Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

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 ?).

Deceased. Nothing more than broken bits.

There are still two part complete Buran Shuttles out there. One in
Moscow and one in Germany.

And because its name was/is "Buran", it wouldn't have been confused with
the NASA "Shuttle".

Unless someone looked at it. ;-]

The NASA shuttle may be grounded, but as of now, there are still plans
to make it fly.

NASA has little choice in that. Congress would not allow them to
cancel the only US manned space launch system, until a replacement
system is available.

For example. If the CEV turns out to be an unworkable disaster, then
NASA would indeed have to use the Shuttle beyond 2010.

Once NASA announces that Shuttles no longer will flty,
they become museum pieces and are no longer considered functional. They
become part of history. At that point, the word "shuttle" becomes more
generic and not so closely associated with the OV-10* vehicles operated
by NASA, unless you are associated with one of the museums that exhibit
one such vehicle.

The word "shuttle" was never owned by NASA. The correct term I guess
is the "US Space Shuttle". So the Americans will have to lump the idea
if they ever call this EU/Russian project the "Kliper Space Shuttle".

Klipper is more likely to retain its name when it flies as opposed to
being called "shuttle".

Kliper is the Russian project name. The term "shuttle" describes the
function of a vehicle. I have no idea if they will ever put these two
words together.

Same for CEV if it is ever built. Soyuz has retained its name over the
years.

And the US Space Shuttle had no other name.

It just so happens that NASA called its OV10* vehicles "Shuttles".

That can happen. Many people can also catch the "shuttle" to work.

In fact in my town there is a bus "shuttle service" running between
the town center and Europe's largest shopping complex.

As long as the NASA space Shuttle is scheduled to fly, the word
"shuttle" will be closely associated with the NASA Space Shuttle (STS).

Only in the USA.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:

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". ;-]

The Soviets also copied the U.S. B-29 Superfortress --

"Shortly after World War II, the Tupolev design bureau in the Soviet
Union manufactured a near-copy of the B-29, the Tupolev Tu-4, based on
reverse engineering of three interned early-model B-29s. Some of these
remained in service into the 1960s in the Soviet Union".

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...-Superfortress

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:15:25 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
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". ;-]

The Soviets also copied the U.S. B-29 Superfortress --

"Shortly after World War II, the Tupolev design bureau in the Soviet
Union manufactured a near-copy of the B-29, the Tupolev Tu-4, based on
reverse engineering of three interned early-model B-29s. Some of these
remained in service into the 1960s in the Soviet Union".

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...-Superfortress

Yes, I see. Here is a photo of the Soviet version...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tu4.jpg

I am sure that there are plenty more examples around. I am now
wondering if we stole some Soviet designs?

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
Cardman wrote:

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". ;-]

The Soviets also copied the U.S. B-29 Superfortress --

"Shortly after World War II, the Tupolev design bureau in the Soviet
Union manufactured a near-copy of the B-29, the Tupolev Tu-4, based on
reverse engineering of three interned early-model B-29s. Some of these
remained in service into the 1960s in the Soviet Union".

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...-Superfortress

Yes, I see. Here is a photo of the Soviet version...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tu4.jpg

I am sure that there are plenty more examples around.

These are enough - the most advanced bomber of WWII, the first
supersonic transport, and the first space shuttle.

I am now wondering if we stole some Soviet designs?

Certainly not the B-29, as it first flew in the U.S. in 1942, and over
2,000 were built by the U.S. by the end of WWII in 1945. The Soviet
Tu-4 first flew in 1947 and over 800 were built by 1952.

Cardman wrote:

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

Wikipedia is often a useful resource, but the way you use it is starting
to get a little annoying. Spouting facts as if you know what you're
talking about is only impressive when you don't trip up on something
silly like this:

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.

Buran doesn't have engines at the back that need protecting.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 05:08:02 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

Cardman wrote:

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

Wikipedia is often a useful resource, but the way you use it is starting
to get a little annoying. Spouting facts as if you know what you're
talking about is only impressive when you don't trip up on something
silly like this:

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.

Buran doesn't have engines at the back that need protecting.

As was obvious from the line that says "US Space Shuttle", then I was
talking about exactly that.

It is clear to see from the mentioned photo that the back the Buran
Shuttle was badly damaged. It is therefore obvious enough that this
was due to lack of suitable thermal protection. That is why I said
that something like the US Shuttle uses could have well helped to
protect this engine-less rear end.

Since my paragraph also contained "looks to me", then this is nothing
more than a quick observation. I suspect that their version 2 model
soon had that problem solved.

