opu trying to copy, but they can not soon. Such technological leadership must be used and developed as long as there is something, while oil and gas are in price.
  6. Tatar
    -2
    2 October 2013 08: 36
    one question why the heck ??? this is the technology of the end of the 20 century, something new is needed, for example, aerospace aircraft of the Tu-2000 or M-19 type, or most likely there will not be enough brains to finalize and build it
    1. +2
      2 October 2013 09: 34
      Quote: Tatar
      one question why the heck ??? this is the technology of the end of the 20 century, something new is needed, for example, aerospace aircraft of the Tu-2000 or M-19 type, or most likely there will not be enough brains to finalize and build it


      I hasten to remind you that everything new is long forgotten old!
      1. Tatar
        +1
        2 October 2013 10: 18
        let's remember a horse with a horse and run the sunrise from the east. what tasks will he carry out ???? 20 ton satellites to display, is it not expensive to launch a whole energy ??
  7. +2
    2 October 2013 08: 40
    Quote: DocKlishin
    And we are in a "hostel" with other countries ...

    Maybe better in a 5 star hotel with others. than in the hut. but one?
    It is said without sarcasm. Space is just such a costly thing. which is better to cooperate.
    1. Docklishin
      +4
      2 October 2013 16: 12
      En no. Thank. It is better to be a master in your own hut and be independent. And then, what the hell WE transfer (or transferred ?!) technologies to our most probable opponents. So NOBODY does. I understand the need was. BUT now what is stopping. I bet if some smart person picks up a group of guardsmen aimed at returning state property and money. And he will give them unlimited rights (anticipating the issue of corruption - I think you can find a couple of thousand crystal-clear people in the country), then in 1 year we will be able not only to build a blizzard, but we will also make an Enterprise. Z.Y. I’d personally pick up the eggs, who drove such an industry as heavy machinery deeply and for a long time into w ... pu. angry
      1. 0
        2 October 2013 18: 46
        I’ll subscribe to every word, this mess is already tired, there’s only one smart to find (there are already two guardsmen) good
  8. gameover65
    +3
    2 October 2013 08: 44
    The return of the snowstorm is good and necessary, but, in my opinion, not today.
    although if we take into account the desire of our government to bury money so that they do not bring profit (summit in Vladivostok, the winter olympiad where there is no snow), there is a big chance to resume the snowstorm program smile
  9. specialist636
    +7
    2 October 2013 09: 14
    In order for the country to come out of the crisis, it is necessary to set a super task for Russia. That’s what Kennedy did and the Americans ended up on the moon.
    We need to lead the market in near space: not only make commercial launches, but also create our own orbital station. This will not only give direct income, but also revitalize science and production, give jobs
    1. Docklishin
      +1
      2 October 2013 16: 15
      Fat plus you. I completely agree. From myself-it is necessary on the walls of the State Duma to stick banners with advertising for military observation. Maybe someone will look, read, think .... for life.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. +1
    2 October 2013 09: 34
    I wish you only good luck !!!
  11. +1
    2 October 2013 09: 38
    Like it or not, but the good news!
    Given the development of technology, the device will be very suitable. And how many new technologies will arise in the process of its creation.
    It's a shame another thing: missile trains, Buran ... why everything had to be grayed out and girted first, so that later it could be recreated!
    1. +4
      2 October 2013 12: 41
      Comrade Nickanor, the news is only one: ROGOZIN SAID.
      There is nothing else here, IMHO. Neither pleasant nor anything else. what
    2. +1
      2 October 2013 18: 00
      What do you mean why?! To "master" budget funds! After all, destruction also costs money. And now it takes even more to recreate ...
  12. ed65b
    +1
    2 October 2013 09: 40
    Sooner or later, work on the Burano shuttles will have to be resumed. It may cost to unite and make it international. Then the share of costs will decrease. Mankind needs access to space, shuttles need trucks to assemble large interplanetary ships and orbital plants. Yes, the system is ahead of its time, but it, time, is rapidly advancing and the hour will come when humanity will need such ships. Together, Russia and the United States can whip up the whole world in space exploration. Not a single country in the world can do this except us. And even China, despite its growing power.
  13. largus886
    +2
    2 October 2013 09: 52
    No need to stupidly copy the Americans! Think of it, they refused the Shuttle, they refused the one-time ones, as a result they fly to the Unions. The ship is needed! Of course very modernized. A lot of tasks for him from purely military to the assembly of the station for the flight to Mars. Plus, new factories and technologies, enough to keep the money in the staff capsule.
  14. +2
    2 October 2013 09: 53
    Maybe not Buran itself, but its continuation is simply necessary to protect the satellite constellation. For unknown reasons, one of the Russian satellites disappeared (exploded). At this time, an American spacecraft was in space. Here is a simple answer - to "do or not" Buran. Apparently there is no alternative.
  15. +1
    2 October 2013 09: 53
    In principle, what I wanted to say, everyone said before me ... The question is of course, what problem will this complex solve in order not to become an expensive souvenir again? If only a space transporter serving the lifting of various cargoes into near space, that is, in any case, some kind of business plan for this project is needed. What is the promising market, what are the needs of customers, what is the optimal carrying capacity of the complex ... Otherwise, we will tear the belly again, but we won’t get any return ...
  16. 0
    2 October 2013 09: 55
    The dreamer, Mr. Rogozin, said just to declare himself, not a word about what goods to transport into orbit by such a transport. It is much more interesting to launch orbital laboratories and grow crystals there for microelectronics, which cannot be obtained in terrestrial conditions, well, medicine is there too, that’s where the benefit would be
  17. -5
    2 October 2013 10: 11
    Why all this??? What kind of space, who needs it, well, they played astronauts in the last century and that's enough, look old people live in poverty, they worked all their lives. And so more Americans launch rocket launches. What crystals, we will soon switch to lamps again with this attitude to production.
  18. Nymp
    +2
    2 October 2013 10: 13
    "And you probably shouldn't believe everything that Russian officials say. A striking example is the much smaller project to resume production of Ruslan transport aircraft, which, in fact, has made no further progress than talking on this topic." Well, I compared it !!! What do our Russian and Ukrainian officials have to do with it, who, in essence, ruined this project with their "independent" stubbornness !? Further: "The Soviet" Buran ", like its overseas counterpart, was much ahead of its time." And nothing that BURAN, unlike the so-called "overseas analogue", could make an unmanned landing ?! There is no analogue to Buranushka !!! The author is not competent.
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 11: 17
      With regard to analogues, the Buran and space shuttle glider, in principle, was invented as a scheme by the Germans at the end of World War II ... Such is the characteristic triangular iron ... You can google it yourself and you will find this plane in all its glory ... So a lot "unparalleled" rushing with terrible force since the Second World War, just like the laptops on which we write, silicon in its pure form began to be industrially produced for military needs precisely during the war, and by inertia it passed into microcircuits ...
      1. 0
        2 October 2013 14: 33
        Quote: Altona
        As for the analogues, the Buran airplanes and space shuttles, in principle, were invented as a scheme by the Germans at the end of World War II ... Such a typical triangular iron ... You can google yourself on the Internet and find this plane in all its glory ...

        Did Goebbels tell you this? The German apparatus is very different from Buran and Shuttle. In Google we will find a FIGURE of the German apparatus, not a photograph.
  19. +1
    2 October 2013 10: 14
    It seems to me that Rogozin was thinking more about the Energia system, which could throw loads of 100 tons into orbit.
    1. +2
      2 October 2013 18: 12
      They would still remember N-1! Also such a funny thing ...
      1. +4
        2 October 2013 18: 46
        Quote: Serg 122
        They would still remember N-1! Also such a funny thing ...

        What is wrong with her? Engines are still quoted and it is even planned to install their varieties on our promising missiles:
        ".........
        NK-33-1 - developed by SNTK them. N.D. Kuznetsov modification of the engine NK-33. It is planned to use this modification at the second stage of the Soyuz-2-3 launch vehicle (previously the Aurora launch vehicle).
        This modification, unlike the basic NK-33, has a thrust vector control unit (cardan joint for deflecting the chamber) and a retractable nozzle to optimize the degree of expansion of the nozzle at an altitude of more than 10 km.

        NK-33A
        The NK-33A engine is a modification of the NK-33 product. It is being deployed at the enterprise producing new NK-33A engines for Russian space programs, as well as for potential foreign customers. In April 2012, the interagency tests of the NK-33A engine were completed [4].

        Aj-26
        AJ-26 - a modification of the NK-33 engine developed by Aerojet and licensed in the USA for use on American launch vehicles (including Antares)created by removing some equipment from the original NK-33 (out of 37 copies purchased from N.D. Kuznetsov SNTK), adding American electronics, checking the engine for compatibility with fuel produced in the USA, and equipping it with a universal joint for control traction vector (similar to NK-33-1) [5].
        The first flight of the Antares rocket with two AJ-26 engines took place on 21.04.2013
        .............. "
        1. 0
          2 October 2013 19: 09
          What is wrong with her? Engines are still quoted and even planned to install their varieties on our promising missiles
          Who's arguing? Nice car. It meant that we like to remember the old days and give it out as OWN know-how ... As someone has already written here - "we will soon return to powder rockets"
        2. postman
          0
          2 October 2013 23: 04
          Quote: Bad_gr
          What is wrong with her?

