|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Soviet space magnets. | Pat Flannery | Policy | 0 | January 5th 09 07:22 PM |
Soviet space magnets. | Pat Flannery | History | 0 | January 5th 09 07:22 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 |