Military Review

“Buran” and “Shuttle”: such different twins

52
When you look at the photos of the Burana and Shuttle winged spacecraft, you may get the impression that they are quite identical. At least there should be no fundamental differences. Despite the external similarity, these two space systems still differ radically.
“Buran” and “Shuttle”: such different twins

Shuttle and Buran


"Shuttle"

Shuttle - reusable transport spacecraft (MSTC). The ship has three liquid rocket engines (LRE), working on hydrogen. The oxidizing agent is liquid oxygen. A huge amount of fuel and an oxidizer is required to make an exit to Earth orbit. Therefore, the fuel tank is the largest element of the Space Shuttle system. The spacecraft is located on this huge tank and is connected to it by a piping system that supplies fuel and oxidizer to the Shuttle engines.

And still, three powerful engines of a winged ship are not enough to go into space. Two solid-fuel boosters are mounted to the central tank of the system - the most powerful missiles in stories humanity today. The greatest power is needed precisely at launch, in order to move a multi-ton ship and lift it to the first four and a half dozen kilometers. Solid rocket boosters take on 83% load.


The next "Shuttle" takes off


At an altitude of 45 km, solid fuel boosters, having produced all the fuel, are separated from the ship and parachuted into the ocean. Further, to the height of 113 km, the "shuttle" rises with the help of three rocket engines. After separation of the tank, the ship flies another 90 seconds by inertia and then, for a short time, two orbital maneuvering engines operating on self-igniting fuel are turned on. And the "shuttle" goes into work orbit. A tank enters the atmosphere, where it burns. Parts of it fall into the ocean.


Department of solid fuel boosters


The orbital maneuvering engines are intended, as can be understood from their name, for various maneuvers in space: to change the parameters of the orbit, to moor to the ISS or to other spacecraft in near-earth orbit. So the "shuttles" visited the Hubble telescope several times for service.



And finally, these engines are used to create a braking impulse when returning to Earth.

The orbital stage is made according to the aerodynamic scheme of a tailless monoplane with a low-lying delta wing with a double sweep of the leading edge and with vertical tail of the usual scheme. For control in the atmosphere, a two-section rudder on the keel (here air brake), elevons on the rear edge of the wing and a balancing shield under the rear fuselage are used. Chassis retractable, tricycle, with a nose wheel.

Length 37,24 m, wingspan 23,79 m, height 17,27 m. “Dry” weight of the device is about 68 t, take-off - from 85 to 114 t (depending on the task and payload), landing with return cargo on board - 84,26 t.

The most important feature of the airframe is its thermal protection.

In the most heat-stressed places (design temperature up to 1430º С) a multi-layered carbon-carbon composite is used. There are few such places, it is basically the sock of the fuselage and the leading edge of the wing. The bottom surface of the whole apparatus (heating from 650 to 1260º С) is covered with tiles from a material based on quartz fiber. Top and side surfaces are partially protected by low-temperature insulation tiles - where the temperature is 315 – 650º; in other places where the temperature does not exceed 370º С, the felt material covered with silicone rubber is used.

The total weight of all four types of thermal protection is 7164 kg.

The orbital stage has a double deck cabin for seven astronauts.


Upper Deck Shuttle Cabin


In the case of an extended flight program or when performing rescue operations, there may be up to ten people on board the shuttle. In the cockpit - flight controls, work and sleeping places, kitchen, pantry, sanitary compartment, airlock, operation and payload control posts, other equipment. Total enclosed cab volume - 75 cube. m, the life support system supports the pressure in it 760 mmHg. Art. and temperature in the range 18,3 - 26,6º C.

This system is made in the open version, that is, without the use of air and water regeneration. This choice is due to the fact that the duration of the shuttle flights was set at seven days, with the possibility of bringing it to 30 days using additional funds. With such insignificant autonomy, the installation of the regeneration equipment would mean an unjustified increase in weight, power consumption and complexity of the onboard equipment.

The reserve of compressed gases is enough to restore the normal atmosphere in the cabin in the case of one complete depressurization or to maintain the pressure in it 42,5 mm Hg. Art. for 165 minutes when a small hole is formed in the body shortly after the start.



Cargo compartment dimensions 18,3 x 4,6 m and the volume 339,8 cube. m is equipped with a "three-knee" manipulator with a length of 15,3 m. When you open the casement doors, the cooling system radiators are rotated with them. The reflectivity of radiator panels is such that they remain cold even when the sun shines on them.

What can the space shuttle and how does it fly

If we imagine a system assembled, flying horizontally, we will see an external fuel tank as its central element; an orbiter is docked on top of it, and accelerators on the sides. The total length of the system is equal to 56,1 m, and the height is 23,34 m. Overall width is determined by the wingspan of the orbital stage, that is, it is 23,79 m. The maximum starting weight is about 2 041 000 kg.