          - suspended spherical fuel tanks are used, not load-bearing tanks = this is a return to the old concept of the V-1 (launch mass R N N-1 with a LZ complex, more Saturn-Apollo, significantly)
          N-1 Dry weight 208 t
          Saturn 5 Dry weight 194-195 t

          -fuel pipelines from the upper (kerosene) tank at each stage pass along the outer surface of the casing. (safety, again overweight, accident rate, aerodynamic qualities (Art. 2,3))

          - rocket fuel: kerosene-oxygen, specific thrust 335 kgf / kg, 30% LESS oxygen-hydrogen (LV block A, B, C and D with TURD reported the 2nd space satellite)

          -total thrust of engines of RB A MUST BE 1,3-1,5 times MORE (there are no such rocket engines TO THIS TIME)

          -30 LPRE RB A, and although the control system was less tuned (by the 5th launch), their interaction with the power structure of the LV had a NEGATIVE effect on the reliability and dynamic characteristics of missiles (as the launches showed)

          the total thrust of the engines of RB A MUST BE 1,3-1,5 times MORE (there are no such rocket engines until now)

          -30 LPRE RB A, and although the control system was less tuned (by the 5th launch), their interaction with the power structure of the LV had a NEGATIVE effect on the reliability and dynamic characteristics of the rocket

          - emergency shutdown system for faulty liquid propellant rocket engines (reliability is extremely low)

          -limiting principle of operation: acceleration to the 2nd space (Block G) was due to the production of fuel components BEFORE DRY ... If the speed is not reached, after-dispersal due to block D (and how to return later?)

          -Hot stage separation (which is not acceptable for non-military launch vehicles)

          -small PN (ONLY TWO astronauts, severe restrictions on the mass of the LM system)

          - ground test complexes were not created, there were no hot tests (reliability. Americans spent 2/3 of the funds allocated for the program on ground tests)
          1. 0
            2 October 2013 23: 33
            Quote: Postman
            - suspended spherical fuel tanks are used, not load-bearing tanks = this is a return to the old concept of the V-1 (launch mass R N N-1 with a LZ complex, more Saturn-Apollo, significantly)
            N-1 Dry weight 208 t
            Saturn 5 Dry weight 194-195 t

            And here ( http://space-horizon.ru/articles/3 ) it is written:
            Dry weight of the rocket, t --- 235
            Starting weight, t ----- 2328,5
            By the way, recall that the N-1
            Dry weight of the rocket, t --- 208т
            Starting weight H1: - 2735 t
            ---------------- N1F: - 2950 т

            That is, the situation is completely opposite, compared to your version.
            The first step of Saturn is 5.
            [Left][/ Center]
            Second stage (S-II). As you can see, it has both a hull and a tank, and a non-carrying tank instead of a hull.

            Quote: Postman
            - rocket fuel: kerosene-oxygen, specific thrust 335 kgf / kg, 30% LESS oxygen-hydrogen (LV block A, B, C and D with TURD reported the 2nd space satellite)

            The first stage of Saturn-5 had kerosene fuel, and the oxidizing agent was liquid oxygen, like ours.
            Quote: Postman
            - ground test complexes were not created, there were no hot tests (reliability. Americans spent 2/3 of the funds allocated for the program on ground tests)

            This is not a missile flaw, but organizational issues that were largely decided by politicians rather than designers (I mean the possibility of conducting ground tests: if they didn’t give funds for this, then there will be no stands for this, which means the possibility of testing)
            1. postman
              0
              2 October 2013 23: 45
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And here (http://space-horizon.ru/articles/3) it says:

              “Manned Moon Flights, Design and Characteristics of SATURN V Apollo,” I. I. Shuneiko, Moscow, VINITI, 1973
              First Stage S-IC

              Manufacturer: Boeing
              Height: 42,5 meters
              Tank diameter: 10,1 meters
              Maximum diameter: 13 meters (by stabilizers)
              Dry weight: about 135 tons
              Gross weight: 2240 tons
              Propulsion: 5 x F-1 liquid-propellant jet engines
              Launch thrust: about 3450 tons (in vacuum - more than 3800 tons)
              Fuel: kerosene RP-1 / liquid oxygen O2
              Control: peripheral motors on gimbals
              Operating time: about 165 seconds (including about 6 seconds before starting to lift)

              Second Stage S-II

              Manufacturer: North American (today part of Boeing)
              Height: 24,9 meters
              Tank diameter: 10,1 meters
              Dry weight: about 44 tons
              Gross weight: about 460 tons (slightly different in different flights)
              Propulsion: 5 x J-2 liquid-propellant jet engines
              Vacuum thrust: about 520 tons
              Fuel: liquid hydrogen H2
              Oxidizer: liquid oxygen O2
              Oxidizer / Fuel Ratio: 4,5 - 5,5
              Vacuum specific impulse: about 425 seconds (varied slightly in different flights)
              Control: peripheral motors on gimbals
              Operating time: 400 seconds (varied slightly in different flights)


              Third Stage S-IVB

              Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas
              Height: 17,8 meters
              Diameter: 6,6 meters (with bottom adapter - 10,1 meters)
              Dry weight: about 15,5 tons (including bottom adapter 3,8 tons)
              Gross weight: 122,5 tons
              Propulsion: 1 J-2 Liquid Jet Engine
              Thrust: 91 - 104 tons10
              Management: the engine on a cardan suspension; autonomous control system with engines powered by monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide N2O4
              Fuel: liquid hydrogen H2 / liquid oxygen O2


              So: + + + =

              if you wish you can "add"

              Tool block


              Height: 0,9 meters
              Diameter: 6,6 meters
              Weight: about 2 tons


              only this DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING:
              -we are talking about the dry weight of the pH
              - and:
              SA-503 November 21, 1968 Apollo 8 Installed pogo dampers in the fuel lines of the peripheral engines of the first stage; the number of fuel draft engines in the second stage is reduced from 8 to 4

              minus

              SA-510 July 26, 1971 Apollo 15 The number of brake engines of the first stage is reduced from 8 to 4; the remaining 4 fuel sediment engines in the second stage are removed

              minus
              continue?
              SA-513 reducing the load on the mounting of the astronomical block (its weight is reduced), the scheme for including marching rocket engines is revised
              Quote: Bad_gr
              This is not a rocket flaw, but

              disadvantage. Compare with the seven.
              give the number of successful (ZERO) and unsuccessful launches.
              Conclusion: lack of product, IT'S "RAW", and dangerous
              1. +1
                3 October 2013 02: 20
                Well, then from the sevens they still fly on engines, but something is not heard about F1, as well as about its creator Von Braun, after folding the American lunar circus.
                The photo shows the transfer of the "lunar module" to Omerikans in Murmansk.
                everyone heard about their lunar kina, but how did it happen that the USSR gave the USA 30 grams of rigolite out of a total of 300, and they, having several centners, sent 29 in reply, something bad thoughts started to get into my head.

                http://www.free-inform.com/

  20. poccinin
    0
    2 October 2013 10: 19
    and that after 2020 there will be no ISS? there will be a new station. this is the first. second how much debris is in orbit? the third our system "BURAN" WAS A RELIABLE AMERICAN FROM START TO LANDING. UNMANNED FLIGHT PROVED IT. fourth. space tourism. you can make money on it. there would be a desire to colonize the moon. 6 billion people on earth. then Mars. or so we will sit and wait for our "ASTEROID"
    1. postman
      0
      3 October 2013 02: 15
      Quote: poccinin
      third our system "BURAN" WAS RELIABLE AMERICAN

      YES?
      How can I say this TOTAL IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE UNMANNED START?
      Quote: poccinin
      UNMANNED FLIGHT PROVES THIS. Fourth.

      was it manned?
  21. +2
    2 October 2013 10: 27
    ... domestic experts disagree about the rationality of such a step.
    ... a reasonable question arises: where will these ships fly?
    ... in front of us is a beautiful, but at the same time completely whimsical and ill-conceived idea
    ... in the presence of LITERATIVE tasks and goals, such a program will be necessary.



