STS vs Energia/Buran

[spd405]

Given the benefit of hindsight, was would be the best hardware arrangement, the Shuttle Transport System arrangement or the Energia/Buran arrangement?

 

[giofx]

and btw its Space Transportation System.

 

[omegamogo]

In theory and on paper, the Energia/Buran wins by a landslide IMHO.<br />But I really don't think that the single launch of the Buran shuttle was enough to guage E/Bs true potential benefits and fallacies.

 

[davf]

Two things I liked about Energia / Buran were the fact that Energia was it's own launch vehicle (Buran was simply along for the ride as opposed to being an integral part of the system) so it could also be used to launch other payloads besides Buran, and that Buran could also fly unmanned. <br /><br />It was also planned to have the four Zenit-based Block 0 boosters on Energia <i> fly </i> back to the launch site down the road, too. Very interesting concept and one that would have been interesting to have seen pulled off (or at least, to see if it was possible). <br /><br />I believe questions remain (surely they have to with only two launches of Energia (and only one of those with Buran) ) regarding the integrity of the TPS, however.<br /><br />Finally, I think it may also be fair to say that NPO Energia (now RKK Energia) probably benefitted from the US experience with the Shuttle.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

There's Buran launching on video:<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=360&posts=4

 

[davf]

Thanks! I've actually been to that pad ('start'). It's a damn shame they launched in the evening and into cloud cover. I'm glad I got to see Buran before the roof landed on it.<br /><br />Did you (or anyone) ever send away for those CDs of videos and such from www.buran.ru?? I'm curious as to whether a) they thought them worth the price and b) if they actually showed up! Looked to have a lot of good info and media on them.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

There are some more videos of Buran - really trying to find them and get them on the server for downloading fun <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Awesome sound....is she flying into low cloud on that video?<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm not sure the two vehicles can really be compared qualitatively. Which is more cost-effective? Which is more reliable? Which is more powerful? Which is "better" really depends on what you're looking for. Personally, I don't think there's really enough data on Buran to rate it as superior to a Shuttle Orbiter. Energia performed very well in its three flights, however. (One test flight, one Buran flight, one flight to launch the military Polyus spacecraft -- that one failed due to a problem with the Polyus' booster.) And the Zenit boosters have done very well in other applications, proving themselves to be very capable medium-lift boosters.<br /><br />It does have the same side-mount problem as STS, unfortunately, and this is potentially magnified by the sheer size of the core stage; it is taller than the ET. It would also have the debris shedding problems.<br /><br /><b>It was also planned to have the four Zenit-based Block 0 boosters on Energia fly back to the launch site down the road, too. Very interesting concept and one that would have been interesting to have seen pulled off (or at least, to see if it was possible).</b><br /><br />They've been planning that for years since then; Baikal is the name for the flyback Angaras (modified Zenits). But it's never happened. I'm not sure it's really realistic.<br /><br /><b>Finally, I think it may also be fair to say that NPO Energia (now RKK Energia) probably benefitted from the US experience with the Shuttle.</b><br /><br />Somewhat, perhaps, but really it's a completely different beast. Its only superficially similar. It was meant to fit the same niche, and so ended up with a similar overall shape, but the strategies for solving the various engineering problems are quite different. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I guess both are technological triumphs, but neither really fulfilled their promise. At the very least the Shuttle brought back its main engines after every flight--this was tremendous help in improving the reliability and efficiency of the engines. Buran was made mainly of titanium and was much lighter and arguably could have survived the kind of accident that destroyed Columbia. But on the other hand it has been criticized as being nothing more than an expensive and elaborate payload shroud. <br /><br />STS was designed to launch and return to Vandenburg Air Force Base from a polar orbit while carrying a 15 by 60 foot spy satellite. As far as DOD was concerned anything else it could do was secondary.<br /><br />Buran was designed to counter the U.S. Shuttle and give the Soviets parity. <br /><br />Neither was really designed as a logical, cost effective space transportation system.

 

[davf]

