Sic transit gloria mundi...

[bojan]

A friend from another forum pointed me to this:

http://worldtruth.tv/man-noticed-thi...m-by-surprise/

[LewisM]

Last week: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ighlight=buran

[Wavytone]

Interesting read - not at all clear how many Burans were built.

Buran 001 was the one that flew a mission and was crushed later when the building it was in collapsed.

Buran 002 was the one displayed at Darling Harbour and eventually sold to a museum in Germany for under $1M, then last seen in Bahrain. This had jet engines fitted - not rocket motors - and could never go into orbit.

There's another displayed in Gorky Park, though which one...

The two in that shed make 5... Though are apparently mockups.

I still get the feeling some of these were a case of wanting to be seen to be "keeping up with the Jones's" - looks like a space shuttle, makes lots of smoke and noise, to keep the political masters happy ... But to have jet engines is a bit of a dead giveaway that most of these would never get far from the ground.

And IMHO I'm still puzzled about whether Buran 001 ever really made it into orbit. The rocket motors fitted to the Buran itself (in photos) are far too puny to lift it vertically, and there's a small problem of where to put all the fuel needed to lift it into orbit - there was never any sign the Burans had booster rockets to do the heavy lifting, nor an external fuel tank.

Perhaps it's rather convenient it was crushed and destroyed.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

And IMHO I'm still puzzled about whether Buran 001 ever really made it into orbit. The rocket motors fitted to the Buran itself (in photos) are far too puny to lift it vertically, and there's a small problem of where to put all the fuel needed to lift it into orbit - there was never any sign the Burans had booster rockets to do the heavy lifting, nor an external fuel tank.

Perhaps it's rather convenient it was crushed and destroyed.

HUH????

http://www.spaceistheplace.ca/energiaburanonpad2.jpg

AND

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...d=0CFYQMyghMCE

AND

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur32.jpg

None of the Shuttles or Shuttleskis were designed to go into orbit by themselves without external rocket assistance.

You seem confused about the concept perhaps?

The Buran did not need rockets on the fuselage itself un like the US Shuttles. The Energia was both a large fuel tank AND rocket in one - the nozzles are hidden in the photos shown. The boosters did disconnect after being spent too like the Shuttle SRB's.

The Buran was also considerably lighter than the Shuttle, so the thrust required was less to achieve orbit.

Incidentally, Buran means Blizzard in Russian.

[LewisM]

Here is another couple of it being trained to the platform at Baikonur.

Far simpler transport system than the Yanks crawler that took a week or something to get to the pad an cost MILLIONS. Russians used a locomotive and a raising platform (which they use for ALL rockets).

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/burrolo2.jpg

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

The two in that shed make 5... Though are apparently mockups.

Was busy for a while translating the Russian concise version of the histories and details from Baikonur. One is a familiarisation mock-up, the other was being finalised for flight status.

Originally Posted by Wavytone

I still get the feeling some of these were a case of wanting to be seen to be "keeping up with the Jones's" - looks like a space shuttle, makes lots of smoke and noise, to keep the political masters happy ... But to have jet engines is a bit of a dead giveaway that most of these would never get far from the ground.

Only ONE had conventional air breathing engines fitted so it could be flown instead of needing to rely on simulators or modified aircraft that only loosely imitate the handling like NASA had to. It was a SMART move - pilots could get a real feel for the handling characteristics in real time/real weather before actually flying the actual Buran (the jet powered version is called the Analogue - for good reason). It also meant that the designers could make aerodynamic alterations if need be and test them in actuality rather than just in a wind tunnel. The Analogue is different in some aspects - undercarriage is vastly different so as to offer a high angle of attack for take off (much like how early pre-steam catapult carrier borne Naval aircraft did the same). The Buran of course did not need this feature, seeing it was landing only, where a NEGATIVE angle "sticks" you on the ground (much like the Shuttle's low nose attitude on the ground).

Your chronology is out too - it went Sydney to Bahrain, then to Speyer in Germany where it STILL is in the wonderful Technik museum.

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Perhaps it's rather convenient it was crushed and destroyed.

Crushed more by the destroyed regime that funded it, then forgot all about it as they rebuilt their country, and neglected the hangar that was housing it. Incidentally, the storm that caused the collapse also killed 8 people in the hangar, so I doubt they considered conspiracy theories prior to their demise.


Поехали!

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

There's another displayed in Gorky Park, though which one...

The one in Gorky Park (since moved nearby) is OK-7M/OK-TVA - a structural test airframe, not intended for flight testing.

13 Burans in total were made, but only 5 space-flight versions.

[LewisM]

All this Buran talk convinced me I needed a Buran/AN-225 model.

Voila! http://www.ebay.com/itm/361265582673

Selling a set of rings paid for most of it