Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Russia Revives Buran Space Shuttle 21

Posted by timothy from the da-tovarish dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "New Scientist has posted an article about Russia reviving their Space Shuttle program. Its a neat story, and gives a few comparative stats between NASA's shuttles and the Buran shuttle; e.g. Buran has a 100 ton payload, nearly 5 times as much as the NASA shuttles!" And be prepared: space tourism may soon reach the almost-commonplace stage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Revives Buran Space Shuttle More

Russia Revives Buran Space Shuttle

Comments Filter:
  • I agree sir anonymous coward.
    ---

  • Hmmm (Score:2)

    by Bearpaw ( 13080 )
    Note that their "military saw Buran as vital to any missile defence system similar to America's Star Wars." Note that President "Smirky" Bush strongly backs ramping up US missle defense research, and in fact has recently been arguing with Russia (and lots of other countries) about it.

    I'm surprised nobody else seems to have picked up on this.

  • Heres some more about the Buran at space.com .... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /buran_010628.html [space.com].

    D.
  • You must be new.

    Slashdot has all these sections so that not every story has to go through the main Slashdot page. Sometimes the editors don't think a story is 'cool' enough to go onto the main page, but is 'cool' enough to be posted (too much stuff gets posted for it all to go through the main page -- the really cool stuff would get sent off the page in a few hours). When that happens, they'll put it into one of the sections - like Science, or Apache.

    If you want to see Science stuff all the time, just configure your Slashboxes (those boxes on the right side of the screen) to always have the Science box on the page. Do this in the user preferences for your login.

  • Buran does not have a 100 ton payload, the Energia booster does. The weight of Buran itself must be subtracted from this figure to get the payload Buran can put into orbit.

  • Bad link (Score:3)

    by Winged Cat ( 101773 ) <atymes AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 28, 2001 @01:52PM (#121792)
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 9936 [newscientist.com]

    With that out of the way...one of the main problems with NASA's space shuttle seems to be the near-infinite amount of testing and precautions they take, thus skyrocketing the cost per flight. It'll be interesting to see what Russia, which puts a more value on results than safety-at-any-cost, does.
  • Yeah...the challenger explosion was cool. I want another one.

  • If you're interested in seeing a Buran first hand - there's one sitting in a large tent here in Sydney, Australia [buran.com.au] - on the site of the old casino.

    I think it costs about AUD$7 entry.

  • Can anyone access the stats and post a good link or copy it in /.? I'm not sure if it's their server or my company's firewall, but don't get anything usable from the embedded link in the article.

  • Others have made the point that the US Space Shuttle has horrendous maintainence costs: here's why

    At the end of every Shuttle mission, the main engines are pulled and shipped to California. There, they are disassembled, rebuilt to specifications, and tested for 80% of their design life. Not exactly "reusable." This on top of the fact that every one of thousands of heat shield tiles needs to be inspected, and the damaged ones replaced.

    I saw some report where they calculated that it would be cheaper to build one-use solid rocket boosters (the white rockets on the side of the brown fuel tank) rather than keep retrieving and reusing the current ones.... have to find that link.

    The point is, it's often cheaper and safer to build something that only has to be used once. Having said that, I'll defend reusable vehicles for certain missions. The increase in capabilities is sometimes worth the added cost.
    ---------------
  • > The majority of the turn-around time for the US Space shuttle is post-flight inspection, maintenance, and pre-flight inspection.

    Umm, what the hell do you think turnaround is? Wash and wax?
  • Actually, as per the Space.com article linked to elsewhere, thare are no O-rings on the Buran. Buran uses liquid fueled throttleable boosters, while the US Shuttle uses stacked cylinders of aluminum powder, oxidizer and goo (it's like rubber cement). The O-rings you're thinking of, from the Challenger are between segments of solid fuel, and are VERY dangerous in cold weather. They shrink and make gaps. Buran could not use this technology, so the Soviets (1980s) invented cold weather launch technologies. Cryogenic liquid fuel is about the best cold weather launch technology I can think of, eh?
  • This other article says there were five Burans built, and that the most advanced was sold to an australian over a year ago. It says that another one was being auctioned, and it looked like it might go for a few million.

    http://www.space.com/news/spaceshuttles/buran_boug ht_000303.html [space.com]

    So, how come this discussion has so few comments. It didn't show up on my main /. page. I don't know why.

