Space Transport System[NASA] VS Buran [Soviet]

[shynung]

That's nowhere near important as being able to deorbit itself.

As I said before, such a craft would need a small engine for stationkeeping and disposal (deorbiting), otherwise it could fall out of orbit before it can be sucked out of. The small engine's fuel should be separated, so that a refueling spacecraft cannot accidentally completely empty the reserves and render it incapable of deorbiting.

KSP got no relevance to the real life. Read my signature.

Yes, I understand, which is why I pointed it out.

I'd suggest you read through that for a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot#Engineering_design_issues

I've read about possible design solutions to mitigate the problems depicted in the article, so I'd leave it as an engineering problem for now.

Only difference being that steam contamination doesn't last years.

That's why people are afraid of nuclear powerplants. Not because they can kill people here now, but because of long-term consequences. (And before you try to defend against it - I know, and I very much agree that nuclear powerplants are a way to go).

Since you stated your agreeing position on nuclear power plants, I see no reason to defend it. I'm on your side.

You mean like an anti-machine dogma disappeared? Oh, wait... people are still pissing their pants over "robots" taking over their jobs. Nothing changed since XIX century.

I think that's a different dogma altogether. Nuclear power plants deal with energy generation, while robots deal with industrial processes.

Yea, just like GMO plants, which are also a response to the raising populations.... *eyerolls*

Humans are really bad in thinking on a global scale.

It may take centuries, maybe even a millenium or two, depending on the situation.

Point is, having widespread nuclear energy use is an important milestone in human history. Some people will resist it, just as some people resisted the idea of a sun-centered solar system back in Galileo's time. Eventually (however long that may be), either nuke power plants and GMOs will be accepted, or the humans will have to endure some energy(and food)-deficient era before they realize its potential. Not really sure which will happen, looking from my end.

Edited October 13, 2014 by shynung

[Northstar1989]

Whooo, whoooo, here does the tangent train through yet another station!

Seriously, though, if you're going to discuss LEO Propellent Depots (the whole reason I even brought the subject up was to point out it could have been a major secondary use of the Energyia rocket besides Buran- one that was never available to STS due to is passive external fuel tank...) then at least bother to read the articles you're posting.

The Wikipedia article, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot

IF any of you had actually read through the entire article you were posting, you would have noticed two overwhelming trends:

(1) Almost all of the engineering challenges presented were also matched with solutions- many of which had already been developed and proven.

(2) Almost all of the discussion on Wikipedia focused on use of Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen (cryogenic propellants), rather than storage of Hypergolics.

If you consider the article as a whole, it quickly becomes apparent that the main issue with LH2/LOX is boil-off (these fuels DON'T degrade), and that it can be easily be overcome by simply actively cooling the propellant- that is by running a heat exchanger to keep the fuel cold, instead of simply relying on passive insulation to do the entire job (which would require ignoring all the laws of Thermodynamics- any temperature difference between the fuel and the environment is bound to eventually even out without some sort of energy input to maintain that difference).

If you don't want to bother with this, the solution is even simpler, USE HYPERGOLICS.

Aerozine 50 (a 50/50 mixture of Hydrazine and UDMH), one of the simplest and most common hypergolic fuel-mixtures ever developed, solves the whole problem of boil-off quite elegantly: its boiling point is higher than room temperature (gasp!) so that boil-off isn't such an enormous issue. It also is storable for YEARS at a time without significant degradation or boil-off, due to the particular stability of UDMH (a hypergolic fuel which is more stable than Hydrazine- but also less dense and more prone to boil-off) and the boiling-point elevation by including Hydrazine in the mixture...

Aerozine 50 was what they once used for nuclear ICBM's, because it is easily stored for long periods of time without degradation/boil-off or the requirement for maintenance of cooling systems. And, like most Hypergolic fuels, it is MUCH denser that LH2/LOX, which means you can pack a LOT more Delta-V into the same fuel tank mass *despite* its lower ISP...

