Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

Invid Fan wrote:


As I'll be in Russia for a little over a week starting Saturday (6 days
in St. Petersburg, 3 or so in Moscow), are there any other interesting
space sites to see in the area? I now have Gorky Park on my list



The guy to talk to would be James Oberg- he's been there more than once,
and probably could give you a good list of interesting things to see:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/
The Monino State Aviation Museum has the Soviet "Spiral" space fighter
testbed at it, and pretty much all the other production and test
aircraft that Russia built in around the past 50 years.
http://www.flymig.com/Monino/

Pat

Cardman wrote:



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



I found some interesting Buran photos that you may desire to closely
look at...
http://www.lindenhillimports.com/buran.htm

That I believe is their only surviving v2 model. Certainly there are
major changes design changes from their only Buran v1 model that went
into space and back.


Here's more stuff on the jet-powered prototype:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/bstend.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/vrdu.htm

Pat

Cardman.

dmitrik wrote:

Incorrect. That is Buran "aerodynamic prototype" test article BTS-02
GLI. It was equippedd with four jet engines to test subsonic flight,
approach and landing.
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst2.htm



The original Buran design was going to have the two top motors to aid it
in landing after reentry. The two podded side motors were added to allow
it to take off from a runway for tests, and would not have been carried
on the shuttle in operational service.
The two top motors were deleted from the Buran itself to cut weight,
but there was an intention to possibly reintroduce them as an
improvement after it entered operational service.
I spent a couple of days going through the Russian-language version of
the Buran website, and bookmarking all the pages that had interesting
drawings, photos, or videos on them- so if anyone is looking for
anything interesting about Buran's design, or info on the other Soviet
spaceplane (Bor, MiG-105 and Spiral) designs, as well as the Energia
booster, I'll see if I have any info on the area of interest in my
bookmarks.

Pat

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:59:13 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Here's more stuff on the jet-powered prototype:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/bstend.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/vrdu.htm

There is lots of good information on that site I see. This includes
some launch and landing video. Not to mention some better Buran
landing photos.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:


There is lots of good information on that site I see. This includes
some launch and landing video. Not to mention some better Buran
landing photos.



The site (although extremely confusing to navigate if you don't read
Cyrillic) is quite impressive; particularly the embedded videos on some
of its pages.
Some of the really interesting pages are this one on the Spiral "50/50"
space fighter (in english)
showing the interior, cargo bay, and weapons set-up:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/str126.htm
The MiG-105 Spiral testbed, with films of it in flight:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/epos.htm
And these two Buran pages that have clickable cutaways on them:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/kompon.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/konstr.htm

Pat

John Doe ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

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

Until it flies, and flies successfully, I don't count it. Period.
PR flyers are a dime a dozen. Flown systems are the real thing.

ATV is more realistic than HTV, Klipper or CEV. They've already fitted
the station with the gear to let its guidance system dock. The first
flight ATV has been built. ATV has a lot of conventional technologies:
MPLM shell for cargo module. Russian made docking module. Ariane 5 for
launcher. But there is also a lot of new stuff (guidance, propulsion
for orbiting tug etc).

Has it flown ? No. My point.

It is already late. And likely to see more delays while they debug the
vehicle. And hopefully the modified Arianne 5 won't blow up when it
launches ATV.

So yes, you can't bet your life on ATV yet. But it is far from being
vapourware.

Ibid.

HTV on the other hand is a big question mark. ESA has experience with
Arianne 5. How much experience does Japan have with launchers ?

Look it up for yourself.

Andre

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

Originally Posted by Andre Lieven

John Doe ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

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

Until it flies, and flies successfully, I don't count it. Period.
PR flyers are a dime a dozen. Flown systems are the real thing.

ATV is more realistic than HTV, Klipper or CEV. They've already fitted
the station with the gear to let its guidance system dock. The first
flight ATV has been built. ATV has a lot of conventional technologies:
MPLM shell for cargo module. Russian made docking module. Ariane 5 for
launcher. But there is also a lot of new stuff (guidance, propulsion
for orbiting tug etc).

Has it flown ? No. My point.

It is already late. And likely to see more delays while they debug the
vehicle. And hopefully the modified Arianne 5 won't blow up when it
launches ATV.

So yes, you can't bet your life on ATV yet. But it is far from being
vapourware.

Ibid.

HTV on the other hand is a big question mark. ESA has experience with
Arianne 5. How much experience does Japan have with launchers ?

Look it up for yourself.

Andre

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

The ATV is very near completion. The flight hardware for the first ATV mission, named Jules Verne, is currently undergoing integration in the ESTEC Test Centre prior to moving into LEAF for acoustic testing. Jules Verne will also undergo testing in the Large Space Simulator.
http://www.esa.int/techresources/EST...386985867.html
ATV will fly in 2006 (before june). You bet?
Rémy

John Doe wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
And you'll have to send replacements more frequently, since you'll
have no real idea why they keep failing if you can't bring the failed
ones back to the ground intact.

The next step in space evolution would be to have the tools and
documentation to allow the ISS crewmembers to perform the forensic
analysys of failed components. (assuming CMGs could be fitted through
airlock hatch, or at least a CMG with creative use of an empty MPLM
with arm.

Well, no... that's two or three steps away.

The *next* step is to shift the design paradigm away from achieving
reliability by means of redundancy at the system or subsystem level, and
towards achieving reliability by redundancy at the component level. System
and subsystem redundancy is fine for short trips but can be vulnerable to
common-mode failures in the long term, and these types of vulnerabilities
can be very hard to wring out during testing.

That paradigm shift implies a different set of "virtues" for subsystem
design: everything must be designed for crew servicing, and to the extent
possible, subsystems should use a minimum number of common components. That
in turn will minimize the number of tools and spare components that must be
carried

Only then, I believe, will onboard forensics be truly practical.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

(Andre Lieven) wrote in
:


"Jorge R. Frank" ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) wrote in
:

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

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.

They had no problem with ending Apollo in 1975, when Columbia's
first flight was expected to be four years later...

And managed to destroy a good percentage of the US operational
experience base in human spaceflight in the process. Remember,
experience resides in individuals, not institutions.

Sure, but is six years that big a deal, when The Next Thing is being
worked on ( As it was in 1975-1981 ) and shows promise of really
opening up the astro flight rates ?

I think it was more damaging than most people would admit at the time. The
NASA critics who harp on NASA's lack of institutional memory and inability
to learn from its mistakes should take a good hard look at that period.

I would hope they learned from that mistake, but sadly I would not be
surprised if they did not.

True enough, but as funding is in the hands of the politicians, thats
not an issue one can really fault NASA for.

Right. By "they" I mean Congress and the Nixon/Ford administrations, not
NASA.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:50:13 -0500, Chris J. wrote
(in article ):

Wasn't one of the early claims regarding it's modular design that
older modules could be replaced with newer ones?

Only theoretically; it was never seriously planned given the cost of
designing and building the first set of modules (costs NASA and the
contractor team realized all along would preclude it in actuality).

I may be in error,
but I thought I recalled that from when the project was in it's
proposal stages. I take it that is no longer the case, if it ever was?

I don't doubt NASA let people believe that it was a possibility - the
reality is that neither ISS nor SSF before it was ever planned to
remove and replace modules. The modules themselves and all equipment
inside them were originally spec'd for 30 year on-orbit operational
lifetimes. This was decreased fo 15 years following the SSF CDR in
1993, mostly as a way to reduced projected final dev and qaul costs and
due to a grudging realization by NASA that a 30 year life was going to
cost way in excess of a 15 year life.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net