It is impossible to say so unequivocally about the size of the payload, since it depends on the parameters of the target orbit and on the starting point of the ship. We give three options. The Space Shuttle system is able to output:
- 29 500 kg when launching east from Cape Canaveral (Florida, east coast) into orbit 185 km altitude and 28º inclination;
- 11 300 kg at launch from the Center for Space Flight. Kennedy into orbit altitude 500 km and inclination 55º;
- 14 500 kg when launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base (California, west coast) into a polar orbit with an altitude of 185 km.

For the shuttles were equipped with two runways. If the shuttle landed away from the cosmodrome, he returned home astride Boeing 747



Boeing 747 is taking the shuttle to the spaceport


A total of five shuttles were built (two of them died in accidents) and one prototype.

During development, it was envisaged that the shuttles will make 24 start per year, and each of them will make flights to space before 100. In practice, they were used significantly less - by the closing of the program in the summer of 2011, 135 launches were made, of which Discovery - 39, Atlantis - 33, Columbia - 28, Challenger - 25, Challenger - 10 .

The crew of the shuttle consists of two astronauts - the commander and the pilot. The largest crew of the shuttle is eight astronauts (Challenger, 1985 year).

Soviet reaction to the creation of the "Shuttle"

The development of the shuttle made a great impression on the leaders of the USSR. It was believed that the Americans are developing an orbital bomber armed with space-to-earth missiles. The sheer size of the shuttle and its ability to return cargo to Earth up to 14,5 tons were interpreted as a clear threat to the abduction of Soviet satellites and even Soviet military space stations such as Almaz, which flew in space under the name Salyut. These estimates were erroneous, since the United States in 1962 abandoned the idea of ​​a space bomber in connection with the successful development of the atomic submarine fleet and ground-based ballistic missiles.


"Union" could easily fit in the cargo compartment of the "Shuttle"


Soviet experts could not understand why we need 60 launches of “shuttles” per year - one launch per week! Where were the many space satellites and stations for which the Shuttle would be needed to come from? The Soviet people living under a different economic system could not even imagine that the leadership of NASA, which was pushing hard at the new space program in the government and the congress, was guiding the fear of being left without work. The lunar program was nearing completion and thousands of highly qualified specialists were out of work. And, most importantly, before the respected and very well-paid managers of NASA there was a disappointing prospect of parting with habitable cabinets.

Therefore, an economic rationale was prepared for the large financial benefit of reusable transport spacecraft in the event of the abandonment of disposable missiles. But for the Soviet people, it was absolutely incomprehensible that the president and the congress could spend national funds only with great regard for the opinions of their voters. In this connection, the opinion prevails in the USSR that the Americans are creating a new spacecraft for some kind of future incomprehensible tasks, most likely military ones.

Reusable spaceship "Buran"

In the Soviet Union it was originally planned to create an improved copy of the Shuttle - OS-120 orbital plane, weighing 120 tons. (The American shuttle weighed 110 tons at full load). Unlike the Shuttle, it was supposed to provide the Buran with an ejection cabin for two pilots and turbojet engines for landing at the airfield.

The leadership of the USSR armed forces insisted on the almost complete copying of the “shuttle”. Soviet intelligence was able to get a lot of information on the American spacecraft by this time. But it turned out not so simple. Domestic hydrogen-oxygen fuel rocket engines turned out to be larger and heavier than the American ones. In addition, they were inferior in power overseas. Therefore, instead of three LREs, it was necessary to install four. But on the orbital plane there was simply no place for the four cruise engines.

At the "shuttle" 83% load at the start carried two solid fuel accelerator. In the Soviet Union, such powerful solid-propellant rockets could not be developed. Missiles of this type were used as ballistic carriers of nuclear charges of sea and land-based. But they did not reach the required power very, very much. Therefore, the Soviet designers had the only opportunity - to use liquid rockets as accelerators. The program "Energy-Buran" created very successful kerosene-oxygen RD-170, which served as an alternative to solid-fuel boosters.

The location of the Baikonur cosmodrome forced the designers to increase the power of their launch vehicles. It is known that the closer the launch pad to the equator, the greater the load the same rocket can put into orbit. At the American spaceport at Cape Canaveral, the advantage over Baikonur is 15%! That is, if a rocket launched from Baikonur can lift 100 tons, then it will launch 115 tons into orbit when launching from Cape Canaveral!

