A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

U.S. Space Shuttle vs Soviet Buran



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 7th 13, 04:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default U.S. Space Shuttle vs Soviet Buran

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:04:48 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:59*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 8b8f5fa9-b811-46a0-8068-


, says...








If we could go back in time before US shuttle began flying which


design shuttle or buran would be better? and why?




Buran, but only because Energia was capable of putting Buran nearly into


orbit by itself. *Because of this, Energia could be used to launch other


payloads than Buran. *Note that this was attempted once, but the launch


failed due to the payload trying to perform its orbital insertion burn


in the wrong direction. *In other words, it deorbited itself instead of


orbiting itself. *From what was reported, Energia performed well both


times it flew.




Energia was designed to be modular and could be launched with various


numbers of (liquid fueled) boosters strapped to its sides. *For a


shuttle launch, it needed four boosters. *Its boosters are also


(essentially) the first stage for Zenit-2. *(also the basis for the


three stage Sea Launch vehicle). *For an "Energia M" launch, it would


have used two. *If a truly huge payload needed to be orbited, Energia


could conceivably have been flown with more boosters (resembling the


Vulkan launcher).




Energiahttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-desc.php




Energia Mhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-M-desc.php




Vulkanhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/vulcain-vulkan-desc.php




Zenit-2http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/zenith-zenit-desc.php




Again, their "shuttle" design is better not so much because of the


shuttle design, but because it was separate from the launcher design.


Furthermore, the launcher design was modular and supported an entire


range of payloads from Zenit-2 to Vulkan (or a similar Energia).




Unfortunately, the demise of the Soviet Union meant an end to both Buran


and Energia. *Otherwise, it could have been used to orbit very large


payloads (e.g. space station modules) in one launch. *Buran could have


been used to service the space station (much in the same way that the US


space shuttle did with Mir and ISS).




Jeff


--


"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would


magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper


than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in


and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer




Too bad the shuttle hadnt used the liquid flyback booster.


Why would that be, Bob? Are you insinuating that there would have been no accidents if it had that capability?
  #12  
Old March 7th 13, 04:30 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default U.S. Space Shuttle vs Soviet Buran

On Mar 7, 10:21*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:04:48 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:59*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article 8b8f5fa9-b811-46a0-8068-


, says...


If we could go back in time before US shuttle began flying which


design shuttle or buran would be better? and why?


Buran, but only because Energia was capable of putting Buran nearly into


orbit by itself. *Because of this, Energia could be used to launch other


payloads than Buran. *Note that this was attempted once, but the launch


failed due to the payload trying to perform its orbital insertion burn


in the wrong direction. *In other words, it deorbited itself instead of


orbiting itself. *From what was reported, Energia performed well both


times it flew.


Energia was designed to be modular and could be launched with various


numbers of (liquid fueled) boosters strapped to its sides. *For a


shuttle launch, it needed four boosters. *Its boosters are also


(essentially) the first stage for Zenit-2. *(also the basis for the


three stage Sea Launch vehicle). *For an "Energia M" launch, it would


have used two. *If a truly huge payload needed to be orbited, Energia


could conceivably have been flown with more boosters (resembling the


Vulkan launcher).


Energiahttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-desc.php


Energia Mhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-M-desc.php


Vulkanhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/vulcain-vulkan-desc.php


Zenit-2http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/zenith-zenit-desc.php


Again, their "shuttle" design is better not so much because of the


shuttle design, but because it was separate from the launcher design.


Furthermore, the launcher design was modular and supported an entire


range of payloads from Zenit-2 to Vulkan (or a similar Energia).


Unfortunately, the demise of the Soviet Union meant an end to both Buran


and Energia. *Otherwise, it could have been used to orbit very large


payloads (e.g. space station modules) in one launch. *Buran could have


been used to service the space station (much in the same way that the US


space shuttle did with Mir and ISS).


Jeff


--


"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would


magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper


than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in


and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


Too bad the shuttle hadnt used the liquid flyback booster.


Why would that be, Bob? *Are you insinuating that there would have been no accidents if it had that capability?


While safety might have been improved but we dont really know

It would of been a more flexible system not requiring recovery of
parts from salty ocean water.

The booster portion may have been upscaled for more power and weight
to orbit.

And none of those noxious solids pollution
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soviet space magnets. Pat Flannery Policy 0 January 5th 09 08:22 PM
Soviet space magnets. Pat Flannery History 0 January 5th 09 08:22 PM
Shuttle as ASAT: real possiblity or Soviet paranoia? Matt Wiser History 14 July 20th 06 03:39 AM
Soviet space videos Pat Flannery History 4 April 14th 06 08:13 PM
Russian Buran Shuttle on Persian Gulf! Jens Roser Space Shuttle 4 September 23rd 04 04:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.