Cosmonaut: Soviet space shuttle was safer than NASA's - Polidicks

[quote=New Scientist] On 15 November 1988, the Soviet Union stunned western observers by launching [URL="http://www.astronautix.com/articles/buran.htm"]Buran[/URL], its clone of the NASA space shuttle, into low Earth orbit. After circling the globe twice, the uncrewed spacecraft – its name means "blizzard" – flew to an impressive precision runway landing in Baikonur, Kazahkstan. Much was expected of the spacecraft but it never flew again. Despite pressure from the [URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988 - 3356.html?search=buran"]cosmonaut corps[/URL] itself the craft was not developed into a human-carrying craft and was [URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989 - 2182.html?search=buran 1989"]scrapped[/URL]. But what if it had not been? As the US shuttle [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128203.700-farewell-shuttle-now-the-space-race-takes-off-again.html"]faces its last mission[/URL], we asked veteran cosmonaut [URL="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/kotov-ov.html"]Oleg Kotov[/URL], who has spent 359 days on the International Space Station in two missions, what happened to Buran – and how it may have improved on the US design. [B][/B]New Scientist: After the cold war, why didn't Russia maintain [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022971.900-raising-the-dead.html"]its shuttle programme?[/URL] Oleg Kotov: We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses. The idea was to drop weapons from orbit? Yes, absolutely. A shuttle is particularly useful for this because it can change its orbit and trajectory – so an attack from it is almost impossible to protect against. But the need for such military applications ended. Even so, could Buran not have helped Russia build its Mir space station and later the ISS? Our approach is different: we didn't want to deliver huge objects like space station modules into space because, historically, Russian space modules are self-powered and guided by their own navigation systems. They use their own thrusters to get to the station and dock there. The American concept is different: they use the space shuttle to deliver unpowered modules that are then fitted to the ISS using the power of the robot arm, for instance. That's just not the way we do it. Why was Buran's first flight uncrewed? The idea was to test new systems so that it could fly if necessary in a completely automatic mode. Later on the same technology was transferred for use in our commercial aeroplanes; for auto-landing in bad weather, for instance. If it had been extended to a crewed system, in what ways would Buran have differed from NASA's shuttle orbiter? In terms of escape systems it would have allowed all of a crew to escape at any stage of the flight; even on the launch pad there was an escape pod. The NASA shuttle crew does not have this opportunity. Buran had ejector seats for all crew members. And that includes those sitting in the mid-deck, who had seats that ejected sideways. As it was clearly based on the US shuttle, would Buran have suffered from dangerous external tank foam loss as the shuttle Columbia did? No. The shape of the spacecraft might have been the same but the operational idea for Buran was absolutely different. This was because we had no external tank: the Buran orbiter was attached to an [URL="http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm"]Energia rocket[/URL], not a tank. And that rocket needed no foam on its surface. Why was that the case? The NASA shuttle uses an external tank to feed cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen to the main engines on the orbiter. But the Buran orbiter had no main launch engines of its own: they were below the Energia rocket, which could also have up to four solid rocket boosters strapped to it. Only a small part of the Energia rocket needed foam insulation – but we put that on the inside, so it was always safely inside the structure. Is NASA right to retire the space shuttle? Yes. It's a very good decision to end shuttle flights and to focus instead on developing their new space vehicles. The shuttle programme is pretty expensive to run. And in between, while Soyuz is indeed old, it is at least a reliable vehicle.[B][I][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/I][/B][/quote][B][I][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B] Source: [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-soviet-space-shuttle-was-safer-than-nasas.html"]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-soviet-space-shuttle-was-safer-than-nasas.html [/URL][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/I][/B][quote] New Scientist: After the cold war, why didn't Russia maintain [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022971.900-raising-the-dead.html"]its shuttle programme?[/URL] Oleg Kotov: We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses. [/quote][B][I][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][I][B] HOLY FUCK.[/B][/I][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/I][/B]

What so unexpected? I am pretty sure Russia had a task to use anything as a nuclear weapon. It's just how it worked. You don't build a few thousand nuclear warheads with no forms of delivery, you know.

Always nice to know that even though they wanted to use it to get into space specifically, it was still combat ready.

but in soviet russia, NASA's shuttles are safer. who do i believe :psyduck:

I think the Cosmonauts deserved something safer after Vostok and Voskhod, to be fair. I guess they got that in Soyuz but by the sound of it, the Soviet space program really got much more renewable and a lot less dangerous after they lost the race to the moon.

I think it's cool all crew members could eject if necessary.

This has been known for a while now. The Buran was much more efficient, but the Soviet Union and then the newly formed Russia had no means of maintaining such a program. It's a damn shame. Imagine what would happen had there been competition between both nations. Now Americans have to use Russian rockets to get into space. Oh the irony.

This is news? The Buran did something in 1988 NASA only accomplished last year, a fully unmanned mission [b]on it's first and only launch[/b].

So they really could nuke stuff from orbit.