Hypergolics were what they used for Apollo's LEM/Service Module, back when they actually wanted to GET somewhere- instead of just fooling around in Low Earth Orbit with LH2/LOX to make the United Launch Alliance piles of money... (from a cost AND performance standpoint, KeroLox and/or Hypergolics as vastly superior for most other purposes, due to their lower boil-off and higher fuel-density...) The toxicity isn't really all that big of an issue, when you consider the astronauts are already sitting on top of a giant carefully-controlled bomb. And it's REALLY NOT an issue AT ALL when the hypergolics would be stored in an unmanned fuel depot (the only astronauts going anywhere near it would be in sealed EVA suits, for maintenance duties if ever needed), and that fuel depot would mainly only be docked with by GEO unmanned satellite transfer-stages.

Oh, and Sky_walker, you think fuel-transfer has never been performed through docking ports before? With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only did they make *extensive* use of it on the Apollo missions (in fact, the explosion on Apollo 13 was initially attributed to an issue with stirring the fuel tanks before transfer between the LEM and Service Module), it was also performed between two UNMANNED craft for the first time in 2007, according to the link which was already cited before on propellant depots, and which I linked to again earlier in this post just for your convenience...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 16, 2014 by Northstar1989

[shynung]

Regarding LH2/LOX boil off, there's another problem: hydrogen molecules are so small, they simply seep through the molecules of the tank's material. No matter how cold the tank is kept, unless the hydrogen is frozen solid, it will eventually leak off into space anyway.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Methane (CH4) has larger molecules due to the relatively heavy carbon atom, so they don't leak off into space as hydrogen does. It also boils off at a higher temperature(111.6K, as opposed to H2's 20.3K), so any active cooling system would have its load reduced.

Also notable is that some oxidizers (I'm looking at you, nitric acid) are apparently so energetic, that if kept too long, they degrade the tank it's in, along with the associated plumbing. I'm not sure about LOX or N2O4, but I wouldn't be surprised if those oxidizers does the same thing, seeing that they are powerful chemicals in their own right.

So yeah, fuels can't be stored in the tank indefinitely; either they boil off out to space, or they chew through the tank and then leak out to space.

Northstar, you mentioned about fuel transfers in Apollo missions. As I read from the wiki, the transfer mentioned between the Apollo CSM and LM meant the transfer of astronauts (people moving to the LM). The CSM and LM each have their own fuel tanks, which was full at launch, so no fuel transfer occurred. There are fuel stirrers in the Apollo spacecraft (along with plenty other safety devices), but no fuel transfer plumbings.

Edited October 16, 2014 by shynung

[Nibb31]

Oh, and Sky_walker, you think fuel-transfer has never been performed through docking ports before? With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only did they make *extensive* use of it on the Apollo missions (in fact, the explosion on Apollo 13 was initially attributed to an issue with stirring the fuel tanks before transfer between the LEM and Service Module),

I don't know where you picked that up. There was no propellant transfer in the Apollo architecture. The LM and CM were loaded on the pad. The cryo stir was a routine action that had to be done on a regular basis to prevent the fuel and oxidyzer from solidifying to maintain temperature uniformity inside the tanks.

However, you're right that propellant transfer has existed for a long time. It was first experimented between a Soyuz and Salyut 5 and fully integrated into the Progress spacecraft for Mir operations.

[Northstar1989]

Regarding LH2/LOX boil off, there's another problem: hydrogen molecules are so small, they simply seep through the molecules of the tank's material. No matter how cold the tank is kept, unless the hydrogen is frozen solid, it will eventually leak off into space anyway.

That's what's meant by the term "boil-off"- the leakage of molecules through the tank walls into space. The Hydrogen doesn't actually have to be in GAS form to boil-off, it just does it much quicker in this state than when it's a liquid. Also, the cooler it's kept, the more slowly this occurs, even when in liquid form.

Methane, as you mentioned next, is composed of larger, slower-moving molecules- so it experiences much LESS boil-off at the same temperatures and pressures (virtually ALL fuels experience boil-off, even Hypergolics- it's just a matter of orders of magnitude as to how fast it occurs...)