    Here are the main points that need to (in my mind) be guided. Manilism and grandiose designs cause only swelling of the ears.
  22. -2
    2 October 2013 10: 30
    If we are not going to build bases on the moon, then we do not need it.
  23. +6
    2 October 2013 10: 43
    It is necessary and just necessary to develop the space industry. Not only disposable missiles, but also reusable ones. Take Buran as a starting point. After all, he was ahead of his time. In the near future, the division of the satellite of the earth will begin, everything goes to this, and I would not want Russia to lag behind. IMHO.
    1. Nikone
      -6
      2 October 2013 11: 12
      He did not get ahead of time.
    2. 0
      2 October 2013 18: 14
      Will they give us this moon? After all, amers were pushed out of there. As the saying goes: "that's why they don't fly" ...
  24. +3
    2 October 2013 10: 45
    Rogozin is still a balabol, is it worth paying attention to his statements at all? He's like Thor Heyerdahl, who Heyerdahl is Heyerwal ...
  25. +1
    2 October 2013 10: 51
    Quote: poccinin
    on it there would be a desire to colonize the moon


    Quote: RPG_
    If we are not going to build bases on the moon, then we do not need it.

    He doesn’t need him to colonize the moon, it’s not at all fit for him, he needs even concrete for landing, it’s about 5 kilometers, and a lot of excess mass in the form of wings, there is nothing on the satellite, for colonization you need something with a vertical landing
    1. 0
      2 October 2013 19: 11
      Obviously the man remembered the movie "Armageddon". So the same is a fairy tale, like the words of Rogozin
  26. Peaceful military
    +2
    2 October 2013 10: 53
    For 15 years of the implementation of this program (from 17.02.1976 to 01.01.1991), the USSR spent 16,4 billion rubles on it. In order to understand the scale of these figures, you can compare the program with the construction of AvtoVAZ from scratch. This large-scale Soviet construction cost the state 4-5 billion rubles, while the plant still operates. And even if we add here the cost of building the entire city of Togliatti, the amount will turn out many times less.
    Debility and absolutely illiterate arithmetic.
    As for the Buran program itself, it is a no brainer that it is in demand from a military point of view, like the Almaz and Salyut orbital stations in their time. In parallel, they were used as scientific platforms. It's another matter whether Russia can handle it? This is the same story with domestic aircraft carriers in particular, and with the ocean-going fleet in general. He is very much needed, but ...
  27. Algor73
    0
    2 October 2013 10: 57
    Firstly, to resume the program, specific goals and objectives are needed. What tasks does Rosskossmos set now? Will Buran be in demand? Or is it someone's ambition? Secondly, the USSR could hardly pull this program when there were 15 republics, when the country was rich
    1. +1
      3 October 2013 00: 44
      Quote: Algor73
      What tasks does Rosskosmos pose now?

      Drank the dough, and a lot at once ...
  28. +4
    2 October 2013 11: 01
    The more Rogozin says, the more we become convinced of his incompetence. Cadres decide everything! Compare Rogozin's level of competence, for example, with such a person as Dementiev (USSR Minister of Aviation Industry). Similarly, we can compare Shoigu and Ustinov.
    1. +2
      2 October 2013 18: 36
      The weather vane does not need competence. The ability to keep your nose in the wind is required.
    2. +1
      2 October 2013 21: 19
      Quote: Zerstorer
      . Similarly, we can compare Shoigu and Ustinov.

      I did not see and did not hear frank stupidity performed by Shoigu at the post of Moscow Defense Ministry so far.
  29. Nikone
    0
    2 October 2013 11: 05
    The fact that "Buran", as it turned out, was unnecessary, it became clear even before the first flight. From a technical point of view, everything was done perfectly, but from a conceptual point of view, it was a mistake, large and costly.
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 19: 00
      Yes, that's what Gorbachev said ...))) But the USSR simply could not cope with financing another program. Yes, and with the humpback at that time everything was already clear - licked amers' ass as best I could and I would not be surprised if the closure of the program was lobbied from overseas. The lack of authorization of this program is highly controversial. Amer abandoned it only because of accidents and then after how many years. Plus the Shuttles were distinguished by a technical solution in terms of launching into orbit, they were "pushed" by a tandem and an upper stage, and the Shuttle itself, we only have Energy, put Buran into space
  30. +3
    2 October 2013 11: 19
    The documentation for Buran has been developed, the Americans may soon hang a "chandelier" with missiles over us, and we could use the old developments to counter these plans
  31. +3
    2 October 2013 11: 39
    There is an unpleasant feeling that it will look like this ...
    We will spend an exorbitant amount of money, for many years we will crucify from the zombie that we are ahead of the rest, that we are again building something that has no analogues ... and the result will be ... it flies somehow, if it flies at all, there are no problems for it, but mansions on ruble will become even bigger and more expensive.

    Although of course I want to be proud of our space program, but IMHO now Buran is not a need, but a new scheme for the development of dough.

    And this is sad.

    P.S. And in my heart I really want the apple trees to bloom on Mars ....
  32. New Russia
    +2
    2 October 2013 11: 46
    How much you can peck at it! :) They already promised to restore the production of ekranoplanes, build an aircraft carrier ... By the way, as I remember now, the news of 2007 on the first, in 2012 Russia will build a floating nuclear power plant. Such pride has taken me still :) Life does not teach the cheers of patriots anything, the main thing for them is to double their promises by 2020 :)
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 14: 38
      Quote: New Russia
      2007 news on the first, in 2012 Russia will build a floating nuclear power plant.

      But they built a floating speaker!
      1. New Russia
        0
        2 October 2013 18: 34
        Where? :) Can I have a link?
        1. +2
          2 October 2013 19: 01
          Its construction was frozen some time ago, but now, it seems, they undertook to finish building:
          "... As the director of the Baltzavod A. Voznesensky said, the first domestic floating nuclear thermal power plant will be built by 2016. At present, the installation of ship structures is under way and in three years Rosatom will receive the world's first floating nuclear power plant. ......... .......
          Soon after the completion of the construction of the first floating power plant, it is planned to begin construction of the next vessels of this series ..... "
          http://topwar.ru/30634-pervaya-plavuchaya-atomnaya-elektrostanciya-k-2016-godu.h
          tml
          1. New Russia
            0
            2 October 2013 19: 27
            "... As the director of the Baltzavod A. Voznesensky said, the first domestic floating nuclear thermal power plant will be built by 2016." Already by 16 :) And then by 20 :) By the way, the plant that was built in December 2011 almost closed forever.
  33. marat1000
    -4
    2 October 2013 12: 06
    yes nafik is needed at all
  34. Asan Ata
    +2
    2 October 2013 12: 31
    It seems to me that everyone misses one component - the effect of technological leadership. It costs a lot of money. The money spent on Buran will really disappear if this is not continued. What to do in space? Collect a new station, set up production, for example, ultra-clean technologies, assemble a space launch station on other planets, clean satellites, repair them, destroy other people's debris, that is, satellites, and it’s commercially viable to master outer space. Attract Kazakhstan to co-financing, we will only be happy. I love Buran.
    1. 0
      2 October 2013 18: 20
      And here is the question: If you do everything that is written above - why would he even land on Earth ?! Burn fuel? Let there be a separate mobile module of the ISS, for example.
      1. 0
        21 September 2017 03: 57
        Well then, you immediately need to cost an orbital elevator ... Although without a geostationary anchor weighing more than tens of thousands of tons, this is impossible.
  35. vitek1233
    +1
    2 October 2013 12: 38
    The bulk of what our government officials are doing is talking
    1. 0
      2 October 2013 22: 02
      Quote: vitek1233
      The bulk of what our government officials are doing is talking

      Something recently I began to attend the idea that Rogozin for Popovkin is trying to develop a project (base on the moon, flight to Mars, project Buran) for development.
  36. +1
    2 October 2013 13: 03
    Buran may not be needed (yet), but the carrier (Energy) is chic.
    1. Nikone
      0
      2 October 2013 14: 26
      And for what purposes does Energy now need?
      1. 0
        2 October 2013 19: 08
        I do not shine with strong competence, just a technical flair that will soon come in handy. And the "racket", as far as I understand, is conceived as a universal set, for different carrying capacity.
        1. Nikone
          0
          3 October 2013 21: 07
          This rocket wasn’t working even then, especially not now. There is simply no need to put such huge loads into orbit.
          And from the point of view of universality, here you are, so to speak, not quite right. The whole versatility of Energy was the possibility of lifting an even greater load than Buran. For this, a larger number of blocks of the first stage was provided.
  37. +2
    2 October 2013 13: 31
    Where to get all this money? Russia already took on a huge number of extra cost projects: Sochi 2014, World Cup 2018, rearmament of the army, Skolkovo. Not only does all this eat up a huge amount of money, we must not forget about the main cost item - officials.
  38. +1
    2 October 2013 13: 36
    The journalist Rogozin certainly knows better, but why is this winged colossus needed, especially in a manned version?

    When it is possible to deliver cargo to the nearest orbit and tow it without human intervention. And for repairs, you can use robots, astronauts from the space station, which can either fly to the spacecraft, or the spacecraft can be towed to them for repair. But this requires the constant presence of man on the space station.

    As for saving, there are other, more economical methods of launching cargo into space, without human intervention. Including a space elevator to the moon.
    1. 0
      2 October 2013 14: 50
      For the return of goods to the earth, a spaceplane is also not needed.

      Specialists of the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia have developed a project for the return of capsules from space with the results of scientific research on a 100-kilometer cable, Interfax writes.

