Talk:Buran program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sentence or two perhaps should be added discussing if the Buran's design was stolen from the American Space Shuttle. I have seen multiple sources that both confirm or deny that the Buran was based on "stolen" American designs. I do not know which sources to trust on this matter. However it is my personal belief that espionage did play a significant role in the construction of the Buran.

I agree totally. I wrote a couple of sentences for the throngs of authors to butcher. -- Ke4roh 19:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Ilyushin Il-62 airliner looked suspiciously like the Vickers VC-10, and if the Tupolev Tu-144 wasn't a gross (groan) copy of Concorde then I don't know what it was. So, yeah, those russkies'd steal just about anything.
Yes of course, you are right. This is the obvious reason, why "russkies" were the first, who launched both satellite and man in the space, and have done the first flight on Tu-144 (before Concord).
Buran internally is as far from the US Suttle a PC differs from an Apple computer (however for you, may be there is no difference - the "boxes" are quite similar :) )


The exact location of Buran 1.02 is not known today. A second series of orbiters began construction but was never completed, and at least one of the three was dismantled. There's a Buran in Moscow, in Gorky Park. The local lore is that it's the one that orbited the Earth. -- apoivre 15:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Gorky Park one was a non-flying model. The one that orbited earth was stored at Baikonaur atop an Energia launcher and was destroyed a couple years ago when a roof collapsed due to weight. 12 people died, iirc. --Chairboy 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could this object be one of the mock-ups?
Yes, that seems to be the OK-TVA, one of the test shuttles now residing in Gorky Park Eptin 17:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
--Marc NL 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

the museum Auto & Technikmuseum Sinsheim has acquired one. not sure which thou... Thejakester 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Buran on sale on Polish auctions site

Heavily disassembled (stolen-out) Buran-type space shuttle on 9.1.2005 was still on sale on Polish auctioning site:

http://www.dzafel.s3.pl/aukcje/auction.php?aukcja=38082265

The seller claims it's not a joke and if no one buys it (it's 2 millions złoty = 500 000 USD) it will be sold just as scrapmetal, and the ceramic thermal slabs will be available separately to buy there. The price doesn't include customs or transport :->

[edit] Removed Baikonur/Tyuratam note

Removed from article:

"...(more correctly called Tyuratam; the deception was intentionally performed by Soviet leaders in order to confuse Western intelligence agencies.)"

This doesn't belong here, it belongs at Baikonur Cosmodrome (and is actually already there). - Plutor 13:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also removed this aside:

"...when it was deorbited so that attention could be focused on the International Space Station, and so that it would not re-enter the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner the way Skylab did after plans to re-boost it with the Space Shuttle fell victim to unexpected program delays"

It's about Mir, and really belongs there. No reason to go into the history of Skylab on the Buran article. - Plutor 13:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.--Chairboy 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle in Bahrain

One Shuttle was found in Bahrain: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/23/shuttle.shtml Is seems to be the 002 (is that the 1.02? notations are confusing here)

--195.158.142.141 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Bahrain shuttle is NOT 1.02 (or '002') - It has been mistakenly identified. It's one of the test prototypes - specifically, it's the only one of the eight test models fitted with jet engines to allow it to take off for flight tests.


[edit] Suspicious edit?

I don't know much about this topic, but seeing as just after this article appeared on Slashdot the edit "15:13, 24 Sep 2004" appeared and changed "a capability common to the U.S. shuttle system" into "a capability not available in the U.S. shuttle system." Which of these are actually true? Haakon 15:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think some talk about Buran's automated landing procedures is warrented. The Shuttle also has an automated landing system and continues to this day. As a matter of fact, it looks like the Colombia pilot tried to take control of the shuttle a couple of seconds before Colombia broke up. So, was Buran's automated landing developed before the Shuttle's? Was it more automated?

Buran's automated landing system was developed after the Space Shuttle (just like the Buran itself). It was also more sophisticated, and could complete takeoff, orbit, deorbit, and landing with full automation, as it did in its only flight. The Space Shuttle systems, despite upgrades, require human intervention at key points in the flight, and landing is always done with a human at the controls. Whether this is because of pilot pride or technical issues has not been made entirely clear. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
User 'nautical' changed it back to suggest the US shuttle can land fully automated. This isn't accurate, but I can see how the text that was there might create the confusion, so I altered it to conform to the explanation in Jenkin's Shuttle.--Chairboy 08:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An-225 vs. Spruce Goose

The Spruce Goose is larger in every size dimension except one. MTOW or being in-service does not relate to it being the 'largest.' See also [1]. -Joseph (Talk) 18:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

The Spruce Goose *is* not anything. It does not exist. AN-225 is the largest aircraft in existence. Besides, who said that wingspan defines how large an aircraft is? MTOW does very much relate to it being the largest. --Liss 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because the Spruce Goose is in a museum doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Carnildo 20:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. It certainly exists. It has flown, and there's no reason it couldn't fly again. Certainly no worse than the second An-225. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Yes, it does exist, that was a bit of an overtstatement :) --Liss 07:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It flew for only 70 seconds, 20m off the ground. That is barely flying. The An-225 is still larger anyway.(preceding unsigned comment by YMB29 (talk • contribs) )
The criteria isn't "largest aircraft that flew more than 70 seconds", and the An-225 is a bit smaller. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not smaller. It is longer but has a shorter wingspan because its wings are swept back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.105.45.121 (talk • contribs) .
AKA, 'smaller'. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, wingspan does not mean everything, especially when it is swept vs. unswept.