Welcome back!<br /><br /><b> Energia performed very well in its three flights, however. </b><br />One quick clarification: there were only two flights: The first flight was the Polyus flight, the second was the Buran flight. <br /><br />While it may not have come across in my post, I do agree that you can't hold up Energia-Buran as the better implementation in PRACTICAL terms based on only 1 flight, as impressive as that flight was. And they certainly did seem to have similar issues with foam shedding (s_g alluded to that on a post a while back). Perhaps after a few dozen more flights, I'd be willing to be more definitive. <br /><br />Conceptually, I think Energia/Buran has the edge, though. It's not a matter of the superiority of Buran vs the Shuttle Orbiter as much as that of Energia as a launch system. The fact that Zenit is performing very well (now that most of the bugs have been worked out) is a testiment, I believe, to the flexibility of the original design. While Energia-M never flew, it was well along the development path and I think it could also be held up as another example of the flexibility of the original design.<br /><br />I'm sure we all remember the displays at Paris a few years ago of the Baikal boosters. Is this something they could develop now? I would be surprised. Like you, I'm dubious. Even aside from the technical issues, their financial status precludes the project. The Russians are romantics, however, and they do enjoy dreaming. It's not uncommon to see schemes that are better left as 'engineering studies' pitched as the next big project. But either way, it would have been interesting to see if they could have pulled it off... and at the end of the day, I think there is something to be said for pushing the boundaries a little and trying these sorts of things. <br /><br /><b> Somewhat, perhaps, but really it's a completely different beast. Its only superficially similar. It was meant to fit the same niche, and so ended up with a simil</b>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One quick clarification: there were only two flights: The first flight was the Polyus flight, the second was the Buran flight.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My memory is obviously failing me; I was thinking there had been an empty test launch (i.e. no live payload). I checked with russianspaceweb.com, and you are of course correct. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I've no idea why my mind fabricated a third launch. Thank you for correcting me!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm sure we all remember the displays at Paris a few years ago of the Baikal boosters. Is this something they could develop now? I would be surprised. Like you, I'm dubious. Even aside from the technical issues, their financial status precludes the project. The Russians are romantics, however, and they do enjoy dreaming. It's not uncommon to see schemes that are better left as 'engineering studies' pitched as the next big project. But either way, it would have been interesting to see if they could have pulled it off... and at the end of the day, I think there is something to be said for pushing the boundaries a little and trying these sorts of things.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The pictures of the Baikal models (1/4 scale, if I recall correctly) made me really wish I could see the Paris Air Show. It looks like a blast.<br /><br />Check out russianspaceweb.com's page about Baikal. It's got some nice pictures of the mockup from the Paris Air Show and goes into some detail about the plans for the rocket. It looks a little like a Tomahawk cruise missile, since it has wings and a jet engine; this puppy would be able to launch, serving as a strap-on booster for a larger rocket, separate, and then fly back to its launch site <i>under its own power</i>. The jet engine would give it a nice crossrange capability as well, although that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[shoogerbrugge]

correct me if Im wrong, but the Biakal was ment to be tossed out a flying An-124. Polet (an airline) was going to converse two aircraft for airlaunches. <br /><br />I believe the Air Start booster (the name of the Joint Venture) was supposed to be tossed out and after seperation it starts. But I doubt that they would actually fly it back, the wings where used to give the aircraft time to get the hell out of the way. The first stage would be rather high anyway for recovery, and with airstart they would usually lauch over water near the equator anyway

 

[syndroma]

As I heard, the Baikal project is suspended, if not closed. Too expensive, too much of payload loss - just don't pay it off.<br />It's a sad news, if it's true. I really like the beauty of the idea.

 

[CalliArcale]

I wouldn't be at all surprised. As it is, the more conventional Angara concept is having a tough time getting off the ground.<br /><br />re: air-launched Baikals....<br />They may have considered that, but at least the primary plan was to use them as strap-on boosters. Air-launch has some serious complications, especially for a liquid-fueled rocket. The only air-launched orbit-capable booster currently in operation (or *ever* in operation) is the solid-fueled Pegasus. The beauty of the solid fuel is that you don't need to have so many umbilicals to the rocket right up until launch, topping off the tanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The only air-launched orbit-capable booster currently in operation (or *ever* in operation) is the solid-fueled Pegasus<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There was another air-launched booster which may have delivered a satellite into orbit: Project Pilot <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[davf]

Excellent points regarding the market and Energia's plans. I will still believe it when I see it fly. They have had many other plans progress quite far but not make it to launch... maybe this will change that trend.<br /><br />The fly-backs for Energia would have also solved another issue: returning the spent stages to the launch site. The Zenit-based boosters as utilized certainly used parachute recovery however the problem then was: how do you transport them back to the launch site? Zenit was sized (as most Soviet / Russian boosters are) for the maximum size that can be transported on their rail system. Fetching and returning these boosters from the undeveloped steppe is not a trivial problem and I'm not sure they even tried to recover them from either of the first launches and have been unsuccessful over the years in determining if they did(despite the RD-170 being rated for 10 launches). Fly-backs would overcome these transportation issues.<br /><br />It's nice to see that RussianSpaceWeb has been updated! It appeared neglected for the longest time.<br /><br />BTW, the Analogue was available for sale a while back.<br /><br />Similar engines were considered for the Space Shuttle also but dropped due to weight. The MiG 105-11 was built with a jet engine in it, however.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mig10511.htm

 

[davf]

Antonov has/had some fanciful 'artists depictions' of just that. The site seems to be down now (the Antonov Airlines site...) but I'll post a link if it comes back up. <br /><br />Aha: Here it is in the An124 case. The An225 info page also mentions that it, too, can be used. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />http://www.antonov.com/products/air/special/AN-124as/index.xml

 

[davf]

That sounds absolutely nuts! LOL!

 

[shuttle_man]

"Check out russianspaceweb.com's page about Baikal."<br /><br />Did I read that right? 700mt to LEO???

 

[thinice]

No, you didn't. It's a liftoff mass.

 

[davf]

You are the Master of google! lol! I can't imagine what that must have handled like. Yikes!

 

[shuttle_man]

My bad, I'm getting old!

 

[publiusr]

http://www.k26.com/buran<br />also visit www.nasaspaceflight.com<br />and the Real Space Modeling section of<br />www.starshipmodeler.net<br />Buran vs. Dyna-Soar