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Methane (CH4) has larger molecules due to the relatively heavy carbon atom, so they don't leak off into space as hydrogen does. It also boils off at a higher temperature(111.6K, as opposed to H2's 20.3K), so any active cooling system would have its load reduced.

This is why the Boeing/ULA proposals to build fuel depots at the La Grange points relied on Meth/LOX as the stored fuels instead of LH2/LOX. That being said, it still would have required an active cooling system...

Also notable is that some oxidizers (I'm looking at you, nitric acid) are apparently so energetic, that if kept too long, they degrade the tank it's in, along with the associated plumbing. I'm not sure about LOX or N2O4, but I wouldn't be surprised if those oxidizers does the same thing, seeing that they are powerful chemicals in their own right.

That's a known problem for Nitric Acid, but not really a significant problem for LOX or N2O4 (though I think very small amounts of N2O4 actually do break down into Nitric Acid over a period of YEARS). LOX, in particular, isn't going to react particularly corrosively with an aluminum tank- aluminum actually becomes MORE stable when it's covered by a thin layer of (non-reactive) Aluminum Oxide at the molecular surface...

So yeah, fuels can't be stored in the tank indefinitely; either they boil off out to space, or they chew through the tank and then leak out to space.

No, fuel aren't necessarily going to do *either* of those things. That was the whole point of Hypergolics (aside from those systems using Nitric Acid)- they can be (and have been, in the case of nuclear missile silos) stored in sealed tanks for YEARS at a time without consequence... And if you add an active cooling system, you could actually easily freeze many Hypergolics into their solid states- which would be *incredibly* stable over long periods of storage in a cool, dark, isolated fuel tank in space...

The main issue with Hypergolics is their toxicity- which only becomes an actual problem is something goes terribly wrong- like when the Apollo-Soyuz astronauts accidentally left a certain air vent open during re-entry that allowed N2O4 fumes to seep into the capsule...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide#The_Apollo-Soyuz_mishap

Northstar, you mentioned about fuel transfers in Apollo missions. As I read from the wiki, the transfer mentioned between the Apollo CSM and LM meant the transfer of astronauts (people moving to the LM). The CSM and LM each have their own fuel tanks, which was full at launch, so no fuel transfer occurred. There are fuel stirrers in the Apollo spacecraft (along with plenty other safety devices), but no fuel transfer plumbings.

O.o

I may have mixed that up. I'll have to double-check my facts on that one. I know there HAVE been numerous fuel transfers in space, however- as was already pointed out with Soyuz and the Russians...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 17, 2014 by Northstar1989

[shynung]

That's a known problem for Nitric Acid, but not really a significant problem for LOX or N2O4 (though I think very small amounts of N2O4 actually do break down into Nitric Acid over a period of YEARS). LOX, in particular, isn't going to react particularly corrosively with an aluminum tank- aluminum actually becomes MORE stable when it's covered by a thin layer of (non-reactive) Aluminum Oxide at the molecular surface...

I recall that Apollo 13 had an oxygen tank explosion, even though caused by a short-circuit from the stirrers, so I'd be careful around those stuff. LOX, as it is, isn't hypergolic, but it is murderously flammable. Whatever cooling system the tank has, it has to be very good.

No, fuel aren't necessarily going to do *either* of those things. That was the whole point of Hypergolics (aside from those systems using Nitric Acid)- they can be (and have been, in the case of nuclear missile silos) stored in sealed tanks for YEARS at a time without consequence... And if you add an active cooling system, you could actually easily freeze many Hypergolics into their solid states- which would be *incredibly* stable over long periods of storage in a cool, dark, isolated fuel tank in space...

Well, a tank floating in space is, in effect, a thermos flask the size of the universe...

Note, nuclear missiles lurk inside steam-heated and air-conditioned missile silos, so they have more leeway in choosing their fuel. Most missiles from the Cold War era used 50-50(Aerozine 50)/N2O4, from what I've read(they used solids these days). Some used kerosene/nitric acid(mainly Russian ones), with some fluoric acid (HF) mixed with nitric acid to stave off corrosion. It's not storable indefinitely, but something like that might stay good for a few decades.

