Have some Soviet Aerospace Konstruction!

[madd0ct0r]

Based In Khazakstan, it had cranes on its cranes to flip rockets around during construction.
Oh, and 600m was the launch site, so the whole thing can survive a rocket going boom on the pad.

go, see, belive.

https://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html

[Borgholio]

It's neat and sad at the same time to see the two abandoned Burans sitting there, covered in crap.

[Elheru Aran]

A really bad-ass video game level. Too bad it'd get crazy sniper-camped, though, with all those gantries.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

Times like this when I forget that LiveJournal is still a major thing in Russia. I also find the fact that that journal's owner is a Code Geass fan to be amusing.

In any case, my own thoughts mirror those of Borgholio's. Also, only one of those orbiters in storage was actually meant to fly; the other one is just an engineering mockup.

[SpottedKitty]

In any case, my own thoughts mirror those of Borgholio's. Also, only one of those orbiters in storage was actually meant to fly; the other one is just an engineering mockup.

It's worse than that — the one spaceframe that actually flew... once... for one orbit... unmanned... was crushed when a badly maintained hangar ceiling fell on it during a storm. I remember seeing the pictures that leaked out when the story broke on the old sci.space.shuttle Usenet newsgroup.

And now I'm depressed again. Buran wasn't much, but she flew.

[K. A. Pital]

Just the sad remains of what once was. The Soviet drive into space was horribly wrong-footed by the shuttle program and the decision to copy it, even if the copy was better in many ways. These semi-reusable ships were really a dead end.

[SpottedKitty]

These semi-reusable ships were really a dead end.

Not entirely; only the way it was done. One of the interesting might-have-beens of Shuttle development was a reuseable flyback booster — a big beast, about the size of the Energia launcher used for Buran, that would have been capable of returning to the launch site for refurbishment. It had the potential (if it worked) to be a huge time and money saver in the long run, but it would have been expensive to develop. Also, with this configuration, the orbiter itself would have been bigger, and would have needed a lot more engine than those dinky little OMS pods; that would have cut into the cargo space and left it unable to carry the really big payloads (ahem, NoSuchAgency spysats) that were being proposed to make use of all that lovely heavy lift capacity. The final result was a compromise, as usual, between "what we want to build" and "what they're willing to pay for".

[The_Saint]

Energia in it's potential Uragan version was, I believe, planned to be reusable with glide return for the core and boosters.

[orbitingpluto]

The Soviet Shuttle was better than the American one in some ways, but the best part about it wasn't Buran, but the Energia that moved it most of the way to orbit. Had the money been there, there could have been a different upper stages to allow almost 100 metric tons of not-Shuttle to LEO. Out of a parking orbit, with one upper stage design they could have been able to place payloads over 15 tons into geostationary, and almost 10 tons in Low lunar orbit; and much more to both if the all the upper stage has to do is create the transfer orbit. There was plans to soft land the boosters with parachutes and rockets to reuse them with regular Energia, and like The_Saint said, in the form of Uragan even the core would be reused.

Ah, but the money ran out after two tests, and in the end, it wasn't such a good idea after all. It was expensive at the very least, and a Shuttle, while useful if you really need to retrieve something or want a platform for in-space repair work, is a questionable if not dangerously flawed vehicle(the Russians might have fixed more than I know about). Developing payloads that are Energia-sized is expensive as well, and those costs go on top of simply maintaining the launcher, and obviously won't fit on anything smaller, so choosing to develop them locks you into maintaining Energia and it's infrastructure. It was too much in too many ways.

[Elheru Aran]

What about lifting several smaller payloads at once, rather than just the one big payload? Or would assembling those be just as much a pain as developing one big payload?

[SpottedKitty]

Had the money been there, there could have been a different upper stages to allow almost 100 metric tons of not-Shuttle to LEO.

An interesting comparison; nothing has been capable of that sort of lift capacity since Apollo 17 flew. Know what you can do with 100 tons in LEO? When an Apollo made its Trans Lunar Insertion burn, it took the Saturn third stage with it. Even the Shuttle could only haul half of that into orbit — and that includes the weight of the orbiter itself.

[K. A. Pital]

What about lifting several smaller payloads at once, rather than just the one big payload? Or would assembling those be just as much a pain as developing one big payload?

The problem with lifting many small payloads is orbital assembly. Good enough if the thing has to stay in orbit where it can be serviced, but apparently not so good for long-range space missions.

[Elheru Aran]

What about lifting several smaller payloads at once, rather than just the one big payload? Or would assembling those be just as much a pain as developing one big payload?

