Space Transport System[NASA] VS Buran [Soviet]

[Nibb31]

There is nothing "cheap" about a rocket upper stage. Just because the upper stage is less expensive than the lower stage doesn't make it "cheap", and doesn't mean it's uneconomical to reuse. There's a REASON that Space-X is working on re-using their upper stage as well as their lower stage.

SpaceX is working on lots of stuff. That doesn't mean that if will be happening anytime soon. Reusing the upper stage is a whole other can of worms than reusing the first stage. It is orders of magnitude more complex and the performance hit due to reentry gear and extra propellant simply isn't economical at this stage. Upper stages need to be as light as possible.

The whole point of a space shuttle is to bring back the crew and to reuse the most expensive parts of the vehicle. In the case of the US Shuttle, the most expensive parts of the Shuttle were the SSMEs, which were only that expensive because they designed to be reusable. They figured that it would be acceptable to throw away the ET, which was (originally) supposed to be just cheap tankage.

It simply doesn't make to sense to go to all the lengths of developing a semi-reusable launcher if you are dumping the most expensive bits of the launcher. Buran dumped the Energia core and the Zenit boosters on each launch, which was absolutely crazy. It would be akin to launching the SLS and Orion just for crew rotations at the ISS.

Building a HLV capable of launching 100 tons to LEO and using it to launch 20-ton payloads with an 80-ton reusable fairing never made economical sense, and the Russians knew it.

There were plans to reuse the Zenit boosters, and later the Energia core, but they were far-fetched and would have been super expensive to develop.

[Kulebron]

On topic: I maintained that Soyuz is better that SSTO, and have to say it's better than Buran, whatever advanced it was. There was no reasonable saving in the re-usable STS: expensive boosters had to be built from scratch, and solids recovery probably cost more than manufacturing new ones.

Offtopic. CIA payroll. What a simple explanation of a whole Soviet economy collapse! Bravo! Unlike you, I have lived in USSR and have some stories to tell. Just a brief into what made USSR collapse.

USSR was a giant corporation where everything belonged to the State, except your home things, and villagers had their small lots with some home animals. All the rest belonged to the State, including the right to create enterprises. You could not do enterpreneurship officially, it was illegal (except some people in the street selling vegetables they grew their countryside house - nobody cared of this).

In a small enterprize, the owner feels how efficient it is and is near to control things to the lowest lever workers. In a giant enterprize, the top management is insulated by some levels of bureacracy, and in the bottom, a director of one unit, say, a grocery store, does not get any profit to care of efficiency. Naturally, you introduce incentives and tools like QPI in modern corporations. The main QPI in USSR was production plan fullfillment (production quantity or sales for retail): <100% = 0 bonus, >100% = good bonus, but the next year plan is raised automatically to that achieved. This is very easy indicator to fool: just lower your next year plan, and do 103%, and you both don't need to overwork, and have a bonus. This means that nobody cared of any efficiency or innovation (or did this out of passion, overcoming all the buraucratic barriers).

Not working was a crime, and there were trade unions, with a cell in every enterprize, that cared of keeping everyone employed, and having a vote in the enterprize. They had bonuses for keeping people employed. Naturally they resisted firing anybody, so firing a bad worker was nearly impossible, and it took months to get rid of a drunker (you really could afford getting drunk in the workplace, I'm not exaggerating this: hard workers were smelling bad by noon, and stopped working after lunchtime!).

Retail worked upside down. Since prices were controlled and demand was always higher, shop workers could sell good commodities to themselves (since the nominal price was in cash, nothing was stolen, right?) or to friends, etc. This meant you almost never saw anything of value in a shop. When you saw it, it was called "thrown out", and would be out of stock in a couple of hours. Good commodities would be exchanged in bulk and in small quantities with others. Hence, salesman was the boss (in 1990s private enterprises blacklisted anyone who was salesman in Soviet Union: so damaging were their habbits).

Sometimes commodities were sold aside and reach black market this way: you walk down a street and see someone selling things from a truck. Usually this was something rare and of value, you'd get into line and only then would ask what it was. Often the commodity ended quickly. You could agree with line neighbors to keep your place in the line and to go away and back with money, to buy more for friends and relatives. No matter if they need - quality things were quite rare, so you'd exchange them. Social networks were invented in the USSR before Internet was known. Having big social network and no coscience was more benefitial than being an obedient citizen and working hard.