      "It is planned to use the Progress cargo spacecraft in the project. After undocking from the International Space Station, it descends to an altitude of 300 kilometers and begins to deploy a hundred-kilometer cable, at the end of which a returnable capsule is attached," - said, speaking at a scientific conference at the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, an employee RSC Energia Nikolay Shoshunov.

      Further "Progress" continues to decline along with the returned capsule. After it reaches an altitude of 200 km, and the capsule is 100 km above the Earth's surface, the cable breaks and burns up in the atmosphere, and the capsule is parachuted down to Earth. The cargo ship itself is flooded in the Pacific Ocean according to the standard scheme, N. Shoshunov added.
      1. +1
        2 October 2013 19: 07
        Quote: rotor
        Specialists of the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia have developed a project for the return of capsules from space with the results of scientific research on a 100-kilometer cable, Interfax writes.

        ??
        Until recently, the captured film from our spy satellites was dropped on the ground in capsules. No problem. Why did you need a cable?
    2. 0
      2 October 2013 19: 09
      Because the "space tug" will definitely not be created until 2025, however, promising launch vehicles Rus are also buried by Mr. Popovkin for the time being. There is nothing! You should have heard the skirmish between Rogozin and Popovkin when they were with DM and Zhopovkin got a stricter .. DM sat like a schoolboy - he couldn’t stand anything but stricter, although Rogozin insisted on the immediate dismissal of this "mediocrity". ..
  39. 0
    2 October 2013 13: 52
    The conquest of space is one of the most cherished desires of all mankind. The very creation of the "blizzard" is a colossal work, especially since it was created ahead of science for many years ahead, the creation of a new pepelats with an even greater advance will require even greater efforts. Nevertheless, unfortunately, our science and knowledge are still not enough for the full conquest of space.
    With the feasibility of such projects, it’s even more interesting to fly then we’ll fly, but what's next ...
  40. +2
    2 October 2013 14: 01
    Do not forget that Buran was developed as a reusable space system of reusable use with the full name Energy-Buran. Heavy rocket carrier Energy is the most powerful rocket carrier in the history of space exploration. Without it, Buran is scrap metal. And according to Rogozin’s statement, it’s possible to conclude that Popovkin has ruined the industry so much that there is no talk of creating a new rocket carrier and it seems that they decided to return to the tested product plus the production backlog, as far as I heard, 80 percent was saved, if not correct
    1. Nikone
      0
      2 October 2013 14: 20
      Nothing saved. There is no possibility or sense to revive the Energy-Buran system. All this is empty talk.
      1. +1
        2 October 2013 14: 56
        Believe me, Rogozin does not talk empty-handed .. Where is the link to his statement discard
        1. postman
          0
          2 October 2013 16: 16
          Quote: alexpro66
          Believe me, Rogozin does not talk idle.

          1. The results of his one and a half year activities as co-chair of the Moldovan-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation from Russia. The result is a complete failure.
          Sorry: Rogozin Fan Club and NOTHING more.

          2. “And as for his views (that is, M. Shevchenko), well, they are Wahhabi - I’m talking about this already said on Twitter as well, and on other social networks. I believe that he is a Wahhabi, and it would be more convenient for him to work as Hezbollah's ambassador, which, incidentally, Radzikhovsky just said on your air as well. I agree with Radzikhovsky - Leonid was absolutely right here. ”

          3. "some of his Ideas" - how to sort out the situation on B.V.
          Ambassador to Libya - resigned. Foreign Ministry - shut up. The Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University are silent. But the "specialist in international affairs" and the "patriot" Rogozin are supporters of the President, almost the ministers of foreign affairs.

          4. Question - what did the Ambassador of Russia to NATO Rogozin do in the last two years? The result of his life? (Well, apart from waste essno essno)



          5. Puffed up at the expense of "putting the Balts in place" in the issue of transport transit for residents of the Kaliningrad region - could not.
          He puffed out his cheeks during the confrontation with Ukraine over the Tuzla braid - failed. He undertook to break the government through the knee on the issue of monetization of benefits - a comedy came out.
          In fact, what can a person do, in terms of correcting social imbalances, whose accomplishments boil down to a theatrical hunger strike followed by gluttony in expensive restaurants?
          note: 82% of respondents joined the assumption thatthen Rogozin is more likely to recover from night overeating.
          and?
          and were RIGHT !!!
          1. -2
            2 October 2013 16: 40
            I asked to throw a link to his statement and not an absurd compilation of "dirt". If you generalize this way, there is not a single Russian politician or official with a "clean" track record ..
            If not difficult to give a reference ..
            1. postman
              +4
              2 October 2013 20: 22
              Quote: alexpro66
              I asked to drop a link to his statement

              Listen, well, you are ROGOZINOID (or whatever OLEGYCHINOID), you probably have that.
              GIVE THE PUBLIC A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL TALKMAN - WHICH ARE FULL!
              (oh only USC - no need)
              there are mogets in the tweeter or in the livejournal, it works on the expanses of the tweeter, lively unceasingly (how does it find time for work?)
              AND? AS?
              If you look for links to the applications of this pc, it will take a month and there will not be enough resources, every day it generates a thread
              http://top.rbc.ru/tags/?tag=%D0%EE%E3%EE%E7%E8%ED
              ======================
              Quote: alexpro66
              If not difficult to give a reference ..


              Here you link:
              http://government.ru/news/5447
              speaks and broadcasts technically illiterate people.
              but the refutation (at the level of 10th grade) of his idle talk:
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429281
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429766
              and here is his "highly scientific" doctoral work:
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429894
              Do you need more? LET'S "claim"
              Quote: alexpro66
              not an absurd compilation of "dirt".

              Yes?
              show me where is "absurd", where is "compilation" and "dirt"
              (think before you write nonsense, think with what is between your ears)
              In, the last "masterpiece"
              http://www.kommersant.md/node/20299
              in Moldova:
              “Ahead is the onset of cold weather, winter, cold autumn. I hope that you will not freeze! ”
              “The most important thing is that in their European steep, serious turns and approaches, the Moldavian side should not disconnect the wagons from the locomotive so that they are not lost”
              And?
              It says the OFFICIAL PERSON OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (face or what?) To the INDEPENDENT STATE, they are visiting.
              PR
              1. -1
                2 October 2013 20: 45
                Woah, how you suffered! Tweet this to Rogozin ....
                1. postman
                  +3
                  2 October 2013 23: 07
                  Quote: alexpro66
                  Woah, how you suffered!


                  - where did it go from me?
                  - you asked = I answered.
                  - by the way, my dear, but bring "smart" statements and promises that your favorite fulfilled. AND? weakly

                  Quote: alexpro66
                  Tweet this to Rogozin ....

                  and what will change? (well, if he only spoils me out of spite ..., and even that: I’m not the right figure)
                  What for?
                  I DO NOT USE TWEARS?
                  1. 0
                    3 October 2013 18: 41
                    Favoritism has nothing to do with it! "Smart" statements, judging by the above, are your prerogative. You didn’t work with him, and you don’t need to lay bricks, so it’s quieter. All that he promised me, he did everything)))
                    Well, maybe something will change! Well, he won’t sink to your level of education, I guarantee .. Try to use it ..
                    1. postman
                      0
                      6 October 2013 16: 10
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      "Smart" statements, judging by the above, are your prerogative.

                      Bring him (DOR) statements, you can not very smart, well, at least reasonable?
                      Give his promises that he fulfilled
                      PLEASE
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      . All that he promised me, he fulfilled everything)))

                      ?
                      Let's say he promised to give you candy, or to appoint his staff as the top manager.
                      POSTABLE AN EXAMPLE THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED (promises): pre-election, for NATO, for social programs, for military topics.
                      WHAT?
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      Well, he will not go down to your level of education, I guarantee.

                      ?
                      Compare mine and yours. BIG DIFFERENCES? and side?
                      YES BETTER COMPARE THE EDUCATION LEVEL of your adored DOR? Well Moldova (a very recent example) I brought
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      Try to use ..

                      Than? having started to say "A" the man should continue.
                      What are they afraid of?
                      Shortcomings, half-hints - the fate of the female half
          2. +3
            2 October 2013 21: 06
            Quote: Postman
            In fact, what can a person do, in terms of correcting social imbalances, whose accomplishments boil down to a theatrical hunger strike followed by gluttony in expensive restaurants?


            I think that the DOR theatrically and skillfully plays the role of vice chairman, thereby pulling the wrath of thinking people away from itself ... It does this not by vocation and not of free will, but because it is necessary.
            1. postman
              +4
              2 October 2013 23: 08
              Quote: studentmati
              but because it is necessary.