In another note, I've got an idea. Why bother with storing liquid fuels that eventually boil off anyway? Why don't, say, store water-ice in the tank, put a heater and electrolyzer unit nearby, and process the ice into fuel as needed? ^{The devil's advocate in me points out the energy requirements, but I'll see if I can get more ideas.}

The main issue with Hypergolics is their toxicity- which only becomes an actual problem is something goes terribly wrong- like when the Apollo-Soyuz astronauts accidentally left a certain air vent open during re-entry that allowed N2O4 fumes to seep into the capsule...

There's a reason Soviet rocket engineers, working with RFNA (nitric acid, with some 20-27% N2O4), nicknamed the stuff 'the Devil's venom'. Nasty stuff alright.

I may have mixed that up. I'll have to double-check my facts on that one. I know there HAVE been numerous fuel transfers in space, however- as was already pointed out with Soyuz and the Russians...

Nibb pointed out that Mir and Progress operations have included fuel transfer capabilities, so yeah, it's definitely possible.

Now it's just a matter of finding out potential customers (there's none as of today) before the fuel in the tank boil away. At least half a dozen flights to the Moon every year, I think.

Also, I think this discussion merits a new thread.

[Alchemist]

Bringing a crewed craft up there just to launch a satellite is inefficient in any case, so for just a launch vehicle STS is questionable and in case of Buran it's literally cheaper to launch 100 t on the rocket than 30 t in the cargo bay. If you just want reusable launch vehicle, there was Energiya-2 concept of fully reusable unmanned satellite launcher.

If we want to compare something, let's see what shuttles of this class do best - returning large payloads. Of course it runs into the very question if we design the payload to be returned... And if to compare Spacelab flights with normal operations of a long-term station like Salyut-6, the station would most likely be much more efficient case, but bringing the station (or a module of a bigger station) back to Earth in the end could be very valuable (there even were plans to recover Salyut-7 using Buran, but the station fell down earlier than expected).

Same for station supplying - most of what goes up doesn't need to be brought back, but bringing some equipment is useful.That is using only shuttles for station supply is questionable (large part of it is more efficient with disposable transport crafts) but some occasional shuttle flights are valuable.

For just regular flying all the time there and back (as it was originally planned) STS is cheaper because of reusable engines, but with just few flights of the shuttle itself Buran seems more efficient because of sharing infrastructure with Energiya family rockets. And Buran is optimized for top-grade performance in the few missions where it might really be needed, not for being efficient all-purpose craft.

Also here is the example of different philosophy: STS was designed around the idea of manned flights (even when it was completely inefficient), all Soviet spacecrafts were designed around the idea that the craft should be capable of doing everything in automated mode (with crew taking control in case of malfunction). Extroversion vs. introversion at its finest. I do prefer the introverted way as the more efficient, but maybe in some places it's really not the way to get the funding...

[Albert VDS]

How about this: They look the "same", they basiclly could do they same thing, but they were both beautiful and ugly at the same time.

Beautiful for being a technical masterpiece and ugly for their inefficiency.

Trying to decide which one is the best is like deciding which coupe exotic car is the best.

They all have their own pros and cons and what not, but no matter what you think about them, in the end you don't get your groceries with them because it's highly inefficient.

[GoSlash27]

How about this: They look the "same", they basiclly could do they same thing, but they were both beautiful and ugly at the same time.

Beautiful for being a technical masterpiece and ugly for their inefficiency.

Trying to decide which one is the best is like deciding which coupe exotic car is the best.

They all have their own pros and cons and what not, but no matter what you think about them, in the end you don't get your groceries with them because it's highly inefficient.

Also the point should be raised:

"STS" was originally conceived to be exactly that; a space transportation system. The shuttle was just one piece of the entire puzzle, but the rest of the system (stations, tugs, nerva mass movers, etc) never got off the drawing board.

The shuttle *might* have been cost effective and efficient in the context of the entire network, but as a standalone put-stuff-in-LEO truck... not so much.

