Could Buran Ever Fly Again?

[Nicholander]

I've been wondering, after quickly creating some scenarios in Orbiter about some fictional Buran missions, would Buran every fly again? I think probably not, though I'm not an expert on that type of thing, So if it does somehow happen, I think either a private company would recreate a Buran (And Energia!) (Like Excalibur Almaz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_Almaz#Spacecraft), or the Russian Federation could somehow decide to restart the Buran program. What do you guys think? (That's why there's a poll)

(As I said, I don't know about this type of thing. So Sorry if this thread has caused you to face palm while think "Why does this person believe THAT about the Buran!?!?")

EDIT: I created A poll on a different website for (In the super unlikely event that it did happen) who would recreate the Buran: http://vote.pollcode.com/19985915 For Other, you should post a comment.

EDIT2: Doh! Just realized I typoed Ever! Sorry guys!

Edited August 9, 2014 by Nicholander
Realized my derp.

[Ralathon]

Why would anyone want to launch anything with a Buran/Spaceshuttle vehicle?

They're very impressive technologically, but they do all sort of crap that you won't need for commercial launches. They're not exactly a cost effective way to put things in orbit.

[Nicholander]

Well, from what I understand, the Buran was actually better the the shuttle in many ways, such as the more reusability. (The side boosters of the Energia could be more cheaply recovered from the Kazakhstani dessert then the SRBs from the Atlantic, and I think they planned for the main Energia core booster to be recoverable, though it would require reentry tiles)

EDIT: Perhaps you could look at this Buran-Shuttle comparison: http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/A_Comparison/a_comparison.html

Edited August 9, 2014 by Nicholander

[Ralathon]

Well, from what I understand, the Buran was actually better the the shuttle in many ways, such as the more reusability. (The side boosters of the Energia could be more cheaply recovered from the Kazakhstani dessert then the SRBs from the Atlantic, and I think they planned for the main Energia core booster to be recoverable, though it would require reentry tiles)

Reusability doesn't necessarily mean they're cheaper than throwaway boosters though. The space shuttle cost 18k per kg while an Ariane V can do it for 10.5k and a Falcon 9 runs at 4.1k.

Refurbishing and rebuilding craft takes time and highly skilled employees, something that is rather expensive compared to the factory workers that build a big dumb booster.

[Camacha]

Refurbishing and rebuilding craft takes time and highly skilled employees, something that is rather expensive compared to the factory workers that build a big dumb booster.

Why would people that refurbish a craft need to be higher skilled than people that build something from scratch? It makes little sense, both have requirements that mean disaster if you mess up. Even a simple rocket is still a rocket, you cannot put just any factory worker on that.

[Kryten]

Well, from what I understand, the Buran was actually better the the shuttle in many ways, such as the more reusability. (The side boosters of the Energia could be more cheaply recovered from the Kazakhstani dessert then the SRBs from the Atlantic...)

That's the theory. In reality, despite many launches of only slightly modified Energiya boosters as Zenit core stages, not one has ever been recovered.

Why would people that refurbish a craft need to be higher skilled than people that build something from scratch? It makes little sense, both have requirements that mean disaster if you mess up. Even a simple rocket is still a rocket, you cannot put just any factory worker on that.

It's two completely different kinds of work. Rocket construction is a lot easier to reduce to tasks on an assembly line than careful inspection and refurbishment.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Kryten

[Themohawkninja]

Could some Russian version of SpaceX get the blueprints for the program and make a usable version: Sure, I don't see why not.

Could said Russian SpaceX pull it off in a way that is economically worth it as opposed to just using the Soyuz, or building their own system like the the Falcon 9 w/ Dragon: No... probably not. Even though the Buran was more economical than the Shuttle, I doubt either are anywhere close to being as useful as Soyuz or the Falcon 9 w/ Dragon.

[Nicholander]

Kryten, they only flew the Energia's core twice, though the Zenit rocket uses modified Energia side boosters as it's core. And I think they where going to EVENTUALLY make the side boosters recoverable, but with the cancellation the Buran program and everything related to it, so went the Energia and it's reusability.