[QUOTE=gufu;30984588]What so unexpected? I am pretty sure Russia had a task to use anything as a nuclear weapon. It's just how it worked. You don't build a few thousand nuclear warheads with no forms of delivery, you know.[/QUOTE] [B]YOU DON'T GET TO THIRTY THOUSAND NUCLEAR BOMBS WITHOUT MAKING A FEW DELIVERY SYSTEMS.[/B] :v:

It's kinda ironic and sad that Russia's most advanced piece of technolgy (at least then) got destroyed by a hangar collapse due to poor construction. Like a distant metaphor of the Soviet Union.

[QUOTE=gufu;30984588]What so unexpected? I am pretty sure Russia had a task to use anything as a nuclear weapon. It's just how it worked. You don't build a few thousand nuclear warheads with no forms of delivery, you know.[/QUOTE] I kind of figured they would launch them like North Korea, Via Trebuchet

A spaceplane is a ridiculously inefficient way to deliver warheads. It's a bigger target than a MIRV, costs many times more to launch than an ICBM, and the ability to change it's orbit enroute to target is very, VERY limited. Suborbital bombing runs are a pipe dream and accomplish nothing that ICBMs can't do.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30996302]A spaceplane is a ridiculously inefficient way to deliver warheads. It's a bigger target than a MIRV, costs many times more to launch than an ICBM, and the ability to change it's orbit enroute to target is very, VERY limited. Suborbital bombing runs are a pipe dream and accomplish nothing that ICBMs can't do.[/QUOTE] Unless its war and they're really desperate.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30996302]A spaceplane is a ridiculously inefficient way to deliver warheads. It's a bigger target than a MIRV, costs many times more to launch than an ICBM, and the ability to change it's orbit enroute to target is very, VERY limited. Suborbital bombing runs are a pipe dream and accomplish nothing that ICBMs can't do.[/QUOTE] You won't have the warheads appearing on radar before it's too late. It would have been the equivalent of an extra-atmospheric stealth bomber.

You guys know that the US space shuttle was designed with the same ideas, right? Literally every documentary I have ever watched on the US space program has mentioned that at least once. I don't see how it's a suprise that the Soviets designed their shuttle with the same idea.

[QUOTE=gufu;30984588]What so unexpected? I am pretty sure Russia had a task to use anything as a nuclear weapon. It's just how it worked. You don't build a few thousand nuclear warheads with no forms of delivery, you know.[/QUOTE] That wasn't unexpected. What was unexpected was the Russians making anything safe.

God damnit Soviets seriously got shit done back in the days, thought it was good that the Soviet Union collapsed and many nations got their freedom, but when thinking how far we would be if the Arms race would have continued, it's kind of a pity.

[QUOTE=HeavyGuy;30995208]So they really could nuke stuff from orbit.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;_mDFwJL2Xus]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mDFwJL2Xus[/video] Replace the background with a USSR flag.

Bullshit article. Buran flew exactly once, and it was off the back of a cargo plane. They have no fucking clue how safe or dangerous their ship was.

Well, at least the NASA satellite is armed in case of an attack by angry aliens. :v:

[QUOTE=Ridge;31000017]Bullshit article. Buran flew exactly once, and it was off the back of a cargo plane. They have no fucking clue how safe or dangerous their ship was.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)#Flight_into_space[/url]

It was still a vertically launched space craft with the aerodynamics of a brick. Can't we all agree that shuttles are a waste of goddamn time. Spending a mountain of fuel to launch several thousand pounds of cargo into space is a terrible idea regardless of whether or not the module is reusable. But here we are, reverting back to strapping humans to the front of an ICBM and launching them. Pathetic. Fucking pathetic.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31001117]It was still a vertically launched space craft with the aerodynamics of a brick. Can't we all agree that shuttles are a waste of goddamn time. Spending a mountain of fuel to launch several thousand pounds of cargo into space is a terrible idea regardless of whether or not the module is reusable. But here we are, reverting back to strapping humans to the front of an ICBM and launching them. Pathetic. Fucking pathetic.[/QUOTE] We need to stick them in an F-104 bolted onto an ICBM...that would be a man within a missile mounted to a missile. Epic.

This has been known for years. The Buran was an incredible spacecraft and if it had been continued we wouldn't be where we are today, with little to no competition for space.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30996302]A spaceplane is a ridiculously inefficient way to deliver warheads. It's a bigger target than a MIRV, costs many times more to launch than an ICBM, and the ability to change it's orbit enroute to target is very, VERY limited. Suborbital bombing runs are a pipe dream and accomplish nothing that ICBMs can't do.[/QUOTE] I thought that there was a universal agreement among countries not to militarize space.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31000017]Bullshit article. Buran flew exactly once, and it was off the back of a cargo plane. They have no fucking clue how safe or dangerous their ship was.[/QUOTE] Nice reading, it actually went into space. Poor ridge is butthurt American didn't do that.

Never doubt Russian Engineering.

[QUOTE=amute;31005969]Nice reading, it actually went into space. Poor ridge is butthurt American didn't do that.[/QUOTE] wah? are you saying the American shuttles never went to space?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;31010558]wah? are you saying the American shuttles never went to space?[/QUOTE] no