Could Buran Ever Fly Again?

[Chris P. Bacon]

The only reason I see to bring back a Space Shuttle/Buran type design would be if we found some need to return large payloads from orbit. I'm not sure if another re-usable spacecraft design could do it better, but for a long time the shuttle was the only thing that could bring back about as much as it could send up. However, this would require us to drag some asteroids into orbit that we might like to mine for precious metals, or an orbital manufacturing industry, neither of which seem in our near future. Russia is planning to detach their segments of the ISS in a decade when the station's life is up, for their "Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex" but as far as I can tell, its planned to be more of an assembly/way-station for interplanetary and lunar missions. But who knows, maybe they'll find an industry for something needed on Earth that can only be manufactured in space, and we'll see a Buran type shuttle ferrying large industrial payloads up and commercial goods back down.

Kinda unrelated, but a wild proposal by NPO Energia for a use for the remaining Buran test airframes http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ks.htm

Edited August 9, 2014 by Chris P. Bacon

[Nicholander]

Cantab: I think they then dismantled the one which flew into space after the accident, and if you don't know it's name was "Snowstorm".

cpast: *Sigh* Calling it the R-7 Soyuz is correct. For example, look at the similarities between the original R-7 that launched Sputnik and nuclear war-heads, and the original Atlas, both the Mercury and the ICBM. Both are distantly related to there modern versions, the R-7 Soyuz-U and the Atlas V, but they both have some small similarities. The R-7 still has the basic first stage with 4 side boosters, and the Atlas, well... The first one was a stage and a half, and now it's completely changed, and the only thing similar being the diameter of the core booster. If you say that it's called the Soyuz because it's so different then the original, then why is the Atlas V called the Atlas though it's almost completely different then the one which shot the Mercury astronauts into orbit? And in comparison, the R-7 Soyuz-U and the R-7 Semroyka/Sputnik are MUCH more related.

[Kryten]

cpast: *Sigh* Calling it the R-7 Soyuz is correct.

According to who? The manufacturer refers to it solely as; Soyuz, Soyuz-[insert variant name here] or by the GRAU designation (11A511XX for original and 14A1X for Soyuz-2). R-series designations are used solely for missiles; as has been stated upthread, it'd be like calling the Atlas V the SM-65 Atlas V. Even the original booster for Sputnik was Sputnik-PS or 8K71PS, never R7-anything.

Cantab: I think they then dismantled the one which flew into space after the accident, and if you don't know it's name was "Snowstorm".

The accident dismantled it. It wasn't exactly a lightly-built building, and the roof was heavy enough to completely destroy it.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Kryten

[Nicholander]

Kryten, this discussion of what the R-7 is called is pointless, but to me, calling the R-7 Soyuz just the "Soyuz" Makes as much sense as calling the Saturn V the "Apollo". Argument over.

[Kryten]

Argument over.

How old are you?

[Nicholander]

Why the heck is that important? I just want a way to end the discusion. Please, just let me do play KSP in peace with out having to alt-tab out constantly to check on a discussion about the name of the R-7 Soyuz/Soyuz LV. I may have said it in a stupid way because I was annoyed and stressed. So just please, forget the discussion about the name of the LV, or the thread might be blocked. Please.

[sal_vager]

Semantics, rather pointless things to argue over I'm sure you'll all agree

[TeeGee]

I don't think using shuttles for cargo is feasible right now. Their payload to orbit isn't good, their maintenance costs are astronomical and they are very unsafe craft. BUT, if/when we can develop better technologies in the science of reusable spacecraft such as extremely low maintenance heat shields, much stronger rocket engines and higher ISP fuels, maybe someday we could return to using them. But UNTIL then, we should use disposable rockets.

IF the shuttle was a "build it once, never service it again" spacecraft it would have been an excellent spacecraft cost wise. That's assuming the engines, SRB's and orbiter came back in pristine condition every time. Maybe next time whoever uses shuttle like spacecraft could think like Spacex and use LRB that return to KSC after staging for immediate reuse. All that would have been expended was the hydrolox and its tank.

[Nicholander]

Yeah, good point TeeGee. Almost all of the posts say that a shuttle like spacecraft would be pointless and a waste of money, and there right. It's just that I got an idea while making some Orbiter scenarios and I though that I might post a thread about it.

[cpast]

Shuttles are really good for one thing: returning a large payload to Earth. That's something that can really only be done via a shuttle-type craft (that we know of). The issue is it doesn't seem like that's all that useful a thing to do.

[Nicholander]

Or, you could have a large spacecraft with a heat shield and parachutes that docks/attaches itself to the bottom of the spacecraft, deorbits, reenters, and then deploys the chutes.

[Camacha]

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.

I will ask you again: what makes you think that there is not a lot of careful inspection when you are assembling a rocket? You are seeing a difference that simply is not there. Building a rocket is not slapping some parts together and hoping she will fly, or even inspecting your work once. There is a whole lot of inspecting and validation to be done. Nothing gets launched without making sure it is air, space and launch worthy.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Camacha

[Kryten]

I will ask you again: what makes you think that there is not a lot of careful inspection when you are assembling a rocket?

The 2013 Proton failure, and it's antecedents. Assembly-line work, and rocket construction is no exception, is typically dependent on inspection of components beforehand and basically assuming the workers have done their job properly.

[Camacha]

rocket construction is no exception

I am going to tell you for the third time it is. Well, maybe not an exception as there are more equally complex forms of construction, but rocket assembly is not the same as building a car or any other generic object. Verification and repeated checking are all part of the process - nothing is assumed. I would suggest you check out some documentaries like the The World's Toughest Fixes episode on the French Guiana launch. Not everyone can do that, and even people that obviously have a good reason of being there are not allowed near anything critical.

Maintaining that rocket production is just like any other car/alarm clock/monitor production line is just not going to fly.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Camacha

[78stonewobble]

Shuttles are really good for one thing: returning a large payload to Earth. That's something that can really only be done via a shuttle-type craft (that we know of). The issue is it doesn't seem like that's all that useful a thing to do.

This, I guess... We just don't really have a need for that yet.

Potentially in the future if we begin production of things in space or mining, we would need larger bring back capability.

[Nicholander]

78stonewobble, perhaps the type of spacecraft I typed on the previous page would do the job for increasing bring-back capacity.

[cpast]

I'm not sure it could do so as effectively, though - it would require retrorockets Soyuz-style (parachutes don't slow things enough to hit the ground without damage; water can be easier, which is what American capsules used, but then you have to deal with recovery), and would subject everything to relatively high g-forces (spacecraft which generate lift in re-entry have lower g loads than those which reenter ballistically).

[Nicholander]

Well, I think it'd still be cheaper then the Shuttle or Buran.

[Kryten]

Well, I think it'd still be cheaper then the Shuttle or Buran.

That's damning with faint praise.

[Nicholander]

Also, I'm surprised on how much voters on this thread has gained in this amount of time, well at least compared to the KSP Community CubeSat.

[dbmorpher]

If we are going to start Asteroid or Moon mining, not now but in the near future, I could see a resurgence of shuttle-type craft for transporting resources to earth.

[Ralathon]

If we are going to start Asteroid or Moon mining, not now but in the near future, I could see a resurgence of shuttle-type craft for transporting resources to earth.

Why would you use a shuttle for that? Just take a chunk of the mined metal and cover it in some silicates (freely available as a side product of your asteroid mining). Then all you have to do is send it to the earth in a very steep descent and have a crew stand by to pick it up. Its a lump of metal, it doesn't need a silky smooth reentry and frivolities like parachutes.