              It seems correctly noticed, that is enough to read his career and statements.
              Well, of course: ACHIEVEMENTS (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)
              1. +2
                2 October 2013 23: 19
                Quote: Postman
                (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)


                Solid populism, designed for the electorate of the late 80s, early 90s. I want to spit on one of its kind.
                1. postman
                  0
                  6 October 2013 16: 14
                  Quote: studentmati
                  Sheer populism

                  And if you pay attention - he is like a weather vane: where he blows, there he is.
                  I did not thoroughly study his biography, but only in the media:
                  - he commies, then a market woman, then Natsik, then Yedrosych (or Nashdomrosych), first against the authorities (presidents), then like cheese and butter on the horizon - a strong supporter.
                  HERE OFFER A TEST TO HIM (and to all EDROSAM):
                  -Putin goes into the Teapot party (well, or creates X, U, etc.)
                  WARRANTY 100% DOR and ALL EDROS (99,9999%) will immediately go to this party.
                  Note Putin doesn’t need to create anything, it’s enough to say: EDRO is one g ** but (which, in principle, corresponds to reality), and teapots are the very thing I am with teapots.
                  All-process went, who is faster.
              2. bask
                +1
                2 October 2013 23: 39
                Quote: Postman
                Well, of course: ACHIEVEMENTS (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)

                Journalist PR, what to take from him request tongue
          3. 0
            2 October 2013 22: 14
            Quote: Postman
            I believe that he is a Wahhabi, and it would be more convenient for him to work as Hezbollah’s ambassador

            Hezbollah in contrast to the Wahhabis. And so in everything else I agree with you 100%.
            1. postman
              +2
              2 October 2013 23: 10
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Hezbollah in contrast to the Wahhabis.

              This is not what I came up with, it’s a kolipast of the statement of Maxim Shevchenko, they are on knives with Olegich ....
              you can read it yourself
              To be honest (for me) there is no difference between a hezboloid or a wahobitoid ...
  41. postman
    +11
    2 October 2013 14: 53
    Dmitry Rogozin made a sensational statement that the release of Buran-type spacecraft could resume in the country.
    what else to expect from Olegich, with his education:
    school number 59 with in-depth learning French (now SBEI secondary school No. 1286)
    -International Department of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University
    -In 1988 he graduated with honors Faculty of Economics, University of Marxism-Leninism at the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU.
    probably immediately unsubscribed in a live magazine?

    to judge such things, you must at least be able to distinguish a sledgehammer from an ax, say "hole" and not "hole", it is desirable to at least finish vocational school









    And so it was:

    ================================================== ==============================

    =======
    Drawings? Technical equipment? Machine tools? production workshops? Specialists?, R&D results? Tests? Stands, Workshops? MIC?
    Realities::
    new materials, technologies, goals and objectives, economic constraints ....
    =================================================================== =========================
    conclusion: PR Olegitch, again a PR of his own person, shakes you from a Kalashnikov assault rifle to space.
    Laurels (tugriki-laurels) of Chubais haunt ????
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 15: 01
      Stop! Is it Baikonur if I am not mistaken? So this is not production .. Equipment on the production should have remained ..
      1. postman
        +6
        2 October 2013 15: 43
        Quote: alexpro66
        Is it Baikonur if I am not mistaken?

        This is the MIK there, ask Oleg Kaptsov to send my explanation of the differences in the transportation of LV to the UK with us and the Americans, everything is explained there (I just lost, laziness again).
        WITHOUT THIS CONSTRUCTION, WE ARE NEVER
        Quote: alexpro66
        Equipment on the production should have remained ..

        Nothing left.
        This is not a production of ball bearings, all INDIVIDUALLY
        there was no place to maintain and conserve the entire economy in those days (and even now) -it is not possible economically
        The allies are even worse
        Other times, other technologies and materials
    2. 0
      2 October 2013 18: 25
      Aha, do not give obviously! I want to apparently steer something like this, so that there are more uncontrolled babosy !!!
    3. No_more
      0
      2 October 2013 18: 37
      It's sad, but "Drawings? Technical equipment? Machine tools? Production halls? Stands, Workshops? MIC ??" new ones will inevitably be needed. And not drawings, but 30D models in CAD. With blueprints, preparation for production and development drags on painfully. It is better not to start building the "old" Buran using technologies and processes XNUMX years ago.
      Results "R&D Results" have not gone anywhere. Here is a shortage of good specialists, engineers, and even more so with no experience.

      But this does not mean that this program is not needed. Otherwise, American private traders will take the entire market for putting goods into orbit. I admit personal hostility to Rogozin, but do not shift it to the necessary projects of which he stated. And I apologize in advance if something is wrong.
      1. postman
        +3
        2 October 2013 23: 24
        Quote: No_more
        Results "R&D Results" have not gone anywhere.

        -share. NO THEM, believe me
        -Even if there were, DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM, there are no people. (Try it yourself, send you the technical documentation nuuuuu, well, let's say for the S-200 complex?)
        Quote: No_more
        Otherwise, American private traders will take the entire market for putting goods into orbit.

        This will be done by the Chinese and Indians, a probability of 99% (see the dynamics of launches and prices)
        Quote: No_more
        I admit personal hostility to Rogozin,

        Yes, no matter how it is.
        DISLIKE HERE FOR WHAT: FOR SUCH POSITION (s), APPOINT PEOPLE WITHOUT EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING THE BASIS OF THE PROBLEM.
        Appointment principle: main league (you know what and whose) GOOD, and everything will be ok.
        This is absurd, the technical, military department should be led by a techie, a warrior, a second education economist , the journalist of philosophers cannot lead him-This is an axiom
        Approximate result of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation as a tax specialist and a team in a skirt-WE SEE


        I’m generally for this (I’m not trying to flatter anyone, I didn’t go through the actual one, only the fees, although with a twinkle and a bayonet with a knife)
        a public position may be held by a person who:
        - served a valid sun (ordinary or officer is not important) = if he is not disabled
        - has the appropriate education (the Ministry of Health-medical, the Ministry of Defense-military, "the curator of everything, like Olegich" - technical + OBLIGATORY SECOND (economic)
        -traditional sexual orientation well then you can continue yourself ...

        Quote: No_more
        but it’s not necessary to shift it to the necessary projects of which he announced. And I apologize in advance if something is wrong.

        - these are "projections", not projects, PR IS (this is its essence)
        -Yes, well, what’s wrong, everything’s right
    4. +2
      2 October 2013 20: 51
      Quote: Postman
      to judge such things, you must at least be able to distinguish a sledgehammer from an ax, say "hole" and not "hole", it is desirable to at least finish vocational school


      good
  42. -2
    2 October 2013 15: 06
    and what will we carry amer tourists on? we carry their astronauts with grief across the sexes and at unions. so the snowstorm needs money stolen in the treasury to return (material assistance to Serdyukov)
  43. +2
    2 October 2013 15: 26
    It would be better to implement the space program for transporting small satellites to low orbit using carrier aircraft, due to the high economic efficiency and mobility (the construction of cosmodromes is not required).
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 15: 40
      Russia is working on the creation of "Air start"
      http://topwar.ru/32976-rossiya-rabotaet-nad-sozdaniem-vozdushnogo-starta.html
    2. 0
      2 October 2013 15: 44
      Launch aircraft can also launch ICBMs.
      1. 0
        1 December 2013 01: 29
        Today, not a single ICBM aircraft can launch; it is unable to lift either a rocket from a liquid-propellant rocket engine, much less from a solid propellant rocket. It is necessary to study the textbooks "Fundamentals of the theory and design of rockets with LPRE" and the textbook VA named after Peter the Great
        "Solid Propellant Ballistic Missile".
    3. No_more
      0
      2 October 2013 16: 40
      I suppose even this step as an intermediate is quite good. After all, you can gradually come to a full reusable spaceship - evolutionarily. For example, in such stages:
      1st stage launch on a launch vehicle from a spaceport, launching into orbit by a launch vehicle, independent landing on the runway.
      2nd stage launch on a carrier aircraft with a runway, independent exit into orbit (after separation from the carrier aircraft), independent landing on a runway.
      3rd stage independent start from the runway, independent exit into orbit, independent landing on the runway.
      1. 0
        2 October 2013 17: 25
        I am a supporter of the space elevator.
        Take-off by plane - space elevator.
        And vice versa, a space elevator - a parachute, an airplane.
        1. No_more
          0
          2 October 2013 18: 25
          No one was counting on the space elevator, there is a concept. And the spacecraft even had a sale, and this system is cheaper than a space elevator.
          I think that his time will come (if at all), when the need for the delivery of goods into orbit will grow even more. At the moment, it will not pay off, too much price and high productivity.
      2. 0
        1 December 2013 01: 36
        The booster plane will not pick up this reusable ship.
        To detach a rocket from the launch pad, the thrust of its engines must be 15 percent higher than the launch mass. Compare the thrust of an American rocket engine. lifting the Shuttle and the thrust of the engines of the most powerful cargo plane today. Everything will become clear. The aircraft can transfer the spacecraft to the cosmodrome, but the spacecraft is not fueled. A plane filled with spacecraft will not lift.
    4. 0
      2 October 2013 18: 27
      The scope is not the same! This comrade, such a trifle is not interested
    5. 0
      1 December 2013 01: 24
      Such carrier aircraft still need to be created, and this is money and not only, but the missiles are already there and are successfully used. In addition, satellites today can change their orbits from low to high and vice versa. The spaceport and airdrome, if not in size, then in terms of design, are very similar. It is important not only to put the satellite into orbit, but to bring it from a certain place and at a certain time. So, build new airfields? Do you also need to build residential towns? In a word, delve into.
  44. 0
    2 October 2013 15: 49
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/873/rszm772.jpg
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/851/mvxi108.jpg
  45. +6
    2 October 2013 15: 54
    Our attitude to the dream
  46. 0
    2 October 2013 16: 03
    I want to believe with my heart that we can if we want, but with my mind I understand that those who depend on what the country is striving for do not need this, because their own feeder is closer and more understandable.
  47. No_more
    +2
    2 October 2013 16: 32
    “Buran” had practically no tasks at the time, now there are a huge number of them:
    • The launch of satellites into low Earth orbit (from ultra-small commercial to large research and development. The demand for such launches is now growing extremely rapidly due to the development of satellite navigation and telecommunications.)
    • Maintenance and repair of satellites (Now a very large part of space debris is full-featured vehicles that have run out of fuel, for example, or some systems have not reached normal mode. They can be refueled and reanimated, and not launch new satellites, as it is now.)
    • Construction of large space stations (when it becomes cheaper to put weight into orbit, some production projects in space will become economically viable)
    • Delivery of astronauts and their evacuation (it is still impossible to refuse people in space, so the task remains relevant).