Foreigners have an image of USSR as orwellian "1984" with eyes of KGB everywhere. This was more like true in Moscow, where the country leadership was fearing any sort of uprising. In the rest of the country, or at least here in Siberia, there was much less of such pressure, but a very twisted economy and economic incentives being opposite to any sane morality.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Kulebron

[Northstar1989]

SpaceX is working on lots of stuff. That doesn't mean that if will be happening anytime soon. Reusing the upper stage is a whole other can of worms than reusing the first stage. It is orders of magnitude more complex and the performance hit due to reentry gear and extra propellant simply isn't economical at this stage. Upper stages need to be as light as possible.

In Elon Musk's own words, propellant is 0.3% of launch costs. The extra propellent costs are negligible. Being able to reuse a portion of the tankage, all of the upper stage engines, the guidance systems, and the crew cabin WAS economical, on the other hand... The difference between Buran and SLS is that Buran wasn't gold-plated: its development, cosntruction, and maintenance costs were MUCH more reasonable. Its Thermal Protection System was much more durable (only 7-8 tiles lost per launch), and much cheaper to repair/replace.

The whole point of a space shuttle is to bring back the crew and to reuse the most expensive parts of the vehicle. In the case of the US Shuttle, the most expensive parts of the Shuttle were the SSMEs, which were only that expensive because they designed to be reusable. They figured that it would be acceptable to throw away the ET, which was (originally) supposed to be just cheap tankage.

SLS also threw away the SRB's- which turned out to be *INCREDIBLY* expensive to recover/reuse (make the economics very marginal- though possibly still profitable). More importantly, the whole thing was built to INCREDIBLY tight engineering standards, and VERY thin engineering margins- which led to high maintenance/repair costs in the long run. Buran was significantly larger and built to less stringent engineering standards and structural margins (its larger size was a big part of the reason for its higher payload capacity), and thus MUCH more cost-effective...

It simply doesn't make to sense to go to all the lengths of developing a semi-reusable launcher if you are dumping the most expensive bits of the launcher. Buran dumped the Energia core and the Zenit boosters on each launch, which was absolutely crazy. It would be akin to launching the SLS and Orion just for crew rotations at the ISS.

No, it wasn't. Buran could lift a 30-40 ton payload into orbit, like the Shuttle. SLS Block IA has a capacity of 70 tons, IB of 90-100 tons, and Block II a capacity of 130-155 tons. So Buran was a heavy lifter in its own right, not directly comparable with SLS, but still impressive, and built using 1980's technology...

On top of that, as Energyia was capable of functioning as an independent, disposable heavy launch platform, and developed as part of the same (relatively) modest 14.5 billion Ruble development budget... Energyia could lift 175 tons into LEO- outclassing even SLS Block II!

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/energia_-_buran.html

Building a HLV capable of launching 100 tons to LEO and using it to launch 20-ton payloads with an 80-ton reusable fairing never made economical sense, and the Russians knew it.

There were plans to reuse the Zenit boosters, and later the Energia core, but they were far-fetched and would have been super expensive to develop.

The Russians had no serious plans to reuse Zenit or Energyia. They KNEw such propositions would be difficult and expensive. Instead, they developed a 30-40 ton Shuttle (directly comparable to the American Shuttle, but MUCH more cost-effective) and a MASSIVE 175 TON LIFTER for a "mere" 14.5 billion Rubles. Keeping in mind the development cost of the American Shuttle Fleet (STS), which has absolutely no capability for independent use as a HLV, and the staggering development costs of SLS, I think Buran was a much more economical deal all-in-all.

Regards,

Northstar

[Frozen_Heart]

The Russians are often good at developing comparable systems for a fraction of the cost. The development programs are much more streamlined compared to those in the US.

Though this is sometimes due to less stringent safety standards, they have a very good record so far.

One example I noticed very recently was the F-22 compared to the PAK FA. 66.7 billion and 10 billion for the respective programs.

[Northstar1989]

In summary, just look at the numbers...