In other words it is best to ask people to clarify their ambiguous
comments before making false claims. I well know that the Buran has no
main engines. Some nice extra cargo space comes out of that.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...

It is clear to see from the mentioned photo that the back the Buran
Shuttle was badly damaged. It is therefore obvious enough that this
was due to lack of suitable thermal protection. That is why I said
that something like the US Shuttle uses could have well helped to
protect this engine-less rear end.

No, it's not clear at all actually.

And most reports of the damage show it to be in the wing. (I've heard
various rumors as to the damage, but none involved the bottail section you
are claiming.


Since my paragraph also contained "looks to me", then this is nothing
more than a quick observation. I suspect that their version 2 model
soon had that problem solved.

In other words it is best to ask people to clarify their ambiguous
comments before making false claims. I well know that the Buran has no
main engines. Some nice extra cargo space comes out of that.

Space no. It changes the center of mass, but as far as I know, the actual
payload bay dimensions were similar.

(I'd also say at a quick glance that the wikipedia page is a bit biased in
favor of Buran.)



Cardman.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 05:52:58 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

It is clear to see from the mentioned photo that the back the Buran
Shuttle was badly damaged. It is therefore obvious enough that this
was due to lack of suitable thermal protection. That is why I said
that something like the US Shuttle uses could have well helped to
protect this engine-less rear end.

No, it's not clear at all actually.

Well take a close look at that photo. It certainly looks like that
rear end took the worst of the damage. Still, it would need a better
photo to confirm that, when maybe it was just superficial markings.

And most reports of the damage show it to be in the wing. (I've heard
various rumors as to the damage, but none involved the bottail section you
are claiming.

Well as I said it was an observation. Since I am not Russian, and I
was rather young at the time, then so do I not know the specifics of
the damage report.

I did notice before that the Buran looked a little cooked, but only
recently did I become aware that it was damaged. I guess that news has
not got around nearly as much. Seeing that this was a USSR project,
then that is not much of a surprise.

That reminds me. How is that first man in space claim going these
days? When I heard that one died, and one ended up injured in China,
before Yuri Gagarin was given that title.

Space no. It changes the center of mass, but as far as I know, the actual
payload bay dimensions were similar.

Then they must have done the other option of making this Buran Shuttle
smaller. So what did they put in that engine space?

(I'd also say at a quick glance that the wikipedia page is a bit biased in
favor of Buran.)

Seems that way to me. Since the first version was more of a failed
test version, then the more important question would be how the second
version compares to the US Shuttle? As had Buran v2 made it into
space, then maybe there you would have had your Shuttle rival.

Cardman.

Chris J. wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
wrote:
What is the point of building a human access means to LEO which will be
operational in the 2010s ... could someone explain to me what is the
mission... what is the need ?

International Space Station. The US isn't backing out until 2015
(pretty much the 15 years agreed to in the first place) and there is
little reason to believe ISS will fall into the sea as soon as the US
pulls out.

I'm clearly missing something here; Why is the US pulling out after
ISS completion? Isn't that analogous to spending decades and billions
to build a laboratory, and then withdrawing right as it actually can
begin full research operations?

In other words, why bother to build it in the first place under this
scenario? And more to the point, why bother continuing construction?
What am I missing here?

It is no longer seen as a necessary step on the way back to the
Moon or Mars, and is seen to be somewhat of a boondoggle.

However, it is also seen by Congress (who hold the power to
redirect NASA project funding, or terminate it) as a test
of whether NASA has figured out how to do large projects
in a successful manner. It is at least somewhat widely
held in the space policy afficinados community,
that NASA would get mostly shut down if it tried
to do Moon/Mars without succeeding at Station first.


-george william herbert

Cardman wrote:
Well take a close look at that photo. It certainly looks like that
rear end took the worst of the damage. Still, it would need a better
photo to confirm that, when maybe it was just superficial markings.

The ultimate resource on Buran is of course www.buran.ru Unfortunately
most of it is in russian and it is a hell to navigate but you can still
see the pictures and translate interesting bits with babelfish. These
pages deal specifically with Buran TPS. In short: 7 tiles lost, tens of
tiles damaged, local damage to the airframe of the left wing where 3
tiles were lost.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/tersaf.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/tersaf4.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/raskroy.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/tersaf5.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/tersaf2.htm - Pictures at the bottom of the
page shows hail damage during flight to Le Bourge on the back of Mryia
http://www.buran.ru/htm/tersaf3.htm - Close-ups of TPS damage (damaged
tiles)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/terlost.htm - Close-ups of TPS damage (lost
tiles)