[Nicholander]

Could some Russian version of SpaceX get the blueprints for the program and make a usable version: Sure, I don't see why not.

Could said Russian SpaceX pull it off in a way that is economically worth it as opposed to just using the Soyuz, or building their own system like the the Falcon 9 w/ Dragon: No... probably not. Even though the Buran was more economical than the Shuttle, I doubt either are anywhere close to being as useful as Soyuz or the Falcon 9 w/ Dragon.

Hmmm... Like I said, I don't know a lot of stuff about the subject. So maybe you're right, but the Russian SpaceX could modify the Buran to make it cheaper. (I would put an example here, but I don't know one).

[Kryten]

Kryten, they only flew the Energia's core twice, though the Zenit rocket uses modified Energia side boosters as it's core.

Yes, had a brainfart, corrected. My point still stands however.

And I think they where going to EVENTUALLY make the side boosters recoverable, but with the cancellation the Buran program and everything related to it, so went the Energia and it's reusability.

This doesn't make any sense. If the stage was going to be reusable, and if as you propose that'd lead to significant cost savings, why stop development due to cancellation of a completely different rocket?

[cpast]

Well, from what I understand, the Buran was actually better the the shuttle in many ways, such as the more reusability. (The side boosters of the Energia could be more cheaply recovered from the Kazakhstani dessert then the SRBs from the Atlantic, and I think they planned for the main Energia core booster to be recoverable, though it would require reentry tiles)

EDIT: Perhaps you could look at this Buran-Shuttle comparison: http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/A_Comparison/a_comparison.html

Reusability of the external tank-like part was very different between Buran and Shuttle. The Shuttle ET was just a tank, while the Energia core was the rocket. Losing the Energia core is a much larger expense than losing the Shuttle ET, and no Energia cores were ever recovered.

Yes, had a brainfart, corrected. My point still stands however.

This doesn't make any sense. If the stage was going to be reusable, and if as you propose that'd lead to significant cost savings, why stop development due to cancellation of a completely different rocket?

The Soviet Union was having quite a lot of budget issues at the time (to go along with the existence issues it would soon face).

[Kryten]

The Soviet Union was having quite a lot of budget issues at the time (to go along with the existence issues it would soon face).

Timeline doesn't work. By the time Buran was finally cancelled, Zenit was being built and marketed from independent Ukraine.

[Nicholander]

cpast, they never recovered any cores because they hadn't developed the system, and the failure of the Soviet economy in the late 80's and early 90's drastically slowed down development, and development was ended in 1993.

[Moar Boosters]

There aren't enough missions which require a shuttle type craft.

Originally the space shuttle was supposed to build and service a giant space-station. Later the military figured a reusable fast turn-around spacecraft would be useful for replacing satellites in the event the Soviets started shooting them down. Buran was developed simply because the Soviets didn't want to be left behind in this regard.

The Russians have actually been more open about the miitary uses for their spacecraft. The US military labeled the space shuttle "not fit for purpose" after the challenger disaster, and the Buran never reached where they wanted it to get due to lack of funding.

When the cold war ended, they had no real reason to continue development even if they did have the funds. It's not an ideal craft for launching satellites or probes, and the soyuz is already one of the cheapest man-rated launch systems in existence.

[CaptainArchmage]

The Buran shuttle design worked once, so it could definitely work again. The Buran that flew was heavily damaged because of a hanger collapse more recently, though one other shuttle remains, unfinished.

The Buran isn’t actually required for launches though, because the main engines were attached to the Energia rocket rather than the shuttle. The Energia rocket could launch on its own and bring up a payload equivalent of the shuttle and more. There were many designs for alternative configurations to the Space Shuttle as well, but on Energia both the shuttle and the alternative were tested. The Energia rocket would not circularise the orbit though, and the non-Buran test spacecraft apparently did not orient itself properly for this orbital insertion. However, that was a failure on the part of the spacecraft launched, not the Energia rocket.

It would be better than anything we’ve had since the Saturn V in terms of payload, at least until stage 2 of SLS flies. I think the Russians have begun work on another heavy-lift system though.