The Buran... really the only reason it ever existed was because the Americans had a shuttle and the Soviets thought it put them at a political/ military disadvantage to not have one. "Keeping up with the Joneses" as we call it. The Russians never had a need or use for a shuttle-style reusable vehicle, so it was doomed from the outset.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited October 18, 2014 by GoSlash27

[Northstar1989]

Bringing a crewed craft up there just to launch a satellite is inefficient in any case, so for just a launch vehicle STS is questionable and in case of Buran it's literally cheaper to launch 100 t on the rocket than 30 t in the cargo bay. If you just want reusable launch vehicle, there was Energiya-2 concept of fully reusable unmanned satellite launcher.

Except Buran was designed to operate fully unmanned. In fact, in its one and only test flight it *did* operate fully unmanned, something STS could never do.

And yes, Energyia also was the framework for a planned Space-X style reusable flight profile that the Russians never really got started on in earnest, where the boosters and the launch stage (but probably not the upper stage) would have sprouted wings and been fully-recoverable with flyback-capability on Energyia-2. In which case, a super-heavy lifter makes a LOT more sense- because you lose a lot of payload capacity when you build your launch vehicle to be reusable (meaning a fully-reusable Energyia, if it ever got to that point, might have only been able to lift 50 or 60 metric tons instead of 175...)

Regards,

Northstar

[Capt. Hunt]

there's a difference between an unmanned test flight and full-up unmanned mission capability. Buran just launched, did two orbits and landed. They've been launching rockets by remote control for decades. I'm sure that the Space Shuttle would have had the same kind of unmanned capability, we just chose to launch manned test flights instead. I doubt that Buran would have been capable of any sort of complex unmanned mission.

[Northstar1989]

I doubt that Buran would have been capable of any sort of complex unmanned mission.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the Russians and the science of space exploration), that's where you're wrong. Buran was designed to operate 100% unamnned on ANY mission type. Everything, from the robotic arms and cargo bay to the Angle of Attack during re-entry, could be and was remotely-controlled).

It's not actually all that hard with today's computer technology- but you have to remember than Buran was designed with 1980's technology, and STS (which could NOT operate fully-unmanned like this) with 1970's tech.

It probably would have been possible to retrofit STS to operate fully-unmanned, but such a complete overhaul of the computer systems and avionics was something that was never attempted, perhaps because at the price of doing something like that it would have been cheaper just to build a slightly-updated version of the Shuttle from scratch...

Regards,

Northstar

[sp1989]

I think it needs to be made clear that this thread is operating under the notion The Buran actually made it out of the prototype phase. Costs can not be caluclated when determining which system was better because maintenance fees, refurbishing, fuel costs, crew costs, payload costs, etc cannot be compared. The projected costs of the Buran of course are going to be lower than STS because the Buran never went beyond a flying prototype. Once again The Buran never had a lifespan and the STS had a long and extremely successful tenure despite launch costs and flaws. So again if this discussion is to proceed it needs to function under the paradigm that they both had the same service length. Excluding that regardless of potential STS is clearly the winner. Why? Because it was actually used.

[More Boosters]

On 09.10.2014 09:27:41, montyben101 said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

Seriously it was a real idea once

Meh I'm just disappointed it wasn't an idea for a shuttle capable of round trips to Saturn

[fredinno]

On 10/4/2014, 11:40:46, xenomorph555 said:

Buran was was much better on quite a lot of fronts however was never able to show it due to the Soviet collapse.

Not to say STS was bad, both were very impressive machines but to me Snowstorm takes the prize.

Here are some of the features that puts Buran higher on my list:

Fully automatic-historys largest UAV, also immensely impressive for the computer technology of the 80's.

10 member crew-although never used the epic 10 crew feature has never been repeated (dragon 3 maybe...)

About 36 tonnes to orbit-10 tonnes more to LEO then STS, mega MIR2 anyone!

Only losses about 7 tiles a flight-with a new material and pattern, Buran kept all but a few heat tiles.

Ejection seats-I sometimes get sad thinking there might have been a chance the challenger crew would have been fine if they had this

And many more...

STS had ejection seats on the first few flights. Buran also only existed for a few flights.