    Yuri Karash, unfortunately, only lobbies the interests of rocket scientists and only, but the very concept of putting cargo into orbit with the help of a one-time very expensive rocket is not relevant now. Only cheap light rockets can compete with reusable ships. But ossified rocket scientists do not know how and don’t want to save and change anything.
    1. +1
      2 October 2013 16: 43
      But what about the SpaceX Grasshopper rocket with vertical take-off and landing?)))
      1. No_more
        0
        2 October 2013 16: 48
        Well, they are still testing it (in general, the Space X company fellows, gave an impetus to the industry, which was numb).
        And I mentioned that light missiles can compete, here the market itself will put everything in its place. A cheap almost reusable rocket has its own framework for economic efficiency, and its own spaceship.
    2. No_more
      +2
      2 October 2013 16: 44
      I wonder who here distinguished himself by such knowledge of the economic foundations of the Space Shuttle and Buran programs and put a minus. I am willing to explain my position.
      Personally, at the Samara Aerospace University, he wrote a term paper on this topic. I would like to listen to the opponent and his arguments)
    3. +2
      2 October 2013 18: 23
      Quote: No_more
      “Buran” had practically no tasks at the time, now there are a huge number of them:

      Yes, that everyone has withered _ Buran, Buran.
      There are many tasks, yes, but why is Buran himself ?! The same clipper.
      Said the same
      Quote: Yuferev Sergey
      the release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in the country.

      Type! And this is a very broad framework and in fact all modern projects are something like Buran and Shuttle.
    4. 0
      1 December 2013 01: 42
      This is not true. "Buran" was made to solve very specific problems and its creation did not cancel the use of space rockets. The ship was a component of the system of military space assets of the USSR Ministry of Defense, which later became the forces of the RF Aerospace Defense.
  48. -1
    2 October 2013 16: 50
    Quote: No_more
    • Launching satellites into low earth orbit
    • Maintenance and repair of satellites

    It’s cheaper to make rockets.
    Quote: No_more
    • Construction of large space stations

    Before doing them, you need to answer the question - on ..ya. We have no concept of their necessity.
    Quote: No_more
    • Delivery of astronauts and their evacuation

    See the previous one.
  49. -1
    2 October 2013 18: 04
    Quote: No_more
    3rd stage independent launch from the runway, independent entry into orbit, independent landing on the runway.

    Yes, there are no problems, it remains only to solve the problem of obtaining and storing atomic hydrogen. as well as right up to the moon and back it will be possible to drive
  50. 0
    2 October 2013 18: 06
    gentlemen, I think that you went a little different plane of the question and you do not see beyond the trees of the forest. I am almost sure (as one character said) that this is ju-ju-ju july. whether they want to assure someone or to assure themselves, I think the work aimed at Mars has gone. wink ) even no ice (and radiation minus the temperature of the solar winds and lope, who knows where the hell ???). And here they remembered the old buran and satellites in orbit the trucks both laden and will drag!
  51. +1
    2 October 2013 18: 15
    Quote: vomag
    .needed for long-haul flights

    We need a nuclear tug, the union tested the R-410 engine, there was a stand for this in Kazakhstan, or just launch machine guns, but with electronics for space in the Russian Federation, it’s complete nonsense, in general, no matter where you throw it, it’s not up to Buran. What did the Americans come up with - put a 3D printer into orbit and print satellites there, an interesting idea, in general it was more logical to make spacecraft outside the Earth
  52. -1
    2 October 2013 18: 35
    INASM IS GETTING STRENGTHEN... fool ... yes, yes, we will definitely have clipper aircraft carriers plowing God knows what kind of space wassat It looks like the RosCosmos office is on its last legs, since the Buran theme was pulled out... and the next attempt will be the revival of the Lunokhod-1 and 2 program, both of which will be dragged straight from the lunar surface wassat And you can also go diving in Helium-3 for moneybags right in lunar orbit with the accompanying treatment of a heel hernia fool
  53. 0
    2 October 2013 18: 38
    The Ministry of Defense is not yet ready to fight extraterrestrial civilizations and UFOs. Ground-based spacecraft control systems of the Ministry of Defense are not yet ready to take control of unidentified flying objects, said Sergei Berezhnoy, assistant to the head of the Titov Main Test Space Center.
    Well, we're not ready yet! Wait, wait, wait...
    1. 0
      3 October 2013 01: 03
      Quote: Serg 122
      The Ministry of Defense is not yet ready to fight extraterrestrial civilizations and UFOs. Ground-based spacecraft control systems of the Ministry of Defense are not yet ready to take control of unidentified flying objects, said Sergei Berezhnoy, assistant to the head of the Titov Main Test Space Center.
      Well, we're not ready yet! Wait, wait, wait...