Geographical conditions, differences in technology, the characteristics of the engines created and a different design approach - had an impact on the appearance of "Buran". Based on all these realities, a new concept was developed and a new OK-92 orbital spacecraft, weighing tons of 92, was developed. Four oxygen-hydrogen engines were transferred to the central fuel tank and the second stage of the Energia launch vehicle was obtained. Instead of two solid-fuel boosters, it was decided to use four liquid-fuel kerosene-oxygen missiles with four-chamber RD-170 engines. Four-chamber - this means with four nozzles. A large-diameter nozzle is extremely difficult to manufacture. Therefore, the designers go to the complication and weighting of the engine by designing it with several smaller nozzles. How many nozzles, so many combustion chambers with a bunch of pipelines supplying fuel and oxidizer, and with all the "whips." This bundle is made according to the traditional, "Royal", scheme similar to the "unions" and "vostokam", became the first step of the "Energy".


"Buran" in flight


The winged ship "Buran" itself became the third stage of the launch vehicle, like the Soyuz. The only difference is that the "Buran" was located on the side of the second stage, and the "Unions" at the very top of the launch vehicle. Thus, the classical scheme of a three-stage disposable space system was obtained, with the only difference that the orbital spacecraft was reusable.

Reusability was another problem of the Energy-Buran system. The Americans, “shuttles” were designed for 100 flights. For example, orbital maneuvering engines could withstand up to 1000 inclusions. All the elements (except the fuel tank) after the prophylaxis were suitable for launching into space.


Solid accelerator picked up by a special vessel


Solid fuel boosters descended by parachute into the ocean, selected by NASA special ships and delivered to the manufacturer where they were prevented and filled with fuel. The Shuttle itself was also thoroughly tested, prevented and repaired.

Ustinov, the Minister of Defense, ultimatum demanded that the Energy-Buran system be as reusable as possible. Therefore, the designers were forced to deal with this problem. Formally, side accelerators were considered reusable, suitable for ten starts. But in fact, this was not the case for many reasons. Take at least the fact that American boosters splashed into the ocean, and the Soviet fell in the Kazakh steppes, where the landing conditions were not as benign as warm ocean waters. Yes, and a liquid rocket, creating a more gentle. than solid. "Buran" was also designed for 10 flights.

In general, the reusable system did not work, although the achievements were obvious. The Soviet orbital spacecraft, freed from large main engines, received more powerful engines for maneuvering in orbit. That, in the case of its use as a space "fighter-bomber", gave him great advantages. And plus turbojets for flight and landing in the atmosphere. In addition, a powerful rocket was created with the first stage on kerosene fuel, and the second on hydrogen. It was just such a rocket that the USSR lacked to win the moon race. In terms of its characteristics, Energia was almost equivalent to the American Saturn-5 rocket, which sent the Apollo-11 to the Moon.

“Buren” has a large foreign presence with Shattle. Korabl poctroen Po cheme camoleta tipa "bechvoctka» c treugolnym krylom peremennoy ctrelovidnocti, imeet aerodinamicheckie organy upravleniya, rabotayuschie at pocadke pocle vozvrascheniya in plotnye cloi atmocfery - wheel napravleniya and elevony. He was able to control the trigger in a timer with a side maneuver to 2000 kilometer.

The length of the "Bourana" - 36,4 meter, wing span - about 24 meter, the height of the ship on the landing gear - more 16 meters. The standard ship mass - more than 100 tons, of which 14 tons - comes on fuel. In the harbor of Volume of cabins - more than 70 cubic meters.

When vozvraschenii in plotnye cloi atmocfery naibolee teplonapryazhennye uchactki poverhnocti korablya rackalyayutcya do 1600 graducov, teplo zhe, dohodyaschee nepocredctvenno do metallicheckoy konctruktsii korablya, ne dolzhno prevyshat 150 graducov. For this reason, “Buren” is distinguished by a powerful heat and cure for the skin and for the formation of the normal temperature and the temperature at the time of the break in the life of the vessel during the rest.

Heat shield from xnumx Ceramic bronze has the capacity to accumulate heat, not passing it to the ship's hull. The total mass of this armor is a unit of 38 tonn.

The length of the cargo compartment "Buren" - a number of 18 meters. In its extensive cargo space, the body weight can be loaded with a weight of up to 30 tons. It was possible to dispatch large-sized space vehicles - large satellites, orbital stations. Target ship weight - 82 tones.



“Buren” equipped all over the world with unimproved systems and equipment as for the automatic, so and for the pilot. This is the best and most beautiful


Burana cabin


The main engine installation, two groups of engines for the maneuvering of the engine is located in the end of the tailpiece and in the front part of the housing.

It was planned to build a 5 orbital spacecraft. In addition to the "Buran" was almost ready "The Tempest" and almost half of "Baikal". Two more ships at the initial stage of manufacturing did not receive names. The system "Energy-Buran" was not lucky - she was born at the wrong time for her. The USSR economy was no longer able to finance costly space programs. And some rock pursued astronauts preparing for flights on the "Buran". Test pilots V. Bukreev and A. Lysenko died in plane crashes in the 1977 year, even before moving to the group of cosmonauts. In 1980, test pilot O. Kononenko died. 1988 year took the lives of A.Levchenko and A. Schukin. Already after the flight, “Burana” died in a plane crash R.Stankyavichus - the co-pilot for a manned flight of a winged spacecraft. The first pilot was appointed I. Wolf.