  • The former communist country is getting into the swing of capitalism very enthusiastically.
    And despite NASA's opposition, Gurushkin says Russian flights to the space station will soon carry more space tourists. "We already have many applications. We are currently considering them all and will take whoever pays most," he says.
  • Face it. They may be cash-starved, but they know how to make things happen. They have a beautiful space record, and are making the capitalistic transition very well. They're ahead of NASA as far as thinking goes - space is for everyone, let the rich pave the road for the common folk. The rich, in return, get the benefit of being the first, taking those first famous civilian steps. The more people go up, the cheaper it becomes as the money is used to fund research into better propulsion and safer, more comfortable environments. I am a lover of space, of physics, of all the heights man has reached, and reaches further daily. Perhaps in my lifetime I will get to take a very expensive but very pleasurable ride on a rocket or a flying wing or some X-prize winner's machine. In fact, I'm foregoing vacations for 1-2 years to save the 15k for my trip to Russian Cosmonaut training in Star City. To leave your planet is to take part in a massive jump in the intellectual and practical prowess of your species, and the Russians are looking to be the ones to provide those first points of access.
  • O-rings were just an example with which, I thought, everyone would be able familiar. However, I happily admit my mistake and stand corrected!

    Thanks for the info on how the Buran really works. (That's what this is all about, right? Sharing information and learning from each other.)

    Here's to cold weather launch technologies. Once again the Russians show their brilliance.

  • A couple of obstacles but lots of potential (Score:3)

    by Timber_Wolf96 ( 460649 ) on Thursday June 28, 2001 @03:32PM (#121803)
    Here is the correct address for the story. [newscientist.com]

    In an era of rapidly expanding space-based enterprises, the Russians have an incredible opportunity. The New Scientist article [newscientist.com] hints at the potential market for Buran's capabilities. There are, however, several important questions with difficult answered.

    This program has been mothballed since 1990 and unfunded since 1992. How well have all the millions of components been maintained? For example, are there decaying O-Rings that are just waiting to fail? The majority of the turn-around time for the US Space shuttle is post-flight inspection, maintenance, and pre-flight inspection. Which components have weakened in the last decade and will they be found before a catastrophic failure.

    In the 11 years since Buran was "put into the barn" how much technical skill has been lost? Without dragging this into an off-topic debate about military spending, the US Navy must purchase a new nuclear submarine every year or so simple to maintain the technical expertise of the thousands of specially trained engineers, welders, machinists, and other highly specialized technicians who build subs. Does Russia have the skills to support this program once the stockpiled rocket parts and fuel tanks are gone?

    The Russians are perfectly poised to pull this off. There is already activity at the Baikonur Cosmodrome paying for the all the necessary infrastructure improvements (not to mention providing great advertising. Russian Engineer to international client-- "Hey, have you seen OUR shuttle?") Russia is also smart enough to see the potential in space tourism. Right or wrong, Denis Tito has issued in a new chapter in manned space flight; a chapter that NASA is prohibited from acknowledging currently.

    Any AeroSpaceEngineers out there know how much demand there is for a launcher that can haul up 200 "tonnes" at a time (minus the weight of Buran itself of course)? Certainly, if Buran gets off the ground there will quickly be a demand as companies build larger satellites that require the special capabilites of a shuttle rather than a conventional unmanned booster. I wonder what the cost per unit weight will be and how it will compare to current lift systems.

    The world is changing around us so fast that sometimes it's hard to see 10 days into the future, let alone 10 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the future. Quite the opposite is true-- it means we need to look that much harder! If all goes well, Buran may be the vehicle to catapult us all into space. (Pardon the pun.)

  • Yes. Isn't it better to have a backup copy when you're doing stuff that can get you into trouble?
  • I agree, the world is changing extremely fast, but its very exciting! However, I don't trust the Russian space program. I think NASA is right to be paranoid about safety. The Russian sapce program may go commercial, and make loads of cash, that's wonderful, NASA will always be the first class ticket to space.
  • Ok, Russia may be ahead of NASA in terms of forward thinking, but NASA has the science, the facilities, and is WAY ahead of Russia in terms of research funding and funding in general. However, it all goes back to the same old argument, is science best done for economic purposes, for the sake of science, or for military advance? I'm not sure anyone has any patriotism anymore, NASA is what the US has to work with, and, depending on what country you're from, that may matter and might not. I am really getting sick of NASA bashing simply based on the fact that it has to interact with society, and, more importantly, the US congress. Give them some bloody credit for the advancements they have made, and the fact, that they continue to increase their budget, even if the idiot in office cuts half the funding on their flagship project.
  • Right, but he is running our country, and congress appears to tolerate him, unfortunately, so we have to deal with him. And I am not sure about missile defense, I see both sides, but I also see Bush as essentially brainless, so I distrust his plan. Why isn't he pushing for new technology to be used? Missiles for missile defense, sure, it works, but sattelite based lasers system would be more effective. This is not a military issue, and should not become one. I think space will be, and needs to be militarized, but not yet. We need something to protect up there, like an economy, first.

Slashdot Top Deals

Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.

Close