The problem with lifting many small payloads is orbital assembly. Good enough if the thing has to stay in orbit where it can be serviced, but apparently not so good for long-range space missions.

I was thinking more along the lines of smaller satellites and mission packages, brought up all at once on the Soviet shuttle. But something like trying to put together a space station or whatever, yeah, that is an issue.

[orbitingpluto]

What about lifting several smaller payloads at once, rather than just the one big payload? Or would assembling those be just as much a pain as developing one big payload?

The problem with lifting many small payloads is orbital assembly. Good enough if the thing has to stay in orbit where it can be serviced, but apparently not so good for long-range space missions.

I was thinking more along the lines of smaller satellites and mission packages, brought up all at once on the Soviet shuttle. But something like trying to put together a space station or whatever, yeah, that is an issue.

Multiple satellites can be hard to plan and schedule, but launching two or more at a time has been done, both with the Ariane 4 and 5, and the Shuttle itself. It works, though applying the same model to Energia for comsats would make scheduling problems worse(you have more ducks to get into row), as well as being a technical problem for figuring out how to stack up the (probably) multiple upperstages in a fairing and support them. Buran, being like the Shuttle, should have similar system of mounting points in the bay to attach the hardware to- a case where a Shuttle provides some value, though 90 tons for a reusable fairing doesn't quite add up.

Other payloads though, depend on what those other payloads are- station parts being the obvious thing I think of. I suppose scheduling won't be any less of a problem, though if it's all from one agency it might not be as bad as getting two satellites from different companies made by different builders together. If your launching stuff originally built for smaller rockets, Energia has the mass to allow you to fill them up with more equipment and supplies- likely because the you've run of out fairing volume before getting near it's max mass to your particular orbit. FWIW, I only know this due to spending time with an Energia addon for the Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator- turns out that the people launching stuff on lesser rockets made their payloads as light as possible while also taking advantage of the volume in their fairings. They reduce the downside of being stuck with only 15-20 metric tons to work with, and inadvertently make it hard to for Energia to swoop in and steal payloads from the smaller launchers.

And because you launched unmanned, you have to send a person or teleoperated robot(may be banned or frowned upon by local astronaut unions) to put things together latter. Using Buran means you can have your astronauts launch with your payload, use the same station modules that would go up on a Proton, but then your launching just 20-25 tons on a 100 ton launcher. Buran(like the Shuttle) makes for a great platform for EVAs, but you could cover your station parts in handholds and other EVA aids, and launch an arm as well, and get almost the same benefit without a large rocket and an expensive shuttle. You'd loose out on being able to bring up a EVA team and their support, as well as another arm, and a bay for tools and equipment, but it would be cheaper.

Or you can skip putting together a bunch of smaller things and build what you need into one monolithic payload. Which can be expensive, and locks you into launching on Energia, but at least you can get the best possible use out of Energia without having to deal with things tailored for other rockets.

Had the money been there, there could have been a different upper stages to allow almost 100 metric tons of not-Shuttle to LEO.

An interesting comparison; nothing has been capable of that sort of lift capacity since Apollo 17 flew. Know what you can do with 100 tons in LEO? When an Apollo made its Trans Lunar Insertion burn, it took the Saturn third stage with it. Even the Shuttle could only haul half of that into orbit — and that includes the weight of the orbiter itself.

Not quite. A Shuttle wet weighs around 110 metric tons(shuttle weights varied, with newer Shuttles getting lighter due to improvements). If you aim of the lowest possible orbit directly eastward(not too smart or useful, but makes payload numbers higher), the Shuttle could take about [ur=http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_li ... guide.pdfl]25 tons of payload(section 3-2)[/url]. While a Shuttle will burn off some of RCS propellent during ascent, and they didn't fill the tanks to the brim on max payload flights, it still comes to 120- to maybe 130 tons, depending on how much RCS prop you could take along and how low an orbit still qualifies. So counting the Shuttle as payload, it nearly equals the Saturn V's LEO payload. Nothing to brag about, since most of that was Shuttle, and part of the time the Shuttle wasn't fully laden with payload. The proposed Shuttle-C would have put that muscle to use, but that never got off paper, until Constellation, and then it was bungled to hell. Even the SLS, which is better than a the stupid Ares V, is a bit of a failure cause the best part of Shuttle-C is reusing Shuttle components, most of which where scrapped or mothballed years ago. Where we serious about getting a heavy lifter made from the Shuttle parts bin, we should moved in on that when the production was still ongoing. Now it's like resurrecting the Saturn V. And this is exactly reason that Energia was so good, it was built from the start to be able to be flown shuttle-less. If you really wanted the Buran, you could fly it, but it didn't stop you from using the rocket underneath.