Not lucky and "Buran". After the first and only successful flight, the ship was stored in a hangar at the Baikonur cosmodrome. 12 May 2002 year collapsed overlapping shop in which there were "Buran" and the layout of "Energy". On this sad chord the existence of a winged spacecraft, which gave so much hope, ended.


After the collapse of the ceiling


Sources:
http://timemislead.com/kosmonavtika/buran-i-shattl-takie-raznyie-bliznetsyi
http://gunm.ru/news/spejs_shattl_kak_dostizhenie_tekhnicheskoj_mysli_chast_6_poslednjaja/2011-07-21-359
http://www.znanijamira.ru/publ/kosmos/korabli_mnogorazovogo_ispolzovanija_shattl_ssha_i_buran_sssr/39-1-0-1481
Author:
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Energet1k_
    Energet1k_ 30 December 2013 09: 28
    +6
    About information shuttles, probably two times more have been written than about Buran. And after all, Buran is by no means an exact copy of the shuttle; many unique Soviet developments were implemented in it. Well, the need for such ships and now there are great doubts, while there are no goals for what to use them, they will gather dust in hangars.
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 30 December 2013 10: 41
      +6
      Quote: Energet1k_
      And after all, Buran is by no means an exact copy of the shuttle; many unique Soviet developments were implemented in it.


      It was the most perfect drone, and its time will come. As soon as we learn to launch ships into space from an altitude of 20 km. For great things are not so easily forgotten.
      1. Canep
        Canep 30 December 2013 11: 52
        +12
        Shuttle and Buran are similar only by the fact that someone in the Politburo poked at Shuttle's photo and said: "I want the same," and it started, they closed the "spiral" project,
        and rushed to create an analogue of the Shuttle, not quite understanding why we needed it. We must pay tribute to the designers, Buran did in a very short time, a ship was created from scratch in 12 years.
        1. Denis
          Denis 31 December 2013 02: 44
          +4
          Quote: Canep
          project "spiral"
          And after all "Spiral" was before!
          Work on the creation of the Spiral, including the analogues of its orbital plane, interrupted in the 1969 year, was resumed in the 1974 year. In 1976 — 1978, 7 Mig-105.11 test flights were conducted
          The head of the Spiral project was Gleb Evgenievich Lozino-Lozinsky.
          If only he wouldn’t get in the way!
          And the orbital plane, as it was called "Lapot" in the program, flew
          There was a story about how to reduce the friction of his skis on a strip of watermelons.
          And the article is informative, but more about "Shuttles"
          1. EwgenyZ
            EwgenyZ 7 November 2017 13: 46
            0
            About how the Buran was created and about the unrealized concept of The Spiral, which was reborn in MAKS, there is a good documentary film Star Wars General.
            An interesting film can be seen here: http://russia.tv/brand/show/brand_id/10559
        2. Uhe
          Uhe 31 December 2013 16: 06
          +3
          Well no. The Politburo has nothing to do with it. In the USSR, the whole system didn’t work like that, no need to distort.

          The creators themselves admitted that they simply decided not to fence the garden for the first ship, but to use the achievements of the Americans, so the appearance is similar. Faster, cheaper, you can focus on more important things. In parallel, we worked on other systems that are already excellent. The funny thing is that now the Americans are already copying our achievements of that time :)
          1. Kir
            Kir 31 December 2013 16: 32
            0
            Yes, no, it’s not at all funny, but Znakovo !!!, but another thing is interesting why do our and squeal take outdated and bankrupt systems and technologies from there? it is not clear what is more present in these decisions of illiteracy (more correctly perplexed) or what is more terrible.
          2. mat-vey
            mat-vey 25 October 2017 08: 09
            0
            "Appearance" is similar in that (and here you are right) because the Americans did not hide all the data on aerodynamics ... I don’t remember where, but a very, very long time ago there was an interview with one of the leading specialist designers.
        3. papuasimus
          papuasimus 9 January 2014 14: 44
          +1
          "Spiral" is still relevant today.
          Ten years ago I heard secondhand (not the first) from an air defense officer (during the formation of the missile defense system) that up to two 30mm cannons were easily installed on the Spiral, not to mention equipment for reconnaissance, navigation, maneuvering, and space-to-space rockets in the cargo hold.
  2. slavik_gross
    slavik_gross 30 December 2013 09: 33
    +5
    Eh such a technique was created, and so it ended in failure. It’s not enough to shoot for such things ...
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 30 December 2013 19: 30
      -1
      Quote: slavik_gross
      Eh such a technique was created, and so it ended in failure. It’s not enough to shoot for such things ...