      That's right, you've abandoned the idea... We're waiting for an attack by aliens or their courtesy visit, we take away from them the device on which they arrived and voila - we have a spaceship, and there we can do a space GOP-STOP (to increase the size of the space fleet). .. wassat
      1. 0
        3 October 2013 15: 15
        Americans will be jealous... laughing
  54. rezident
    +2
    2 October 2013 19: 32
    Rogozin is a well-known populist. It’s better to make a small clipper-type shuttle for a new hangar and not to drive a huge colossus.
    1. 0
      2 October 2013 19: 38
      In what way is he a populist? What, only he understands that in the next 5 years we need a heavy launch vehicle??? Regarding the issue of the clipper to DM and VV, it was they who, at the suggestion of Zhopovkin, closed the project (and Rus' at the same time and something else interesting) and not Rogozin
      1. Nikone
        0
        3 October 2013 21: 15
        Please tell me, for what purpose do we need a super-heavy launch vehicle of the Energia type???!!!
      2. rezident
        0
        7 October 2013 21: 00
        Here the hangar is a heavy and medium and other carrier. Unified so that it is not expensive.
  55. klim44
    +4
    2 October 2013 20: 18
    I'll try to predict the future of the new Burvn
    1. Over 9000 billion will be allocated
    2. They will draw a beautiful animation for the electorate
    3. We spend 70 percent of the budget for this project
    4. In the end, Buran will fly off into the Pacific Ocean and they will declare some birder to be guilty, they say the connector has been messed up or the space fuel has been overfilled.
    People, open your eyes, where is the industry comparable to the USSR, where are the scientists and designers, Rogozin will design everything himself??? Analyze his activities - only promises. Here is one person who spoke out about the problems of our defense industry: “the start of mass production for the latest weapons program, estimated at 20 trillion rubles, has been postponed until 2015. As in the well-known parable, it’s either a donkey or a padishah... Or, the third option, the corresponding deputy prime minister will take the other one, an even higher position. And someone else will be responsible for disrupting the next rearmament program."
  56. +1
    2 October 2013 20: 18
    Tomorrow the Kepler telescope will discover a planet with liquid water, and there will be a new topic - an annihilation relativistic nuclear starship :-)
  57. Nitup
    +1
    2 October 2013 20: 47
    Yes, the Americans abandoned the shuttle, but they are creating a new spacecraft, the X-37b. The danger for us lies in the fact that these devices are capable of carrying hypersonic missiles, for example. And they are capable of hitting ground targets along the shortest trajectory. Their targets, in my opinion, will primarily be our Strategic Missile Forces facilities.
  58. Admiral 013
    0
    2 October 2013 21: 07
    It's better to solve the problem with frames and falling rockets! We have survived, and now we are slowly but surely losing this industry! But what manners! The land of our Motherland was not drenched in blood so that the gentlemen, offended by the past government, sitting on top today would waste the last thing we still have left!
    Now we need to be realistic and solve real problems, and only then dream about the Moon, Mars, Pluto, etc.
  59. +2
    2 October 2013 21: 20
    Space is initially a very expensive pleasure!!! What, say, is the profit from the launch of Voyagers? From a flight to Pluto? From the Hubble launch? Total losses - and colossal sums of money were invested in this at one time!!! But Hubble alone has expanded the boundaries of the observable universe and brought such information that scientists could not collect during the entire existence of Astronomy, and the country that builds and launches such devices wins in the long term so that it is even difficult to evaluate in monetary terms + receives a powerful boost in development science, the development of advanced technologies and the emergence of a large number of highly qualified specialists!!!
    1. 0
      5 October 2013 11: 35
      You are absolutely right. In my army there was a company sergeant major, a warrant officer, from Ukraine (I served in Soviet times). So he always said that any military profession is bullshit. He also gives the fighters foot wraps, boots and military uniforms, dry rations, if necessary. You can’t go anywhere without this! He, however, was still a passionate hunter. But according to him, it was for the soul...
  60. 0
    2 October 2013 21: 22
    It all comes down to economic feasibility. While the task is to launch a payload into orbit, cheap disposable launch vehicle stages are sufficient. But as soon as the problem of returning payload from orbit or from other planets becomes a problem, then the concept of Buran and the Shuttle will be needed.
    But maybe Dmitry Rogozin had in mind the development of hypersonic aircraft capable of jumping into outer space and possibly entering orbit. Then it really makes sense, the project is hundreds of times cheaper than Buran.
    1. 0
      1 December 2013 01: 54
      Rogozin said what he said. The rest is all fantasy.
  61. 0
    2 October 2013 22: 01
    all cooperation has been destroyed, there are no engineers, what shuttles? They have difficulty assembling bulldozers. This journalist with his flaunting slogans will soon be performing at the circus.
  62. 0
    2 October 2013 22: 26
    "The Soviet Buran was a response to a similar US project called the Space Shuttle, which is why it is often called the “Soviet shuttle”." The weight of the payload launched by the shuttle into orbit is 3 tons, that launched by Buran is 10 tons. "Soviet shuttle"? Oh well.
  63. 0
    2 October 2013 22: 33
    Buran is already 30 years behind, why take a step back, new materials and technologies have already appeared, there is a Clipper, an Air Launch - let them at least make them, test the technologies, train personnel, and then they can make ships bigger than Buran.
  64. sanecc
    0
    2 October 2013 22: 43
    This is the scribe how dearly the USSR bent - Russia can also throw its sandals in different directions. This is a show-off, I think - although it’s also possible to strip the outskirts down to their underpants.
    1. 0
      22 December 2017 11: 57
      Blues get away from the military echelon
  65. +1
    2 October 2013 23: 12
    I think that this is a good decision, thanks to which vast industries will be restored again, money will begin to flow into the development of new materials, components and assemblies, new jobs will be created, and the school of space construction will continue! And at least some movement forward!
  66. +2
    3 October 2013 02: 55
    Buran is our glorious past! But again, I think it’s not worth going back to the past.
  67. +1
    3 October 2013 18: 02
    Buran is a concept. You need to decide on the dimensions and range of tasks. But if, for example, you return commercial satellites from orbit for money, I think you can quite make a profit...

    As correctly noted, it is practically impossible to restore the Energia-Buran project, but there are similar projects by the same Lozino-Lozinsky.
  68. shvindin2012
    0
    4 October 2013 13: 32
    Take the example of the American private company Sierra Nevada Corporation, which is developing a compact mini-shuttle, the Dream Chaser, capable of taking off using relatively light Atlas-5 launch vehicles or air launch from a White Knight Two aircraft. Compact, lightweight, hypersonic, delivery of cargo and people up to 7 people, economical and capable of landing both on an aircraft runway and using parachutes.
  69. The comment was deleted.
  70. -1
    4 October 2013 13: 55
    We do not need to revive Buran, Buran is a passed stage, but to build an unmanned hypersonic aerospace aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing, such as the TU-2000. The one who first masters hypersonic technologies will receive the palm in many areas.
    1. +1
      4 October 2013 14: 24
      We need to build a Russian aerospace aircraft (RAKS)!
  71. -1
    5 October 2013 11: 19
    In my opinion, the main thing in space now is repairing satellites, replacing them, transferring them to a given orbit in case of failures during launch or during operation. We must not forget about space debris, expired spacecraft, etc. And this task can only be accomplished by a manned spacecraft like Buran. He flew up to a given point, performed all the necessary actions and flew away. We must not forget that with the help of such ships it is possible to launch blocks for the construction of orbital space stations. Again, mobile presence in outer space is an important thing in itself. After all, probably many would like to see the “KETS star” from the famous novel by the Russian science fiction writer Belyaev in the night sky. And someone would even want to work on it. Why not modernize the country? Otherwise, we only see how, I quote from memory a well-known line from a war novel: “The Fuhrer (we are talking about the times of the Great Patriotic War) still thinks that by replacing the commanders he will turn the tide of military operations.”
  72. 0
    5 October 2013 17: 34
    Of course, I am an amateur in the field of space technology, but it seems to me that reusable systems are the future. And the “Buran” theme needs to be developed, at least to obtain Nirov’s achievements. At one time, the development of "Energy" gave a powerful impetus in the field of materials science, chemistry, etc. Just for the sake of a foundation for the future, it’s worth reviving the “Buran” theme as research work. Can we pull it off? That is the question...
  73. 0
    5 October 2013 21: 38
    For some reason, everyone forgot that for reusable launches of Burans, the Mriya was created, which was supposed to lift Buran to the stratosphere, disconnect Buran, and then Buran, in free flight, turns on the engines and goes into space. And the main task for such a flight may be “to leave the central part of the ship for the superstructure of the ISS.” Each crew will carry with them a part of the ISS designed specifically for their mission and with instruments installed in their places at the factory. A lightweight glider will be much easier to decelerate in the atmosphere, but sometimes also return obsolete parts of the ISS from space, so as not to litter space. The construction of launch pads such as Mriya aircraft is cheaper than a cosmodrome and more profitable, since it also has industrial applications as a cargo aircraft between Buran launches.
  74. 0
    6 October 2013 08: 26
    Well, Rogozin says a lot of things. He also talked about the new AK-12 and the Terminator. None of these products were ever accepted. But ships like Buran are needed. Maybe not for throwing cargo into orbit, but as traveling vehicles for the same maintenance and repair of satellites, as has already been proposed here. And even if it will not complete each flight with a descent to Earth, it is the maneuverability and the possibility of such a descent that is important.
    1. 0
      6 October 2013 18: 55
      Quote: Zomanus
      Well, Rogozin says a lot of things.

      Including about the Lunar base, inhabited by the way wink
  75. 0
    6 October 2013 18: 58
    You can throw rotten tomatoes at me, but... Rogozin is a politician, therefore, this is just an attempt to challenge. What if the Americans start investing in the Shuttles, but there is no money for Syria anymore, there is a crisis, however. And it’s easy to raise the Russian military-industrial complex in the eyes of the global technology consumer. And so, if not for the bald man with a birthmark all over his head, BURAN would have served a great country. And there would be no ISS. The Americans themselves would think about how to build space stations. Or they would buy from us. And GPS would be a weak semblance of GLONAS, because in one flight BURAN sent satellites to one third of the total program. But in addition to fools and roads, there is the weakness of power, a deadly misfortune.
  76. nsbcom
    0
    6 October 2013 21: 00
    finally
  77. balovnik
    0
    9 October 2013 15: 54
    Yes, BURAN was truly ahead of its time. But as always = What we have we don’t value, having lost it, we cry.
  78. +1
    10 October 2013 14: 48
    A great country could afford great ideas!!! soldier
  79. 0
    10 October 2013 17: 16
    Hooray! Popovkin has finally flown! Rogozin and Shoigu still pushed through his dismissal!!!! Maybe Ostapenko will at least restore order!!!
    According to Izvestia, the successor to Popovkin, who is being dismissed for health reasons, will be Oleg Ostapenko, who left the post of Deputy Minister of Defense the day before. Vladimir Popovkin was invited to become an adviser to President Vladimir Putin on space activities.

    Read further: http://izvestia.ru/news/558594#ixzz2hKCEAQcL

    This is about the question of who protected this freak - the Taburetkin-Popovkin link on the face!
    It took multibillion-dollar losses and the collapse of the space industry to make a decision...f*ck!!!
    And on the topic...Rogozin did not mean the reincarnation of Energia-Buran, but the creation of “similar or other” reusable systems!!
  80. 0
    1 December 2013 01: 09
    One can argue a lot about the effectiveness of the reusable space shuttle created in the USA and its capabilities, but it was with its appearance that it became clear that the USSR was losing ground in space exploration, to say the least... The potential enemy had technologies that we either did not have at all, or did not yet have at that time. We saw it in the starry night sky, checking the time of flight over our starting positions with the tables for recording the passage of enemy satellites, carried out a set of urgent electronic warfare measures and hoped that such a ship would soon appear among us. The ability to launch a payload of 20 tons into low-Earth orbit was impressive, especially since our Soyuz and Progress spacecraft launched into orbit cargo that was significantly smaller in mass and size.