DEVELOPMENT COSTS

STS (Shuttle)

Payload Capacity: 30-40 metric tons

Program Development Cost: specific numbers unavailable, but estimated at $7.45 beforehand ($43 Billion 2011 USD), drastically overshot

SLS (Space Launch System- HLV)

Payload Capacity: 70 tons (Block IA), 100 tons (Block IB), 130-155 tons (Block II- final capacity not yet determined)

Program Development Cost: $12 Billion (2011 USD)- $10 Billion for SLS, $2 Billion for launchpad upgrades

Buran

Payload Capacity: 30-40 metric tons (Buran), 175 metric tons (Energyia + "Energyia-M" "Vulkan" configuration, 8-boosters)

Program Development Cost: 14.5 Billion Rubles (1988 Rubles)- includes facility upgrades and "Energyia-M" upper stage

Edited October 5, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Kryten]

In Elon Musk's own words, propellant is 0.3% of launch costs. The extra propellent costs are negligible.

The costs to get that propellent anywhere useful are not remotely negligible. Every kg of fuel for return of a reusable upper stage is going to multiple kg less payload and more launcher.

Buran was significantly larger and built to less stringent engineering standards and structural margins (its larger size was a big part of the reason for its higher payload capacity), and thus MUCH more cost-effective...

Using a 100 ton+ capacity launcher to put ~two Soyuz crews and a 40 ton payload in space isn't going to be cost-effective no matter what you do. The idea of a space shuttle is not cost-effective, full stop, regardless of individual implementation of that idea.

No, it wasn't. Buran could lift a 30-40 ton payload into orbit, like the Shuttle. SLS Block IA has a capacity of 70 tons, IB of 90-100 tons, and Block II a capacity of 130-155 tons. So Buran was a heavy lifter in its own right, not directly comparable with SLS, but still impressive, and built using 1980's technology...

SLS is 70s tech. What's your point?

On top of that, as Energyia was capable of functioning as an independent, disposable heavy launch platform, and developed as part of the same (relatively) modest 14.5 billion Ruble development budget... Energyia could lift 175 tons into LEO- outclassing even SLS Block II!

Because of Buran. No mission needed this; even Skif was to be about half that weight. Building in excess capability to support an unneeded shuttle doesn't make great economic sense.

[Northstar1989]

Offtopic. CIA payroll. What a simple explanation of a whole Soviet economy collapse! Bravo! Have you actually lived in USSR in 1980s, Northstar? I have and have some stories to tell. Just a brief into what made USSR collapse.

I never said that the USSR didn't have plenty of reason to self-destruct, as it in fact did. Not that it's a heck of a lot better in many parts of Russia even today (proving that capitalism FAILED to rebuild the country just as much as Communism failed to run it- Russia is a screwed up place).

However, the CIA *did* give it a bit of push to hasten its decay/self-destruction, which also eliminated any possibility of the USSR evolving into a democractic-capitalist state of a loose "confederation" of republics nominally still part of one nation (but in practice mostly independent), as Boris Yeltsin (President of the USSR at the end, possibly on the CIA payroll, and once again, son of an anti-communsit rebel) envisioned. The CIA played many different high-level officials against each other, and even had a small handful on payroll. The Coup that resulted ended any chance of democracy in Russia before it was even born.

This isn't conspiracy-theory: rather it's standard CIA practice. The CIA regularly plays with the internal affairs of other countries- just look at its history of interference in South America and Southeast Asia in the 1970's/1980's if you don't believe me...

The most screwed-up part of the whole thing is that the US President at the time (George Bush Sr.) by all accounts didn't actually WANT the CIA to mess with Russian politics on the level it did. Rather, he wanted to give Yeltsin (whom he considered a personal friend) some breathing-room to see if he could actually reform the USSR into a free market democratic society like he planned to. The CIA had other plans, however, and as often happens, acted relatively independently of presidential imperative, by continuing to attempt to sabotage Russian affairs as they had been doing for decades.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Just to be clear, the KGB worked just as hard to mess with American affairs across the globe. Even as Yeltsin was attempting to reform Russia, the KGB was still hunting down American spies wherever it saw the opportunity, and attempting to frustrate American international relations in places like Africa...

Edited October 5, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Because of Buran. No mission needed this; even Skif was to be about half that weight. Building in excess capability to support an unneeded shuttle doesn't make great economic sense.

No, you absolutely fail to understand. Energyia in its "Vulkan" configuration was SUPERIOR to SLS, and developed under a shuttle program that cost a fraction of SLS. It was capable of operating WITHOUT Buran- this is what the "Vulkan" configuration was- you stripped off Buran and multiplied the number of boosters to 8. Thus, you got a 175-ton capable HLV for a FRACTION of the cost of SLS (which can only lift a 170-ton payload in its Block II configuration- which is still many years down the road from even Block IB).