      Who?
      1. papuasimus
        papuasimus 9 January 2014 14: 55
        +8
        After the first flight of "Buran" in automatic !!! mode (no one in the world even dreamed of this, fully automatic flight and landing !!! on the machine) and clarification of a huge number of prospects for these systems (I will not list, there are many of them) the guardian of the interests of the American people M.S. Gorbachev ("We are against arms race in space. Here our interests coincide with the interests of the American people "end quote) I will put a stop to any attempts to use the Energiya-Buran system for military and scientific purposes.

        It’s not enough to shoot for such things ...
        Who?
        There is still a question - who?
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 25 October 2017 08: 11
          +3
          He has so much merit for execution ....
  3. avt
    avt 30 December 2013 09: 53
    +9
    A good educational program for those who still think and say that "Buran" is a copy of the Shuttle.
    1. Vasia kruger
      Vasia kruger 30 December 2013 12: 28
      +7
      They are in no way copies. Just the logic of creating such devices is one.
      1. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka 30 December 2013 19: 33
        +1
        Quote: Vasia Kruger
        They are in no way copies. Just the logic of creating such devices is one.

        Of course not a copy. It’s only worth looking at the Shuttle’s cabin and the Buran’s cabin. As they say, feel the difference.
        1. Kir
          Kir 30 December 2013 20: 09
          +1
          Forgive me, but what kind of shuttle is the cabin given, what year was this shuttle built, and has the cabin changed since it was built? This is one thing different, the fact that not everything that is better - looks more comfortable, better and safer, sorry, but this was the case with the T-90 and Abrams, there is air conditioning and other benefits, but they have a bigger dead zone, and even with a "somersault" they have a higher risk of spinal fracture, so .....
          1. Vovka levka
            Vovka levka 30 December 2013 20: 29
            -2
            And you look on the Internet for information, it is there on the Shuttle. Photos for any relish, look and see for yourself.
  4. vlad0
    vlad0 30 December 2013 09: 56
    +2
    We hope we will see the launches of Russian shuttles more than once. "Buran" was only the first step, technology development. We can't do without space!
  5. Ahmed Osmanov
    Ahmed Osmanov 30 December 2013 10: 05
    +5
    Fine cars, but it’s painful to look at the last photo.
  6. poccinin
    poccinin 30 December 2013 10: 14
    +3
    Yes, they ruined such a project. "BURAN" was BETTER SHUTTLE. This is unambiguous.
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 30 December 2013 19: 34
      -2
      Quote: poccinin
      Yes, they ruined such a project. "BURAN" was BETTER SHUTTLE. This is unambiguous.

