Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:39:25 +0200, "Rene Altena"
wrote:

How do you qualify the russian Buran spacecraft (even though it is out of
service)?

They tend to label it under a "space shuttle".

You can read more about it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

Kind of a shame that this one never had more use than the one
successful auto flight. As the Buran seemed to be a better "space
shuttle" than the US Space Shuttle is.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or

Brian Thorn ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:29:13 -0600, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Well, there is something of a concern about the US grounding Shuttle
before ISS finishes construction. And, Shuttle will be grounded years
before the 2015 date you cite.

I'm still not convinced we haven't already seen the last Shuttle
flight, but in any case isn't the US position that it will use CEV to
go to/from ISS after Shuttle?

So, the case for a second system is actually stronger than you indicate.

What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Reunite Gondwanaland " ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:39:25 +0200, "Rene Altena"
wrote:

How do you qualify the russian Buran spacecraft (even though it is out
of service)?

They tend to label it under a "space shuttle".

You can read more about it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

Kind of a shame that this one never had more use than the one
successful auto flight. As the Buran seemed to be a better "space
shuttle" than the US Space Shuttle is.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

Not from a position of doubt, but rather, from a position of eager
interest in more details on this topic, can you point me at some
places to find out more of this ?

Thank you.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:39:25 +0200, "Rene Altena"
wrote:

How do you qualify the russian Buran spacecraft (even though it is out of
service)?

They tend to label it under a "space shuttle".

You can read more about it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

Kind of a shame that this one never had more use than the one
successful auto flight. As the Buran seemed to be a better "space
shuttle" than the US Space Shuttle is.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.


Ahh, but in life in general, most things don't melt unless something
goes wrong.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

On 21 Aug 2005 01:51:51 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority. But the ability to get along
without Shuttle seems to me to be simply a matter of money: how many
ATVs are the Europeans willing to pay for. How many more Soyuz or
Progress missions can the Russians scrape up the money for?

Brian

For the Europeans, the answer is : not one more... the only question
being to know if ESA can afford to complete the development... there
are so many issues left unsolved, software wise, and no money left

Brian Thorn ) writes:
On 21 Aug 2005 01:51:51 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

As neither ATV or HTV as yet exist, I will not count on them,
for about the same reason that I won't count on VentureStar or
Hermes.

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority. But the ability to get along
without Shuttle seems to me to be simply a matter of money: how many
ATVs are the Europeans willing to pay for. How many more Soyuz or
Progress missions can the Russians scrape up the money for?

And, how will they lift the remaining designed-to-fly-inside-of-
shuttle parts up, without said shuttle ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:20:49 -0400, John Doe wrote:

Rene Altena wrote:
How do you qualify the russian Buran spacecraft (even though it is out of
service)?

Buran is history. There are no plans to fly it again. (what is the
status of the Buran that was in the hangar whose roof collapsed ?). And
because its name was/is "Buran", it wouldn't have been confused with the
NASA "Shuttle".

Oh, it's a Shuttle alright. The Russians may have tweaked the design
some, but it's lineage is clear. I prefer to think of the US Shuttles
as the "Enterprise-class" and the Soviet Shuttles as "Buran-class".

Brian

Andre Lieven wrote:
Brian Thorn ) writes:
What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

As neither ATV or HTV as yet exist, I will not count on them,
for about the same reason that I won't count on VentureStar or
Hermes.

I go to www.esa.int, click on "human spaceflight", click on
"ATV", click on "Multimedia", and then can see a bunch of
photos of the first ATV hardware in largely assembled condition.

ATV exists. It's not complete yet, and a year from flying roughly,
but it exists.


-george william herbert

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:29:23 -0700, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

Kind of a shame that this one never had more use than the one
successful auto flight. As the Buran seemed to be a better "space
shuttle" than the US Space Shuttle is.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

Anyone interested can see a touchdown photo here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:%...%D0%BD_rus.jpg

You can see that the rear end is quite cooked. Looks to me like they
are missing the carbon wing edges. Not to mention that section of the
back of the US Shuttle to protect the engines.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.

Every new project is prone to some bugs. Obviously they underestimated
the thermal heating.

In all there were five Buran Shuttles. The main Buran Shuttle made it
into space and back, then in 2002 was destroyed when the hanger roof
collapsed. Ptichka was the most complete other Shuttle, which I
believe is now in Gorky Park in Moscow. They were then fixing this
melting problem in their three second generation shuttles. These three
shuttles are referred to as 2.01, 2.02 and 2.03. I can say that the
half-complete 2.01 shuttle is in the Sinsheim Auto & Technik Museum in
Germany. And the only part complete 2.02 and 2.03 shuttles were soon
broken down, where some parts have been known to be sold on eBay.

So they were busy getting the perfect Soviet Shuttles up and running
before this project was canceled. Another few years and the US
Shuttles could well have had some look-a-like rival USSR Shuttles in
space.

You got to love the Russians stealing these designs. Like here is
another interesting photo to see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tu-144.jpg

Concorde you may think. However, that is actually the Soviet Tupolev
Tu-144. And it even had the nerve to fly a prototype two months before
Concorde first flew.

This explains why the USSR failed. They took all the western country's
most advance designs and then spent billions making this "expensive
technological crap". ;-]

Cardman.