The plan was to use Energyia "Vulkan" for space station construction and an eventual manned mission to Mars... (which, even using Energyia "Vulkan", would have required multiple launches to lift sufficient payload for a round-trip mission)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 5, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Frozen_Heart]

Can we please keep the politics and conspiracy theories out of this. Its just going to end up with the thread being locked.

[Kryten]

The rocket without Buran is Energiya; Vulkan was a 'super-heavy' configuration with an extra single-engined energiya core as well as more boosters. It wouldn't have been able to use the modified N1 infrastructure used by the base Energiya, putting up the projected cost dramatically.

Regardless of that, you miss my point. Yes, Energiya, even in the base configuration, was a very powerful launcher. It would not have been viable because there were no funded payloads that required it, with the sole exception of Skif-DM. The Mir-2 components could have easily gone up on on Proton, and ultimately did; anything further, such as your Mars plans, were nothing more than basic outlines with very little chance of being implemented.

[Kulebron]

I never said that the USSR didn't have plenty of reason to self-destruct, as it in fact did.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Not that it's a heck of a lot better in many parts of Russia even today (proving that capitalism FAILED to rebuild the country just as much as Communism failed to run it- Russia is a screwed up place).

Thank you for reminding me that, capt. obvious. These judgements thrown left and right are quite annoying.

[edit] To get back to topic, with what Kryten stated, that there's no demand for high payloads in orbits, I wonder if and what could become the source of demand (with money) in the near future?

Edited October 5, 2014 by Kulebron

[Northstar1989]

To get back to topic, with what Kryten stated, that there's no demand for high payloads in orbits, I wonder if and what could become the source of demand (with money) in the near future?

Two words: propellent depots

With the development of orbital propellent depots, it should be possible to launch large amounts of fuel in giant tanker launches more efficiently than using smaller tankers (if done RIGHT- i.e. with a large number of small rocket engines instead of a single large engine, like with the Falcon9; then larger rockets should be able to carry large payloads to orbit more cost-effectively than smaller rockets due to their better ballistic coefficients and consequent reduced drag-losses, without any of the loss of efficiency normally entailed by larger rocket engines...)

This also reduced the docking-hazard to the fuel depot, as there will be fewer docking events each year with larger fuel tankers...

Thus, you could launch fuel to Low Earth Orbit, and have satellites bound for Geosynchronous Orbit rendezvous with fuel depots there before proceeding to GTO...

Of course, it doesn't make economic sense if you are designing entire new lines of heavier rockets purely for fuel launches (it makes more sense just to rely on a larger launch volume of smaller designs), BUT if you are developing the larger rockets for eventual Mars/Moon-base missions anyways...

The fuel-depot infrastructure would also come in handy for the same Mars/Moon missions...

Of course, at the opposite end of the spectrum, huge numbers of identical rockets with tiny payload capacities (something like Aquarius- which is a Big Dumb Booster making use of amphibious launches, that can nominally only lift 1 ton to orbit per launch...) can also lift that same volume of fuel to orbit even MORE cost-effectively than heavy launch vehicles, as you start to reap some of the benefits of mass-production at this kind of launch frequency...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 6, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Nibb31]

In summary, just look at the numbers...

DEVELOPMENT COSTS

STS (Shuttle)

Payload Capacity: 30-40 metric tons

I don't know where you got your figures, but the STS only had a payload capacity of 24 tons to LEO and 16 tons to the ISS. The Orbiter was around 80 tons, which means that the stack actually put 104 tons into LEO. Energia was capable of launching 100 tons into orbit, Buran weighed 75 tons, so that leaves 25 tons of payload.

That puts both systems in competition with much cheaper alternatives such as Proton, Ariane, or Delta IV Heavy. It simply doesn't make economical sense to use an Energia to launch a 25 ton payload, just like it didn't make sense for NASA to use the Shuttle to launch satellites when you have cheaper rockets available. The orbiters were simply wasted payload capacity.

The Russians knew this, but because they were paranoid about the US Shuttle's military capabilities, they went with Buran and cancelled their MAKS/Spiral program, which was much more promising.

Comparing development costs and production costs between capitalist USA and communist USSR is meaningless because the economical systems were totally different. You would have to compare percentages of GDP, headcounts, salaries, facilities... It's a wildly difficult exercice, but what is clear was that the USSR could not afford Buran, therefore it was too expensive.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Nibb31

[Guest]

First, NASA should install NFP mod, and stop fiddling with chemical fuel in upper stages. Reusable nuclear orbital tugs are what we need.