On 10/17/2014, 8:01:37, Northstar1989 said:

Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the Russians and the science of space exploration), that's where you're wrong. Buran was designed to operate 100% unamnned on ANY mission type. Everything, from the robotic arms and cargo bay to the Angle of Attack during re-entry, could be and was remotely-controlled).

It's not actually all that hard with today's computer technology- but you have to remember than Buran was designed with 1980's technology, and STS (which could NOT operate fully-unmanned like this) with 1970's tech.

It probably would have been possible to retrofit STS to operate fully-unmanned, but such a complete overhaul of the computer systems and avionics was something that was never attempted, perhaps because at the price of doing something like that it would have been cheaper just to build a slightly-updated version of the Shuttle from scratch...

Regards,

Northstar

It was considered during the Jimmy (I think) administration, only they didn't do it because it would cost more to do so, and Shuttle was supposed to be as safe as a plane (which was a lie).

On 10/6/2014, 6:58:07, Northstar1989 said:

There *IS* demand for frequent payloads beyond LEO. It's called Geosynchronous Orbit Communication Satellites.

Beyond that, having an orbit fuel depot would open the door to reusable orbital tugs (which could operate off Nuclear Thermal Engines or Microwave Beamed Power Thermal Rocketry, and thus serve as *much* more cost-efficient to GEO and back...), "atmospheric accumulators" to skim propellant mass (especially O2) off the edge of Earth's upper atmosphere (real-world proposals relied on using Nitrogen-fueled electrical engines for station-keeping), and the launching of manned exploration missions with empty fuel tanks...

Regards,

Northstar

Don't forget MEO GPS-esque satellites!

[fredinno]

On 10/5/2014, 1:16:35, magnemoe said:

Did not call it an reusable fairing, it was a space shuttle like SPS but without reuseable main engines.

However putting the engines on the rocket would make it far easier to use the rocket as an heavy lifter, i was some talk about doing this for the SLS too but it was never done and would be harder.

Not know if putting the engines on the rocket was done for this reason or because they had problems making reusable ones.

The engines on the rocket were done because the Soviets lacked experience with H2 LOX engines, unlike the US.

On 10/5/2014, 3:36:42, Northstar1989 said:

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.

Payload isn't cheap either- though none of this is talking about re-using it.

The Russians largely stopped ALL government-funded space launches in the time period Buran was stuck in a hanger, not just Buran. If they had the funding, they probably would have used it to launch government-funded scientific payloads. They simply didn't have the funding for large government-funded projects, and the thought never occurred to them to try and license out Buran launches for commercial satellite launches. This DOES NOT mean it made no economic sense.

Regards,

Northstar

It probably wouldn't have made economic sense- Energia was too big for anything serious at the time (maybe ISS, but it was partly designed to be make-work for the Shuttle) and Buran... well the Shuttle wasn't economical either.

On 10/5/2014, 9:14:25, Meecrob said:

Just want to nip this one in the bud...many people mention that the Buran was advanced for being able to fly autonomously. The reason is necessity - they had not completed human life support systems in time for the test flight. While the Buran's autopilot is a triumph of 80's engineering, the fact that it was just not possible for them to send a human onboard gives some insight to the future of this program. Its a MANNED spacecraft that was not funded/developed enough to carry a man/woman.

Well, a "Buran-Bris-M/Fregat definitely would have been less risky!

[fredinno]

On 10/8/2014, 11:27:41, montyben101 said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

Seriously it was a real idea once

That would have at least reused the 1st stage, and SSMEs.

[Bill Phil]

Space Transportation System is superior to Buran. It had space tugs, nuclear tugs, space stations all planned out. Buran was just a surface to LEO craft.

Oh wait, you mean the shuttle. Yeah, that sucked. It worked all right. But it wasn't successful at any of its goals, except delivering pay loads.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Nibb31]

On 10/4/2014, 7:33:09, piggysanTH said:

Hello :3

Just want to know that what do you think which one is better. And how do you think about two of this.

As usual, define "better".

Different systems are different answers to different requirements, different problems, and different industrial, economical, and political environments.

So what are you criteria for determining which is "better".