[edit] TPS tiles optimal?

This paragraph was originally lifted verbatim from [2], and in any case is unsubstantiated. Judging by this picture (context: [3]) the tile layout is certainly not strictly optimal with respect to thermodynamics. The fluid flow, which anyway would vary with flight regime and attitude, would not exhibit such a zig-zagging discontinuity. It was undoubtedly a compromise among thermal protection, durability, manufacturability, maintainability, and cost (as would have been the U.S. design). —Fleminra 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting changes by 81.77.147.236/130.246.132.26 again. The Columbia incident was not caused by thermodynamic deficiencies of the intact TPS system. If anything, the problem was the tiles’ durability. If there is evidence that the Buran tile layout is more durable than the U.S. design (in addition to the unsubstantiated thermodynamic superiority), please cite the reference. —Fleminra 18:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I did a quick websearch, and found a suggestion that the silica ceramic tiles used by Buran were much more resilient than those on Columbia. However, the primary failure on Columbia was shedding huge lumps off of the external tank and impacting the leading edge of a wing; silica ceramic tiles aren't used on leading edges due to excessive temperatures, so it's unclear whether that's at all important. And, whilst we don't know whether the Energia sheds in the same way, they both use hydrogen and it requires extensive external insulation which is unfortunately likely to be susceptible to shedding ice or foam. And even though Buran made it down ok, I found a comment that Buran had extensive damage to the leading edges of the wings- the implication seems to be that something damaged them; although I don't know if it was diagnosed what caused this. Either way, it sounds really, really bad, and the claim that Buran was much better overall seems extremely suspect it sure doesn't look that way to me.WolfKeeper
All in all, I wouldn't like to bet that Buran was better on this front, the two systems are laid out very similarly, and in this case, even though many of the internals of Buran are quite different, it strongly seems to suggest that Buran would be vulnerable to the same general problem that downed Columbia- multi-kg masses impacting at mach 1 or so is probably a vehicle killer almost anyway you design it.WolfKeeper


[edit] Use of Buran as type class

The article is unclear whether Buran describes the whole class including Shuttle 2.01 which has an orphan article of its own. Both articles make 2.01 appear outside the 'Buran' class which I think applies to all five Soviet shuttles up to 2.03. In fact - worse - the Buran article contains a panel at the top where 'Buran' only appears to be a single craft. Am I right? If so, could an expert please correct the misleading articles? Shuttle 2.01 doesn't even mention the classname Buran! Benet Allen 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Buran was name of the entire class. I don't have exact reference, but f.e. [4] mentions the "Buran program" so it's only logical that it refers to the clase. Nikola 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buran program vs. Buran orbiter

I think we need to reform this article (perhaps coupled with modest changes in the articles for the other orbiters) so that there is one article for the program, and a separate one for the Buran orbiter. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a major overhaul IMO.SteelyDave 08:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph link

There was a link in the now-"Current status" section (was: Aftermath) to an image showing the aftermath of the collapse of the hanger holding the Buran (http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2169/burandamaged7jm.jpg), which I've removed as it provides no information about its source. Mike Peel 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ship Status table

Completed the table with extra information on most of the ships that are part of the Buran program. If possible, I'll expand this table on to separe articles. For now, there's a OK-GLI page that duplicates some text from this page. --Ricnun 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle Baikal

We seem to have a near-orphaned article, Shuttle Baikal, which probably wants to be linked to from this article - but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? --Mike Peel 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ptichka: finished or not?

This article disagees within itself about whether Ptichka is finished and unused, or unfinished. The Space Flight Burans box lists it as completed and unused, but the rest of the article lists it as incomplete. -LeoO3 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've updated all the status for consistency. I think it makes sense now. Ptichka is more than 95% completed but of course infinished. I think it's considered unused because the main crucial systems are installed (life support, for example).--Ricnun 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a buran shuttle on google earth

i don't know which one it is, but it is clearly visible at these coordinates in google earth:

55°43'43.37"N
37°35'48.22"E

86.61.83.114 11:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good eye! That's indeed OK-TVA in Gorky Park (as indicated in the article) Saintamh 18:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/r/Talk%7EBuran_program_06dd.html"