[Nicholander]

Moar Boosters, it's not called the Soyuz. It's called the R-7, the R-7 is the LV, the Soyuz is a manned spacecraft.

CaptainArchmage, yeah I see that. The Energia itself was also a master piece, able to lift 100 tons to LEO, and would have given humanity the opportunity to launch huge things into space since the Saturn V, but even THAT was also canceled. Also, there are actually quite a few unfinished Burans, but the most finished one was sold to Kazakhstan. (Maybe the Russian SpaceX could then buy it from them? And that nearly finished one's name is Ptichka)

[cpast]

Moar Boosters, it's not called the Soyuz. It's called the R-7, the R-7 is the LV, the Soyuz is a manned spacecraft.

Incorrect. R-7, when it refers to a single rocket, refers only to an obsolete Soviet ICBM that was never really any good in that role. The R-7 family includes many Russian launch vehicles; the most numerous subfamily is the Soyuz family of rockets; Soyuz refers to: a family of manned spacecraft, a family of expendable launch vehicles, the obsolete original Soyuz manned spacecraft design, and the obsolete original Soyuz rocket. Russian rockets tend to get named after a payload they fly a lot of (e.g. Proton is so named because it flew the Proton series of scientific missions, Vostok is the family of rockets derived from and related to the LV for Vostok missions, etc.); Soyuz LVs are never referred to as R-7s, because the more descriptive name for the rocket family is the Soyuz family (R-7 is uselessly generic). For instance, a specific version might be a Soyuz-U, or a Soyuz 2.1a, etc.

Edited August 9, 2014 by cpast

[sp1989]

I think the trend with space craft is affordability and reusability. Although the Buran and Space Shuttle both might score top marks on reusability they just don't seem like affordable concepts anymore. I think heavy lift crafts like the aforementioned ships serve a great purpose building and servicing massive LEO projects like the ISS, it just doesn't make sense anymore. I would have loved to see the Buran really fly regularly and I really do miss the Space Shuttle they just don't make sense anymore. Now if we are talking about reusable spacecraft in terms of delivering crew and servicing things like the ISS I think the Dream Chaser is the future. Now we can have a Klipper vs Dream Chaser discussion if you want but lifting bodies like those make more sense. So to answer the thread question I don't think the Buran could fly again.

[Nicholander]

Incorrect. R-7, when it refers to a single rocket, refers only to an obsolete Soviet ICBM that was never really any good in that role. The R-7 family includes many Russian launch vehicles; the most numerous subfamily is the Soyuz family of rockets; Soyuz refers to: a family of manned spacecraft, a family of expendable launch vehicles, the obsolete original Soyuz manned spacecraft design, and the obsolete original Soyuz rocket. Russian rockets tend to get named after a payload they fly a lot of (e.g. Proton is so named because it flew the Proton series of scientific missions, Vostok is the family of rockets derived from and related to the LV for Vostok missions, etc.); Soyuz LVs are never referred to as R-7s, because the more descriptive name for the rocket family is the Soyuz family (R-7 is uselessly generic). For instance, a specific version might be a Soyuz-U, or a Soyuz 2.1a, etc.

Okay, but I think it's actually the "R-7 Soyuz", but just calling it the "Soyuz" would be like calling the Atlas V the "V".

[CaptainArchmage]

Moar Boosters, it's not called the Soyuz. It's called the R-7, the R-7 is the LV, the Soyuz is a manned spacecraft.

CaptainArchmage, yeah I see that. The Energia itself was also a master piece, able to lift 100 tons to LEO, and would have given humanity the opportunity to launch huge things into space since the Saturn V, but even THAT was also canceled. Also, there are actually quite a few unfinished Burans, but the most finished one was sold to Kazakhstan. (Maybe the Russian SpaceX could then buy it from them? And that nearly finished one's name is Ptichka)

There was supposed to be a reusable upgrade, so the rest of the rocket would fly back. It would still be a large cost, but once off. It wouldn’t necessarily have to fly that often unless they needed to fly a large number of very heavy satellites or bulk shipments.

I’ve seen a more recent attempt by the Russians to design a flyback booster for a smaller rocket, which would be quite helpful, and would preferably come first.