Second, instead of fuel for fuel depot, heavy rocket can put a big cluster of sats with their boost stages to LEO, and then fire them one by one, with proper timings, to GEO. It would be a lot cheaper. After last sat is out, main platform uses last fumes of fuel to dip periapsis into the atmosphere.

[Nibb31]

A fuel depot only makes sense if there is demand for frequent payloads beyond LEO. There is no money for payloads and no demand.

[TheFlyingPigs]

I picked The STS so they are 22-22 because I twink evewyone shwould beh a winnner!

(Blame the public school system)

[KerikBalm]

One is a reusable crew capsule with more landing precision and a reusable payload fairing.

One is a reusable crew capsule with more landing precision, a reusable payload fairing, reusable main engines, and refurbishable SRBs (which seems pretty pointless to me).

STS wins the competition for being more reusable... but both were pretty pointless.

[vitekc45c]

Well the main advantage of shuttle-type spacecraft is that they can bring down as much cargo as they can bring up, althou i dont think that anyone would want to recover 30 tons of old satelites (exept maybe the nuclear reactors from the old russian satelites, but those are in 1000 year graveyard orbit anyway).

[Nibb31]

Well the main advantage of shuttle-type spacecraft is that they can bring down as much cargo as they can bring up, althou i dont think that anyone would want to recover 30 tons of old satelites (exept maybe the nuclear reactors from the old russian satelites, but those are in 1000 year graveyard orbit anyway).

Actually they can't. The US Shuttle could bring up 24 tons of cargo but could only bring down 14 tons. The downmass capability was only used a couple of times until they figured that it really wasn't cost-effective or worth the risk.

[Rune]

One is a reusable crew capsule with more landing precision and a reusable payload fairing.

One is a reusable crew capsule with more landing precision, a reusable payload fairing, reusable main engines, and refurbishable SRBs (which seems pretty pointless to me).

STS wins the competition for being more reusable... but both were pretty pointless.

Yup, both were pretty pointless both at reusability and as payload delivery systems. But since Energia could shed Buran to reach its true 100mT payload capability, and its liquid-fuel Zenith boosters were designed for logical reuse (the square containers on top? those housed parachutes, retros and landing gear for land recovery, though it was never tested), I have to go with that one.

And you know, they both failed for economic reasons, being waaay too big for any reasonable purpose of the time. The Shuttle just took much longer and most of NASA's budget for 30 years to do so. A truly reusable 20mT TSTO launcher with an optional manned reusable thing on top and separate crew and cargo flights would have made MUCH more sense.

Rune. But the opinions sure are split.

[Frozen_Heart]

But since Energia could shed Buran to reach its true 100mT payload capability, and its liquid-fuel Zenith boosters were designed for logical reuse (the square containers on top? those housed parachutes, retros and landing gear for land recovery, though it was never tested), I have to go with that one.

Well the SLS is pretty much just kicking the shuttle off the centre stack and putting the engines on that instead.

[Rune]

Well the SLS is pretty much just kicking the shuttle off the centre stack and putting the engines on that instead.

And how many years and billions have gone by to make that "slight design alteration"? Though I know there are other reasons for that, Energia flew without Buran before bolting on the spacecraft.

Rune. That's quite impressive, IMO.

[Frozen_Heart]

And how many years and billions have gone by to make that "slight design alteration"? Though I know there are other reasons for that, Energia flew without Buran before bolting on the spacecraft.

Rune. That's quite impressive, IMO.

I think that's more a problem with the American system than the actual vehicles themselves. The Russians could probably design, build and launch a vehicle identical to the SLS for a fraction of the time and cost.

I do agree that Energia was a brilliant heavy lift vehicle tough and its a pity it didn't come to anything.

[Kryten]

I think that's more a problem with the American system than the actual vehicles themselves. The Russians could probably design, build and launch a vehicle identical to the SLS for a fraction of the time and cost.

I wouldn't exactly count on it. They started a similar program at about the same time, and haven't even selected a design yet. Whatever is picked isn't intended to first fly until the late 2020s, and the heavier configurations are 2030+.

[Nibb31]

Yes, however the inefficiencies of both space industries have different causes. While both suffer from severe underfunding, NASA is bogged down with politics and bureaucracy, whereas Roskosmos lacks a modern industrial base and qualified workers.