The Ruins of the Soviet Space Shuttles

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buddah6

One crashed on landing, but they flew quite a few flights and eventually ended the program after they met their goals.

I remember one broke it's back on landing and one was so damaged by heat and I thought that it was retired. If my memory serves, the next flight was with ablative skin and shutters on the windshield for heat protection. I should start googling this stuff rather relying on my worsening memory.

a reply to: buddah6

They did see some heat effects requiring repairs on several early flights. It wasn't dangerous to the craft, but was more than they expected.

I had to go double check myself.

Well didn't see this posted so here you go an interview with Valeriy Burdakov one of the men behind the Buran project.

rbth.com...

And here is the original interview...in Russian.

www.rg.ru...

Very interesting read.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RubberSky
America has a very active unmanned launch schedule lofting a wide variety of unmanned spacecraft. It is only in manned spacecraft that the US is temporarily relying on Russia.

That is true with the likes of Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corporation.... plus Nasa funding them. But seemingly odd that the Boeing’s CST-100 looks like an old Apollo capsule... fancy space shuttle rides is a thing of the past... in reality all one needs is a simple ride up to and back from space... funny how we got it right the first time around....

a reply to: imitator

The shuttle was necessary for building the ISS, as well as putting other things into orbit, such as Hubble.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey right on, but still all that could of been escorted on a cargo space rocket... and without crews.

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RubberSky
America has a very active unmanned launch schedule lofting a wide variety of unmanned spacecraft. It is only in manned spacecraft that the US is temporarily relying on Russia.

That is true with the likes of Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corporation.... plus Nasa funding them. But seemingly odd that the Boeing’s CST-100 looks like an old Apollo capsule... fancy space shuttle rides is a thing of the past... in reality all one needs is a simple ride up to and back from space... funny how we got it right the first time around....

There have long been two schools of thought when it comes to spacefaring technology. Single purpose, single use design and multi-purpose reusable design. Apollo was the apotheosis of the first school of thought, the Space Shuttle the best example to date of the latter. A British firm is working on a single-stage-to-orbit craft, Skylon, that lifts off horizontally as a jet then switches to rockets in the upper atmosphere.

a reply to: imitator

It could have, but would have required larger rockets than are currently in use for some of the modules or for the Hubble since it's in such a high orbit. The shuttle actually somewhat reduced costs because their was no development needed for a new rocket, and it was mostly reusable.

I think it is strange that the Buran and it's booster looks so much like the shuttle that flew much earlier. It's designer called the system awkward but went on to build it not improving it to his standards. Equally, it only flew once unmanned and was cancelled "due to money!" He went on to say the Buran was much more capable than the shuttle giving no proof. The Buran was said to be able to carry double the weight back to Earth as could the shuttle. This has not been proven in any way and from an engineering perspective would be suspect.

The Buran had to be superior to the shuttle due to the government spending 15 billion rubles on an inferior project. If it were so capable our astronauts would be riding the Buran to the ISS not the Soyut.

a reply to: buddah6

Three X-15 aircraft were built. They completed a combined total of 199 flights between 1959 and 1968 (multiple attempts to schedule a 200th flight were aborted, the final attempt cancelled due to snow at Edwards Air Force Base). They were the first aircraft to attain Mach 4, Mach 5, and Mach 6.

The first airframe, X-15-1, is on display in the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum. The second airframe, X-15-2, broke its back during a heavy landing, but was repaired. It later suffered extreme damage during a crash at Mud Lake, Nevada, but was rebuilt as the X-15A-2 with a lengthened fuselage for increased fuel capacity and the capability to carry external fuel tanks. It was retired following a maximum speed flight to 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) that resulted in substantial heat damage despite the application of an ablative coating. The X-15-2 is on display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The X-15-3 broke up and crashed shortly after reentry during one of the later flights, resulting in loss of the vehicle and pilot Maj. Michael J. Adams. This was the only fatality of the program.


There were 12 pilots representing NASA, the Air Force. and the Navy. Eight of these earned their astronaut wings for achieving flights above 50 miles altitude. Neil Armstrong is one of the few X-15 pilots who did not earn his astronaut wings during the program. All initial astronaut wings flights were achieved in the X-15-3. The highest flight reached 354,200 feet, an unofficial record. An official FAI world record of 314,750 feet was also recorded during the program.

a reply to: Kapusta

Can someone confirm or deny for me, that's a reinforced nose cone with heat plates?
Also what are the holes in the nose for?

a reply to: Shadowhawk

Thanks for the information! Those were the days of the "Right Stuff." I hope that we can return to that level of flight testing. Well, testing in the white...I don't know about the black flight testing.

a reply to: EA006

It may be thrusters.

a reply to: EA006

Orbital maneuvering thrusters. They're all around the vehicle for maneuvering in space.

did the buran caarry people toi orbit or was it just launched as a test flight, i think it might have been scrapped as too expensive for their budget compared to the soyuz single use rockets. you know everytime a shuttle reyurns you got to replace alot of very expensive stuff heat shielding tiles come to mind.

a reply to: seagull

The real shame is hidden behind "budget cuts" mantras.

Fact is, a worldwide decision not to , or CANNOT lift humans anywhere has been enacted, and will not be lifted anytime soon.

Sad, that people actually think they will be able to take space flights in the next 50 years.

When will they realize the tech, the money, has NOTHING to do with it.

a reply to: proteus33

The only orbital flight it made was unmanned.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Rather than point out that several crewed spacecraft are being developed by the United States, and that China shows every sign of further developing its spacefaring capacity, I'll give in and ask: why do you say that? (Already hearing the steady march of Aliens approaching.)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Kapusta

Money has been the bane of all space programs. Need more somewhere else? Cut the space program, no one will care. And the sad part is that no one even notices except the ones with an avid interest. Hell, by the end of the shuttle program, you couldn't even find the launches and landings on television, except the last couple seconds of them, and then only if other news didn't preempt them.

Just imagine what could have been completed with the $8.5 Trillion missing with the U.S. DOD….

Yuri Gagarin and a Possible early Buran Makeup in a wind tunnel back in the 60s ??