Technically the Russians had more excuses to stop running the Energia project than the US had to stop the Saturn V, because of the situation in their country.

They seem more willing to take equipment out of storage when the time is right, too. The engines from the N1 worked very well after being in storage for about 40 years, and while that project was cancelled, they had worked out and fixed the design flaws. The engines from the N1 - NK-33 - were taken out of storage and were exported to the USA, where they now power the Antares rocket, which launches the Cygnus spacecraft. For reference the NK-33 engines have performance close to that of the Mainsail in KSP, from 0.17 to 0.23.5 (except the NK-33 produced more thrust in vacuum, and has 1/5th the mass of the Mainsail).

There is also this news: http://rt.com/news/russia-booster-rocket-energia-817/

[Nicholander]

I think the trend with space craft is affordability and reusability. Although the Buran and Space Shuttle both might score top marks on reusability they just don't seem like affordable concepts anymore. I think heavy lift crafts like the aforementioned ships serve a great purpose building and servicing massive LEO projects like the ISS, it just doesn't make sense anymore. I would have loved to see the Buran really fly regularly and I really do miss the Space Shuttle they just don't make sense anymore. Now if we are talking about reusable spacecraft in terms of delivering crew and servicing things like the ISS I think the Dream Chaser is the future. Now we can have a Klipper vs Dream Chaser discussion if you want but lifting bodies like those make more sense. So to answer the thread question I don't think the Buran could fly again.

Yes, I see that cheap LV's are good, but I think over the Long-Term reusability wins out, even if it is implemented as fly-back stages and such.

[cpast]

Okay, but I think it's actually the "R-7 Soyuz", but just calling it the "Soyuz" would be like calling the Atlas V the "V".

No, calling it the "Soyuz" would be like calling the Atlas V the "Atlas" (Atlas V would be like Soyuz-U, for instance). R-7 is not any part of the name of the rocket, or of any other modern rocket which ultimately derives from the R-7 missile (calling a Soyuz an R-7 Soyuz would be like calling an Atlas V an SM-65 Atlas V). The rocket's name is just Soyuz-*version*.

[Nibb31]

There would be no point in flying the Buran (or the US Space Shuttle) again. NASA spent 30 years finding things for the Space Shuttle to do rather than looking at what's useful and using the most appropriate vehicle for the task. They are making the same mistake with SLS, being focused on the vehicle rather than on the mission.

Frequent launches are useful for cargo, but launching cargo doesn't need a super-heavy launcher and spaceplane. And manned spaceflight can be done for far cheaper without a spaceplane (see CST-100, Soyuz, Dragon...). There really isn't anything worthwhile that the Shuttle can do that can't be done cheaper with conventional launchers.

The only reason Buran ever existed was because the Americans had a Shuttle. The Russians knew that the Shuttle didn't make sense economically, but they figured that if America was spending so much money on it, then it must have had some hidden military purpose. So they cancelled their own Spiral program and diverted funding to Buran. If the Americans hadn't built the Shuttle, then Spiral would probably have been operational way before Buran.

[sgt_flyer]

I’ve seen a more recent attempt by the Russians to design a flyback booster for a smaller rocket, which would be quite helpful, and would preferably come first.

I think that would be the Baikal booster for Angara

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster)

Designed with foldable wings, landing gear and a jet engine to get back to an airstrip near the launch pad (intended to first fly in 2020)

Although it's not the first time the russians thought about boosters with foldable wings :

The Energia II Uragan concept would have also used reusable boosters with foldable wings :

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energia_HLV/energia_fly_back_booster.html

The core stage itself was interesting, by integrating the main fuel tank to the reentry vehicle, it would have a much lower density than a space shuttle on reentry - resulting in a much less agressive reentry, needing a much cheaper and easier to service Thermal Protection System - (kinda like what they plan to do with skylon's low density)

If we see one day a reusable shuttle concept coming back to life, it might be under this form

[cantab]

Considering a roof fell on it, I don't think it's likely to fly again. Except possibly on the back of an An-225 at an airshow, but even that's a stretch.