    There is no need to repeat that the whole country was “plowing” on the Buran and when the ship successfully landed, a sense of pride in our scientists, engineers, technicians, workers, and military personnel filled our hearts.
    Now the monopoly on this kind of spacecraft, in principle, no longer existed and the task of further improving them was the order of the day. “Perestroika” pushed it back, but could not cancel it.

    Even if Rogozin spoke about the possibility of building ships of the Buran type, this does not mean at all that they will appear in a month or a year. The point now is not why they are needed specifically and how much they will cost. Let's leave this to designers and economists. It is much more important that the invaluable experience accumulated by industries during the creation of Buran is not lost, but is further developed. The rocket and space industry employs more than 300 thousand workers, dozens of design bureaus, research institutes, etc. etc., not to mention the so-called. related industries: chemical, mechanical engineering, radio electronics, metallurgy, polymers and plastics. There will be new technologies, materials, machines and equipment, new types of fuels, engines, heat-protective coatings and much more will appear, which a modern reusable spacecraft for various purposes cannot do without. They are the future, but this does not mean abandoning traditional space rockets, the design elements of which are also being improved.
  81. +2
    28 October 2016 12: 27
    Rogozin hasn’t made any new messages for a long time... I hope he implements what was said earlier.
  82. 0
    8 November 2016 11: 35
    I read the discussion of the Buran project, some of the commentators have special education and give reasoned opinions. But I would like to talk about something else - to argue about something that was useless.
    Somehow I had forgotten that Lozino-Lozinsky proposed to build not this large Buran, but a smaller version, but the CPSU Central Committee did not want to concede to the United States in anything and, in fact, imposed on the designers a cumbersome version of the Shuttle analogue. And if I’m not mistaken, then it was assumed (for a smaller design) a high-altitude launch from a carrier aircraft. Accordingly, the costs of building such an “aircraft” would be reduced, while the development of new technologies used in the Buran would remain exactly the same for the smaller version. The desire for gigantism was the reason for the termination of this project. But from the standpoint of today, apparently, the time has come to return to a similar project. Well: 1st, the technologies of new materials have moved forward; The 2-engine industry has moved forward towards creating more powerful and economical engines; 3, the time has come to remove debris in orbit, which is already creating threats to spacecraft, the loss of which causes significant economic losses. damage; 4 maintenance/repair of orbital spacecraft and delivery/evacuation of crews to the space station. We must look forward and cannot stop dreaming - otherwise we will withdraw into ourselves. Tsiolkovsky was also a dreamer, but a scientific dreamer. hi
    1. 0
      22 December 2017 11: 53
      It does not interfere. There would be work for both the “Spiral” (reconnaissance, fighter, bomber) and the “Buran” (delivery into orbit and removal of large loads).
  83. The comment was deleted.
  84. 0
    5 January 2017 01: 34
    “That is, we have before us a beautiful, but at the same time completely eccentric and ill-conceived idea,” Yuri Karash believes.”
    I'm certainly not an expert in the field of astronautics, but, in my opinion, there is a huge need for repairing satellites directly in orbit, eliminating space debris, space exploration and much more. All this can be provided by a system similar to the Buran system. We must also not forget that the creation of such systems means the creation of new technologies, materials, devices, etc., which can be in demand in all industries. Of course, if you entrust this project to “critics” like the above-quoted graduate (1997) of the American University (Washington, DC), then it is better to forget about space exploration altogether, close the Moscow Aviation Institute, Baumansky and other universities related to space science and technology, and advise young people to go to the USA, to NASA or to Europe, to the European Space Agency. Familiar song.
  85. 0
    17 January 2017 19: 50
    Don't stop a journalist from doing his real calling - PR. Rogozin is appointed to this stupid position as a lightning rod and patriotic talking head. Putin said that Rogozin would be personally responsible for the construction of Vostochny. Well, did Rogozin answer? Other people responded. And we finally found out who really makes decisions and is responsible.
    So relax. The snowstorm came on so quickly because there was no cargo for it. They don't exist now. Based on the results of 2016, it turned out that there was generally less cargo. And at this time, 3 competing companies are trying to snatch budget money for the construction of a heavy rocket. So this is an article about the nonsense of a journalist who accidentally ended up in the military-industrial complex.
  86. 0
    27 January 2017 18: 15
    Gentlemen! Both Buran and the Space Shuttle are a dead-end path for the development of astronautics. The same dead end as HYDROGEN airships and zeppelins. Yes, it's beautiful! Yes, it's great! At the same time, it is monstrously cumbersome, expensive and damn dangerous! Zeppelins died and shuttles died. That's it, forget it! Stop treading water on the same hydrogen rake! The whole world has already trampled on them and is stuck. Neither the Japanese, nor the French, nor the Americans have developed. Sergei Korolev was a GENIUS space designer. He immediately abandoned the hydrogen impasse. Space research can only be developed by making it cheaper. And there is no need to build aerospace amphibians. Spaceships should live only in space, just like sea ships live in the sea and do not go onto land!!!
    1. 0
      22 December 2017 11: 51
      “Cheap” space research and spaceships “living in space” are in principle incompatible :-) Moreover, how will such ships end up in space, how to deliver them there? At our level of development, this can only be done by assembling in orbit from ready-made blocks delivered from Earth, which is why a Buran-type ship is needed.
  87. +1
    18 May 2017 19: 00
    How many accountants came running. In order to save money, let's close the space altogether. We'll cut up all the rockets, we don't need satellites either, it's an expensive pleasure, but there's really no sense in it. How do you, the frugal and the doubtful, like this idea? And who needs this space anyway? Let the Indians and Chinese try - they have a lot of people, they need to spread them throughout the solar system. And we don’t need this pampering. This, if we discard the husks, boils down to all the arguments of those who “doubt the advisability of resuming the Energia-Buran project.”
  88. 0
    29 May 2017 12: 00
    Therefore, the problems that the Americans faced can easily be projected onto Buran.

    Are we Americans?
  89. 0
    21 September 2017 11: 21
    It’s better to first put the armature line into service!!!!
  90. 0
    22 December 2017 11: 48
    If we were living in the Soviet Union now, I would say that any manned space program makes sense, since it advances science, technology, industry, education and medicine, not to mention defense tasks.
    If we still have the design documentation and working drawings, then we can build the airframe itself. We can even print money to pay for the work if we wish.
    We can build a working start-up and prepare personnel. In any case, this is not a one-day job.
    1st question: have we lost the technology to build a truly flying Buran?
    2nd question: if key technologies are not lost, will there be enough component manufacturers?
    If all this can be solved, then Buran-2 may well be able to solve military problems, the tasks of constructing a new space station, and even assembling a spacecraft in orbit from ready-made blocks (if you use your imagination).
  91. 0
    17 February 2018 05: 48
    Numerous comments claim that Rogozin simply blurted out the nonsense that the country could resume production of Buran-type spacecraft.
    “Future aircraft will be able to rise into the stratosphere; space technology today can operate in both environments, for example, Buran, which was significantly ahead of its time. Essentially, all these spaceships are the XNUMXst century, and whether we like it or not, we will have to return to them.”

    How substantiated is this statement?
    We read the message from 16:1605.10.2015 (updated: 21:09 05.10.2015)
    https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151005/1297159118
    .html
    In Russia, created an engine for an aerospace plane
    The engine includes a power plant operating in two modes - air and rocket. There is no airplane yet. First, an engine will be created for him, then the machine itself will be put into operation.
    KUBIN (Moscow region), October 5 - RIA Novosti. An engine for a promising aerospace aircraft, which will be used both in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and in the civilian sphere, was created in the Serpukhov branch of the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy, an Academy spokesman told RIA Novosti on Monday.

    The combined air-rocket engine with a ramjet pulsating combustion chamber, a prechamber and an air launch system was created to enable the propulsion system to operate both in the atmosphere and in outer space. A promising aircraft with such an engine can deliver cargo to orbital stations with greater benefit, the agency’s interlocutor noted.
    "The problem of creating a combined power plant for the aircraft to transfer the engine from air to rocket in space during flight in the atmosphere has been solved. The engine includes a power plant operating on two circuits (modes) - air and rocket," explained the representative of the Academy in during the exhibition "Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - 2015".

    It seems Rogozin is well informed smile
    1. 0
      4 August 2020 22: 14
      It seems Rogozin is well informed

      It seems that all of Mr. Rogozin’s plans to restore the snowstorms of 7 years ago were nothing more than wet fantasies hi

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"