[Temstar]

It's interesting to see everyone argue that the winged orbiter idea is dumb and a waste of payload - that's exactly what Glushko himself was saying to the soviet bosses. The response was something along the line of "if it's such a dumb idea and Americans are still building them then there must be some military advantage that we are not seeing, therefore we must have one too."

Glushko's pet project is a base on the moon, and to do that you need Saturn V sized rockets. He figured at some point in the future the Soviet space program may go through another shake up and switch direction back to the moon (seems reasonable, since he himself just got Mishin fired and N1 cancelled and have the focus switch to space stations at the time). To prepare for that change he designed the Energiya rocket so that it could carry other payloads - in order words he managed to hide a Saturn V class rocket in his STS-clone!

So to argue that Buran was a waste of payload is kind of a moot point, the Chief Designer himself considered Energiya the real deal and the Buran was just something of a Trojan horse to appease the bosses.

Of course you're probably thinking: if Glushko had to run a space station program and plan for a future moon base it might have been better to get N1 working (it was very close, the engineers felt the upcoming 5th launch would be the first real "finished" N1) instead of starting over and make his own moon rocket. Afterall if Saturn V could be repurposed to launch Skylab then surely a working N1 could also be used to launch giant space station parts. Glushko didn't go down that path since N1's failure was the very excuse he used to fire Mishin and in any event he wasn't about to see Korolev's dream rocket finished under his watch.

Ironically Energiya's main engine RD-0120 was exactly the kind of engine that Korolev wanted for N1.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Temstar

[Rune]

10 hours ago, Temstar said:

It's interesting to see everyone argue that the winged orbiter idea is dumb and a waste of payload - that's exactly what Glushko himself was saying to the soviet bosses. The response was something along the line of "if it's such a dumb idea and Americans are still building them then there must be some military advantage that we are not seeing, therefore we must have one too."

Glushko's pet project is a base on the moon, and to do that you need Saturn V sized rockets. He figured at some point in the future the Soviet space program may go through another shake up and switch direction back to the moon (seems reasonable, since he himself just got Mishin fired and N1 cancelled and have the focus switch to space stations at the time). To prepare for that change he designed the Energiya rocket so that it could carry other payloads - in order words he managed to hide a Saturn V class rocket in his STS-clone!

So to argue that Buran was a waste of payload is kind of a moot point, the Chief Designer himself considered Energiya the real deal and the Buran was just something of a Trojan horse to appease the bosses.

Of course you're probably thinking: if Glushko had to run a space station program and plan for a future moon base it might have been better to get N1 working (it was very close, the engineers felt the upcoming 5th launch would be the first real "finished" N1) instead of starting over and make his own moon rocket. Afterall if Saturn V could be repurposed to launch Skylab then surely a working N1 could also be used to launch giant space station parts. Glushko didn't go down that path since N1's failure was the very excuse he used to fire Mishin and in any event he wasn't about to see Korolev's dream rocket finished under his watch.

Ironically Energiya's main engine RD-0120 was exactly the kind of engine that Korolev wanted for N1.

Yup, I pretty much argued the same thing when we first discussed this: it's ridiculous to build a Saturn-class booster and not use it for Saturn-class payloads. Besides, as we said earlier, it was a partially reusable Saturn-class booster. It was never tested, but the Zenith boosters included space for parachutes, landing gear, and breaking rockets (the box-like extensions on the top, they would have landed horizontal).

 

Rune. A shame there wasn't enough payload per year to really justify such boosters at the time... or nowadays, for that matter.

[DECQ]

That's right, the Energy moon rocket, at least for this purpose it was created, and it is very versatile, if you compare the two systems the American shuttle smokes on the sidelines at least because of the rocket ENERGIA. And from Energia family could come a lot of different rocket, and remember that the American space shuttle built under the program "Star Wars" is well suited for military purposes. A copy of the Buran only the outer shell, it is saved for several years Soviet designers, but filling the other ship.

[Kryten]

Shuttle flew years before SDI (or 'Star Wars') was founded, and was descended from concepts as old as the 60s. It was supposed to carry all US orbital payloads, including military ones, but not designed for any actual military missions.