      What?
      1. Mairos
        Mairos 9 January 2014 10: 27
        +5
        By the fact that at least the Shuttle could carry in space only what fit into its cargo compartment, and Energy could either Buran with a cargo in the compartment, or any cargo of the order of 100 tons in general - without a BURAN at all.
        1. Kir
          Kir 9 January 2014 19: 08
          +1
          And this is in the minds of some, although I would like to make mistakes, it just does not fit, look how stubbornly they are looking for borrowing traces in our aircraft from the Second World War, and not only this period, but when you point out the borrowing from Us, they look at least at the full zero if not worse, as a mentally ill especially if it concerns the states.
      2. papuasimus
        papuasimus 9 January 2014 15: 00
        0
        At the start, the Shuttle uses its own engines to burn fuel (carrier power is not enough), and Buran does not, take off only on Energy engines.
        The result is an undeniable advantage in the fuel supply for maneuvering in orbit, at least for a rescue operation, at least for the military.
  7. Heccrbq.3
    Heccrbq.3 30 December 2013 10: 19
    +9
    A remarkable fact about the landing of "Buran". When approaching the landing glide path, "Buran" turned 90 degrees. from the given trajectory, everyone thought a failure, an accident is inevitable, etc., meanwhile, the ship returned to the glide path. When parsing it, it turned out that the smart automatics simply extinguished the excessive speed.
    1. El13
      El13 30 December 2013 16: 31
      +4
      Rumor has it that he was nearly blown up because of this ...
      Post-flight analysis showed that the probability of choosing such a trajectory was less than 3%, however, under the prevailing conditions, this was the most correct decision on-board computers of the ship!
    2. papuasimus
      papuasimus 9 January 2014 15: 02
      0
      Exactly!!! AUTOMATION!!!
  8. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 30 December 2013 10: 30
    +1
    It is necessary to build an orbital complex of refueling and repair.
  9. tolyasik0577
    tolyasik0577 30 December 2013 11: 20
    +7
    Nothing is said about the fact that "Buran" carried out the flight in a fully automatic mode. Damn, amers were always lucky. both geographically and economically. the gain in everything is 15 percent and the soft landing of modules in the ocean.
  10. Kuzkin Batyan
    Kuzkin Batyan 30 December 2013 12: 03
    +1
    On May 12, 2012, the overlap of the workshop in which the Buran and the Energia model were located collapsed. - Typo?
  11. ed65b
    ed65b 30 December 2013 12: 21
    +1
    the sad end to a beautiful beginning. Sorry.
  12. bubla5
    bubla5 30 December 2013 12: 36
    +2
    Why is the Russian flag on Buran?
  13. kirgudu
    kirgudu 30 December 2013 15: 48
    +8
    Well, guys, with each such post I understand more and more, the collapse of the USSR was planned and implemented from the outside with the help of our traitors.
    Removing such a competitor from orbit is worth a lot.
  14. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 30 December 2013 15: 56
    +9
    "And plus turbojets for atmospheric flight and landing." -
    There were none!
    "" Buran "ocnactili entire team neobhodimymi cictemami and oborudovaniem HOW to avtomaticheckogo, tak for pilotiruemogo poleta. Eto and credctva navigatsii and upravleniya and radiotehnicheckie and televizionnye cictemy and avtomaticheckie uctroyctva regulirovaniya teplovogo rezhima and cictema zhizneobecpecheniya ekipazha and mnogoe-mnogoe drugoe . " -
    Not equipped! There were no manned controls, no life support systems! This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why the project was quietly closed. Strange, but equipping them should have cost more money than was allocated after "perestroika". Interestingly, the article contains a photo of the Buran's empty cabin - where are "all the necessary systems" there?
    Nothing has been said about the stupid and shameful copying of the Shuttle's shape and about how and by whom this decision was made, about the erasure of the "Spiral", about the origin of Energy from the lunar project.
    Strange article. Lots of details. For example: "A heat-protective cover of more than 38 thousand tiles" (This is about Buran - very important!). And the more pressing circumstances are false (TRD, form) or are not mentioned.
    As if its author had just grabbed material from the Internet in a couple of hours and uploaded it.
    1. El13
      El13 30 December 2013 16: 21
      0
      I absolutely agree.
      Who cares there is an excellent site, there is a lot of not only about Buran, but also about our space program in general: http://buran.ru/
    2. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 18: 54
      +1
      By the way, the author of the article did not mention the fact that our thermal protection exceeded the shuttle’s one, and right after landing it was possible to touch the surface of the ship without using cooling, as on the shuttle, and with regards to the liquid propellant rocket engine there is doubt that they had more power, according to the turbojet engine, yes We conceded to them. Then it confuses us that our resource was lower, sorry, but our margin of safety has always been higher, and as a result, its frequent losses in terms of mass dimensions.
      Then for what photo booths it was lead that it gives ?, all the more there are several such things as their desire for comfort and ours for maximum functionality, tea fly to work! and it’s not a fact that the cabin (situation) would not have changed during further operation, and if there was a desire, it was necessary to bring the very first shuttle cabin.
  15. askold
    askold 30 December 2013 18: 03
    +3
    As it turned out, an extremely complex and unreliable system, disasters both during takeoff and landing. The death of 16 people is the price of its ambitiousness. To return from orbit such a whopper, heated to a state of plasma, is another task. It is easier to create an increased by 6-8 cosmonauts (astronauts), the descent vehicle is of the traditional shape as it is now, without any wings there. To put it into space, and there it dock to another spacecraft, sharpened for performing some specific tasks, and intended only for flights in outer space ... Again, two rockets. But my question is: what is this payload in the cargo compartment of the shuttle and what prevented it from being put into orbit with a conventional rocket, is it really a Hubble? And in general, what is so valuable (weighing up to 14,5 tons) that can be returned from orbit that cannot be created on Earth during the time this cargo was in orbit? The cargo, while, as I understand it, will also be radioactive.
  16. saag
    saag 30 December 2013 18: 39
    0
    The atomic engine needs to be done, space will become different with it, and all these shuttles are only for orbital tasks and are somewhat redundant, carrying excess weight into orbit - wings to go back with them, is expensive both in finance and energy
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 18: 57
      0
      The blessed memory of Academician Aleksandrov had a project of such an engine, but there seemed to be problems with the "exhaust" of radiation, and the same problem in maintenance.
      1. saag
        saag 30 December 2013 19: 37
        0
        The exhaust is yes, but right now it seems like they are developing a megawatt class reactor to power a package of ion or plasma engines, anyway, after all, drag the reactor into orbit, can it still drag RD-0410 there?
        1. Kir
          Kir 30 December 2013 20: 01
          +1
          But this miracle should start from the Earth, another thing is to use it in Space, and now they fly, but look how many problems arise after the development of their resource, do not remember how much there was a lot of kipish around one (sort of like from the Cosmos series), but here the "fool" is clearly much more serious. To litter the Near Space ?, or create a burial ground outside the Earth.
  17. sss5.papu
    sss5.papu 30 December 2013 19: 08
    +4
    Buran is an unusual cargo that had to be launched into orbit with the help of the Energia rocket - he himself could not go into orbit. As a result, a powerful and very expensive disposable rocket launched a landing container for cargo into orbit and burned up. Why this utter nonsense? To show off in front of your people? The whole world knew the true state of affairs, and only in the USSR did everyone shout hurray. And what kind of money down the drain? One Energia rocket cost 3-4 Soyuz missiles. The shuttle is a reusable system that puts itself into orbit. And where all the losses are, is the fuel tank.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 30 December 2013 19: 30
      0
      Yes, for reusable flights with cargo return, the Shuttle configuration is much smarter than Energy-Buran. But the Americans finally abandoned the Shuttles due to the high cost of their operation. And they were unreliable, as you know.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. ABV
        ABV 31 December 2013 03: 05
        +2
        here what stupid pseudo-patriot stupidly minus people just expressing their opinion ??? After all, they correctly write - the shuttle is a reusable system, the snowstorm is a little less ... what is immediately minus the rush ??? where is the exchange of views ??? what kind of rejection of opponents ??? type YOUR opinion is correct, and who does not agree - in the negative ???
        To drive such XXXXXXXX from the site !!!!!!!!!!!!
  18. biglow
    biglow 30 December 2013 20: 07
    +2
    Russians leave but always come back ..... soldier
  19. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 30 December 2013 21: 44
    +11
    The article is more or less informative in technical terms (that is, it will do to explain the differences). On my own I would only add that the main difference, in my opinion, lies in the different approach to delivering cargo to orbit. The American "shuttle" is the rocket itself. Our shuttle is the CARGO itself for the rocket. The rocket can be used for launching OTHER cargo. Therefore, only the external resemblance is not a proof of copying. Remove "Buran" from "Energiya" - and it will fly. Remove the "shuttle" from the fuel tank and you will get NOTHING at the exit. Another thing is that at the wrong time all this was born ...
    Sad ...
  20. AlexA
    AlexA 30 December 2013 21: 48
    +17
    Quote: sss5.papu
    As a result, a one-time powerful and very expensive rocket launched a cargo container into orbit and burned down. What is this utter stupidity? To arrange a show in front of his people?

