Why Russian cosmonauts never landed on the moon.

[XCV330]

Yep, I'd read about that. It's kind of eerie if you think about it, that something could look so similar yet be so different in its systems and built by a foreign power. I've only heard of it recently, and was amazed at the whole story of the program.

There was a lot of "borrowing" of ideas then, and now. I'm sure we won't know a lot of it, ever, nor should we, but its fascinating. Whatever steps the soviets took to appropriating the Shuttle's design, NOTHING is as fun as the tale of when they had one of lunar probes .. well I'll let you read if you ever want to

https://www.popsci.com/cias-bold-kidnapping-soviet-spacecraft

 

[Owain Taggart]

Whatever steps the soviets took to appropriating the Shuttle's design, NOTHING is as fun as the tale of when they had one of lunar probes .. well I'll let you read if you ever want to

Wow, that's an amazing story. It must have been particularly harrowing. And to think, they could have been stopped by a single piece of tape!

 

[diankra]

I don't think there was ever anything to the idea of resurrecting Buran. Certainly the US had/has no interest in it. In 2011 NASA was transitioning from Constellation to "Program of Record" and the SLS. Helping another country rebuild a launch system that was designed for weaponizing space (see Polyus, the real reason for Energya rocket) seems problematic?

There were rumors the Buran landed hard and the airframe was damaged on landing, but I doubt that anyone who knows for certain will say. It was a fascinating if odd system. If they'd had time and money they might have designed a shuttle that looked very different but they "borrowed" aerodynamic data from the STS program and just used that. (you can see the direction they were going for a spaceplane prior to Buran by looking at Bor4) Easier that way. In any case it was able to fly remotely, something the STS fleet never could.

If they'd had their way, Buran fleets would have helped build and crew Mir 2, an ambitious follow on to the original Mir. But instead the work that did go into Mir 2 found a place aboard ISS. There would be no ISS without Mir 2. It's not impossible to imagine an Energya multi-launch program being able to finally get them to the Moon, but obviously that did not economically work out. The main problem for Energya/Buran was that it was still a throwaway system. Only the launcher was reused so there would be no economic savings to use it, vs Protons or the (then) proposed Angara family of launch vehicles.

Soyuz continued on with continual upgrades and, until whatever temporary stand-down will have to occur over the incident this month, it was one of two active human spacecraft, the other being Shenzhou which is not flown very often. The Shenzhou itself is based in many ways off Soyuz.

The similarity between Buran and the shuttle orbiter is mainly down to 'form follows function'. The Shuttle had that design because the DoD specified certain capabilities in terms of payload weight, size and cross-range capacity. And the Soviet military had the attitude of "If the US military want it, we need it too."

 

[XCV330]

The similarity between Buran and the shuttle orbiter is mainly down to 'form follows function'. The Shuttle had that design because the DoD specified certain capabilities in terms of payload weight, size and cross-range capacity. And the Soviet military had the attitude of "If the US military want it, we need it too."

That's true, but if you were going to build a space plane to ride atop a mega booster, side-mount might not be your first choice unless you had engines astern. During Constellation, NASA relooked at the whole idea of side mount on their proposed heavy lift (and again with SLS) and just like with Shuttle-C the idea went nowhere.

 

[diankra]

That's true, but if you were going to build a space plane to ride atop a mega booster, side-mount might not be your first choice unless you had engines astern. During Constellation, NASA relooked at the whole idea of side mount on their proposed heavy lift (and again with SLS) and just like with Shuttle-C the idea went nowhere.

There was an interim shuttle proposal to put the orbiter on top of a modified Saturn1-C. Didn't go far, but...

 

[E-DUB]

A lot of the impetus behind the Buran resulted from old Soviet-style interagency rivalry. And while they do look (very) similar, under the skin they were very different birds.

 

[XCV330]

There was an interim shuttle proposal to put the orbiter on top of a modified Saturn1-C. Didn't go far, but...

Sad. It wouldn't have had the kind of ice strike that took out Columbia. Or the o-ring failures that did in Challenger.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Sad. It wouldn't have had the kind of ice strike that took out Columbia. Or the o-ring failures that did in Challenger.

I wouldn't be so sure about safety from ice strike after looking at the proposed configuration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

 

[XCV330]

I wouldn't be so sure about safety from ice strike after looking at the proposed configuration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

Oh, you're right. I haven't seen that one. Yeah that would have the same problem. MAybe it was a Chrysler design i was looking at once. it was mounted atop the stack. I don't know whether Saturn could have actually managed a sidemount load anyway while using common bulkheads.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There were a lot of alternative designs for shuttle launch systems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_launch_system_designs

IIRC the shuttle ended up a lot bigger and heavier than it probably should have been due to cross-range capability and other demands from the USAF.

 

[XCV330]

There were a lot of alternative designs for shuttle launch systems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_launch_system_designs

IIRC the shuttle ended up a lot bigger and heavier than it probably should have been due to cross-range capability and other demands from the USAF.

Who then bailed on it, and their Vandenburg launch site after the loss of Challenger.

 

[diankra]

I wouldn't be so sure about safety from ice strike after looking at the proposed configuration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

Yeah, it would still have had the same orbiter next to a tank design, but with a S1C rather than the SRBs as a 'first stage'.

 

[diankra]

A lot of the impetus behind the Buran resulted from old Soviet-style interagency rivalry. And while they do look (very) similar, under the skin they were very different birds.

One of the big ironies is that the US asked for RFPs from multiple companies, but then put all its money behind the winning bid, whereas the 'central control' USSR had multiple design bureau running rival projects long after one had been chosen for the role.

 

[XCV330]

Yeah, it would still have had the same orbiter next to a tank design, but with a S1C rather than the SRBs as a 'first stage'.

S1C didnt have the insulation on the outside. you can see in launch videos it sheds ice terribly.

 

[publiusr]

There were rumors the Buran landed hard and the airframe was damaged on landing, but I doubt that anyone who knows for certain will say. .

It was a true space transportation system. EELV class strap-ons, so no O-ring woes, hydrogen engines under what would be the ET of our shuttle--so no oxygen ramp foam problems. I think Buran rode piggyback, not underslung anyway. Without an orbiter, Energiya was an SLS class LV. Modularity to the max.

By having the big hydrolox engines under the Energia core block--the orbiter was simpler.

This is what the American shuttle should have been. I would have liked to have seen different orbiters. A large lifting body, a waverider, a Faget straight wing, etc.


Now, in terms of the BFR...

I don't trust composites. Both BFR, and BFS are pretty much huge COPVs in their own right, so that worries me a bit.

I've often wondered about a reusable Saturn IB type design--just scaled up.

Each metal tank holds only one type or propellant. The longer landing legs fold up into the gaps between the tanks. Each tank can slide past the others in case it comes down a bit hard--so as to avoid punch throughs. The bits holding everything together are designed in such a way as to be deformable. That way--if something breaks--it breaks where I want it to break--with said bracket designed be be swapped out.