Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

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.

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.