    In vain you are so peremptory. By the 80s, after the closure of the Saturn program, Americans were faced with the problem of delivering large, indivisible goods to low Earth orbits. The shuttle with its marching engines on the bird and the external tank was able to deliver only a maximum of 28 tons. With the possibility of return. There were such tasks. Well, if it was necessary, for example, to deliver 100 tons without the need to return, then they did not have the funds for such a mission. Therefore, they did not begin to build their space station. In general, for the delivery of non-refundable goods, the Shuttle turned out to be, indeed, a completely ineffective system. Overly complicated and expensive.
    But the Energia-Buran system turned out to be more multifunctional. For example, the main carrier-bird link could be used to deliver 20 tons of return cargo.
    For delivery of 100 tons of indivisible large-sized non-returnable cargo: "carrier with 4 sides - side container". This was demonstrated in one of their test flights.
    For delivery of 30 tons of indivisible non-returnable cargo: "carrier with 2 sides - side container".
    Moreover, in all cases, optimal SRT was used. On the sides: Oxygen-kerosene. On the central unit: oxygen-hydrogen.
    The main achievement: the technologies of very effective rocket engines were developed. And the technology of heat-protective coatings of various types.
    Snide remarks about the "irrational" form are "common talk". It would not be necessary to be so arrogant about both Soviet and American scientists. The laws of ballistics and aerodynamics are objective and the same for everyone. The shape is optimal for the chosen mission. And you can't get away from her. And the Spiral was closed, because it fulfilled its task: it worked out methods and gained experience. As a result of which, by the way, the Buran form was born.
    And yet - about the reusability of the first stage. In the liquid stage, not all components are equivalent. The most expensive are the engines. It makes sense to save only them. Riveting tanks - cheaper disposable. Therefore, the rescue system was designed in such a way that the tanks played the role of a deformable damper (like hoods in modern cars). So after the necessary routine maintenance, the engines could be reused.
    So the system was conceived and implemented intelligently. It’s just that she fell under the political millstones of the collapse of the country.
    I say this first hand. In the mid-70s, I was lucky to work in Podlipki. In the Buran engine development department. It was a school for life. Thanks to Buran.
    He will still shoot!
    1. sss5.papu
      sss5.papu 31 December 2013 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: AlexA
      But the Energia-Buran system turned out to be more multifunctional. For example, for the delivery of 20 tons of returnable cargo, the main bundle "carrier-bird" could be used. For delivery of 100 tons of indivisible large-sized non-returnable cargo: "carrier with 4 sides - side container". This was demonstrated in one of their test flights.

