Great BBC article on the Buran Orbiter

[Sean Aaron]

I'm shocked that they let the hangar get into such a state of disrepair that it literally fell apart and smashed the thing to bits.

Ah, what could have been:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7738489.stm

 

[jgdst]

Aye, that is a shame. It's always surprising to see the political and economic ramifications of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their ongoing struggle trying to fund and build their components for the ISS is just another example of this.

During the early years of the space race (and even during World War II), they always had better, more efficient rockets than NASA. If things had just played out a little differently, they probably could've run rings around NASA...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

If things had just played out a little differently, they probably could've run rings around NASA...

There's a really good science-fiction novel about this. Fellow Traveler by William Barton and Michael Capobianco would be an alternate history now, but when it was published in 1991 it was an interesting vision of what the Soviet Union could have done in the 1990's. The Soviets mount a manned mission to a Near-Earth Asteroid and divert it into Earth orbit for space industry purposes.

As for the Buran article, this paragraph stands out for me:

In the end, Kremlin bosses had committed to the monumental expense of money and human talent with only vague hopes that real tasks for the grandiose vehicle would emerge as it came online.

Which, unfortunately, parallels NASA's own space shuttle development. The idea was to make space access cheaper, but eventually, to justify it, NASA had to make things revolve around it that, in another era, wouldn't have required the shuttle. For example, was there any reason to launch Galileo from the shuttle's cargo bay?

And the Russians loved to build boosters. The United States is hung up on solid fuel boosters (which seems to be a major problem with Constellation in simulations), while the Russians built big, liquid-fueled monstrosities with serious lift capabilities.

If only... :/

 

[Marc]

And the Russians loved to build boosters. The United States is hung up on solid fuel boosters (which seems to be a major problem with Constellation in simulations), while the Russians built big, liquid-fueled monstrosities with serious lift capabilities.

If only... :/

I wonder if there's a safety factor though? Yes I know the about the O-ring on Challenger and that once lit the SRB's burn till burn-out but the U.S seems to have had a lot less hassle with solid rocket than the Russians with liquid fuel (N-1 anyone?)

 

[MANT!]

And the Russians loved to build boosters. The United States is hung up on solid fuel boosters (which seems to be a major problem with Constellation in simulations), while the Russians built big, liquid-fueled monstrosities with serious lift capabilities.

If only... :/

I wonder if there's a safety factor though? Yes I know the about the O-ring on Challenger and that once lit the SRB's burn till burn-out but the U.S seems to have had a lot less hassle with solid rocket than the Russians with liquid fuel (N-1 anyone?)

Saturn V was liquid fueled..
As for Solid Fuel being safer..I beg to differ..

as the following CATO shows..if solid fueled rockets loose their containment ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtkhYzIkCR0

the results are catastrophic....

 

[Allyn Gibson]

And the Russians loved to build boosters. The United States is hung up on solid fuel boosters (which seems to be a major problem with Constellation in simulations), while the Russians built big, liquid-fueled monstrosities with serious lift capabilities.

I wonder if there's a safety factor though? Yes I know the about the O-ring on Challenger and that once lit the SRB's burn till burn-out but the U.S seems to have had a lot less hassle with solid rocket than the Russians with liquid fuel (N-1 anyone?)

The problems with the Ares booster for Constellation seem to be instabilities, from uncontrolled flight to crashing into the launch gantry on takeoff.