You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
--Warning: Thread may become potential flame!--
Could Buran have been an economical space vehicle, learning from the mistakes of the shuttle? To be fair, Buran had a number of improvements over the shuttle. Liquid fuel boosters, ejection seats, LOX/kerosene OMS, and a drag chute (later added to the shuttle) would be just a few. But the Buran heat shield would presumably be vulnerable to debris, in the same way the shuttle was. And would replacing the four Energia engines be cheaper than refurbishing the shuttle orbiter's three engines?
My belief right now is that Buran would not have been cheaper because of a low light rate. This is the same reason why the shuttle is not economical. And I think this low flight rate is due to the low demand for the shuttle's services. If Buran went operational, it would have been used to service Mir and Mir 2, and I don't think that these projects could have justified Buran (although the Energia booster's costs would be reduced by the grandiose plans the Soviets had for it.) If anybody has some cost figures, they would certaily help the debate.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Sometimes I think it's a really sad thing that the soviet union isn't still there challenging America in space. They had great plans for Energia: a manned mission to Mars, a Moon base..
Offline
It's a blessing the U.S.S.R. isn't here any more, because that regime really was a loose cannon, on the World scene!
But Russia's Space Agency is here ... and if it weren't for that "non-proliferation" cold-war politics treaty, U.S. funds for ISS support would allow freeing-up of their own funds to support on-going Soyuz/Progress Space Transportation System continuous upgrades--to once again challange (compete with) America (for business) in space ... right?
Offline
Energia could have been used for some grand purposes, but there were other ideas the Soviets had for it that were either scary or nonsensical. The first Energia launch was supposed to orbit Polyus, a space weapon system. Other "wise" proposed uses for Energia were:
--Replenishing the earth's ozone (even though most of the ozone is found in the troposphere)
--Illuminating polar cities
--Chucking nuclear waste into the sun
Essentially, the Soviets were trying to invent near-term uses for Energia even though very few really existed. If somebody commited to lunar/Martian exploration and required a high flight rate, a rocket like Energia could be financially justified.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
It figures that you'd bring up Buran about five minutes after I deleted all of my bookmarks relating to it. What's sad is it's precisely because of the Buran program that the Soviet ideas for building bases on the moon were ultimately canned. According to the biography "Korolev: The Man who Masterminded the Soviet Drive to the Moon" (title might not be exactly that) The Soviets ultimately developed the Buran because they feared the space shuttle had military purposes and they wanted a similiar vehicle as a "counter threat." I think the space shuttle and Buran programs might have actually been one instance where the cold war competition in space actually set us back. I don't think the Buran was a big enough improvement over the shuttle, at least economic wise, to make it a much better alternative.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Ad Astra asked for cost figures, so here they are:
Cost to launch an Energia launch vehicle in 1994 was $120 million US dollars. This included the EUS Energia Upper Stage, which wouldn't be included with a Buran launch. I don't have any cost figures for preparation of the Buran orbiter, or mission control.
Cost to rent the entire cargo bay for a commercial launch (before Columbia) in 1992 was $142 million. The NASA budget for the space shuttle for 2003 is $3,208.0 million, which when spread over 6 launches is $534.666 million per launch.
Offline
I'm afraid it's time to (reluctantly) turn our backs on the obsolescent Space Shuttle/Buran approach, in favour of a (?) next generation method of routinely accessing LEO (see Interplanetary Transportation) ... while the Shuttle orbiters and Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are still capable of beng launched in support of the currently orbiting ISS, Hubble telescope, etc....
Offline
Even if NASA achieved the desired monthly launch rate, a shuttle launch would still cost over $250 million. Opening a second launch site at Vandenberg would further increase that flight rate, but at greater fixed cost to the taxpayers. Clearly, we need something beyond the shuttle with greater reusablility and an airline-type business model. The ship should be turned around quickly and kept flying for as long as possible. The shuttle fails in this aspect, and Buran would not have been a drastic improvement.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
BURAN??? Game over... Let it be MAKS or "Zaria"...
"Energia" & "Vulkan" ar ethe future...
Offline
And, besides: Vandenberg's no good for ISS shots--only Polar orbits.
Offline
If NASA cleared the shuttle for commercial missions (no dice, unless the vehicle was privatized) or if the Air Force wanted to use the shuttle again, Vandenberg would make sense. Revenue-generating flights from Vandenberg would be the only viable reason to launch from there (because Titan IV and Delta IV heavy are cheaper replacements for the shuttle for the recon sat missions.)
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Will the shuttles fly again or USA will becomes SHUTTLELESS?
Offline
They will fly again, perhaps by this fall.
Offline
At least with the Energia rocket, you had the advantage of modularism. There were various launch configurations based on the same design/equipment. For example, Energia was capable of being a HLV, boosting the Buran (with more payload than the Shuttle),and various lower paqyload mass configurations. The system itself was reusable up to 10 times, requiring upkeep maintenance instead of complete overhauls. The list goes on and on.
Energia is expensive, but that cost can be decreased if we were to use them on a grander scale. No new infra-structure is needed for say an HLV for a Mars mission, only modification to the Energia configuration.
I think the reason that Energia surpasses the STS is that the Russians learned from our mistakes and improved on the design. Hands down, Energia is the better buy. But I think that newer technology may be able to improve on the Energia's abilities at a lower cost than bringing them out of retirement. But none the less, we could learn from the Russians. They have had dramatically better experience developing cheap (relatively), reliable access to space.
Just another American pissed off with the morons in charge...
Motto: Ex logicus, intellegentia... Ex intellegentia, veritas.
Offline
Ranger: Please expand on your arguments. I have visitors just now, but promise to dialogue with you as soon as possible!
Offline
Pages: 1