      - So is it not better to withdraw 100 tons of payload, and not dead weight in the form of Buran - since if you do not need to return, and at the same time shout - "Reusable ship". You really "separate the wheat from the chaff", and do not write about the "advantages" of this huge nonsense.
      1. El13
        El13 6 January 2014 15: 05
        +3
        He just wrote to you in Russian in white, what you ask now and again write your stupidity about "stupidity" ...
  21. Navy7981
    Navy7981 30 December 2013 23: 35
    +2
    I would not be surprised if the roof collapsed at the request of friends ...
  22. Danilych38
    Danilych38 31 December 2013 08: 26
    -2
    Quote: Navy7981
    I would not be surprised if the roof collapsed at the request of friends ...


    It’s not worth it to justify your own sloppiness and headache by the machinations of enemies ..

    On the topic of Buran .. yes everything is cool, a lot of technology, auto-landing .. But at what cost was this toy?
  23. Gur
    Gur 31 December 2013 08: 50
    +3
    An article is a school essay, such a promising title and not a damn in meaning, what are the similarities? what is the difference? so general data .. nothing interesting.
  24. jury08
    jury08 31 December 2013 14: 42
    -3
    That’s what you should be proud of (and not Stalin’s menacing) and continue the tradition — Buran was better and more promising than the shuttles — not to mention energy carrier rocket!
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 31 December 2013 16: 07
      +4
      Yeah, Buran himself arose, without the legacy of Ivan the Great and Stalin;) In the field grew :)
      1. Kir
        Kir 31 December 2013 16: 16
        0
        Well, this is the favorite song of individual ......., all the best from the People, or under the wise guidance of the "correct" (in the opinion of entih) leaders, but what about everything ....... So immediately Tyrants (the term and he misrepresented - the tyrant in the original meant the one who seized power) Stalin, the Terrible, Pavel 1, etc. are to blame.
  25. Vikmay16
    Vikmay16 31 December 2013 21: 00
    0
    It's a shame! Annoyingly! As always
  26. vignat21
    vignat21 3 January 2014 15: 30
    +1
    http://abbreviator.ru/?p=768
    1. Kir
      Kir 3 January 2014 16: 07
      0
      I’ll definitely take a look at this entire site, I had enough close contacts with Ludmie in my time, but I’ll say the contingent is very heterogeneous from the Patriots to the parasitic parasitizing on the topic of Patriotism, the only minus the name itself, although in Italy there are even patrols with such a sleeve patch have (or were?).
      Thank you for the link and Happy New Year to you from All Soul !!!
  27. russian
    russian 4 January 2014 23: 39
    +3
    The article is not bad but suffers from incompleteness. Indicate at least some modifications in the photo. In the photo of Buran, there is clearly a modification that has never flown into space and was used only for flights in the atmosphere when working out the equipment in manual mode. By the way, they were going to call their homeland. Do not disgrace, be precise. Many people saw the Buran in the forged pieces on Baikonur and in other places. And the system was truly unique in its versatility. The shuttle was not standing nearby. One military use is worth it. Bomber .scout .fighter enemy satellite you can grab and much more. And civilian applications. And flights to the moon. Mars. launch of orbital stations. So that friends criticize and think for what.
    Happy New Year to everybody.
  28. Sergei75
    Sergei75 22 March 2014 19: 18
    0
    http://www.3dnews.ru/799033/
  29. R-22
    R-22 31 October 2016 10: 15
    +1
    What kind of question bothers me is how in such a miraculous way did the roof in the hangar collapse ??? A Soviet-built hangar, and this is not some kind of barn, but a special structure with impressive strength reserves, designed and built in compliance with all sorts of requirements for critical structures. Such a building in the Kazakh steppes will stand no worse than all the pyramids with sphinxes, and here BAM !!! and the roof collapsed and right on Buran ... ah-i-yay how unlucky ... the forests around the energy (in the photo) did not collapse, but the roof fell ...
  30. Vyacheslav-r
    Vyacheslav-r 6 May 2021 18: 04
    0
    The article reads "The Americans, the shuttles were designed for 100 flights." I would suggest writing like this - "The Americans assumed that the" shuttles "would be able to make 100 flights each" In fact, this has not been confirmed and each shuttle, on average, made no more than 33 flights. Perhaps one of the reasons for the US rejection of the Space Shuttle program was the reason for the impossibility of giving a full guarantee of the safe launch of the Shuttle after 33 launches.