Conference 7.286::space

    	It was not a coincidence, they did it on purpose to steal some
    of the thunder away from DISCOVERY.
    
    	See also Topics 28, 169, and 412.
                       
    	Larry
    

   re:.1 
    > It was not a coincidence, they did it on purpose to steal some
    > of the thunder away from DISCOVERY.
        
    Didn't steal any thunder away for me, in fact maybe added some!
    I hope that all this will stir new interest in space exploration
    all over the world.  And if the Soviet shuttle is viewed as competition
    for our shuttle, great!  That's how we got to the moon!  I hope
    the Soviets can get their shuttle up as quickly and safely as possible,
    I'd love to see it.
    
    			Steve

    re:1
    The soviet Shuttle was always about the same size as the
    American one ( plans bought under the freedom information
    act as the shuttle is not classified), the smaller unit
    you are talking about is what has been called the
    'Space-Plane', it is very small and has been photograph
    being recovered out of the pacific ocean
    jb
    

    
    How does the Soviet shuttle compare to ours as far as payload, crew
    size, technology, etc?  If they have the plans, then they're probably
    very similar.  Anyone know about this stuff?
    						
    						-SK
    

    The major difference between the two shuttles is the fact that the
    Soviet Shuttle rides on a booster unlike the American Shuttle that
    provides the eng and rides on the fuel tank.  Thus if one takes off the
    Soviet Shuttle one would have a Heavy Launch Vehicle, doing that
    to the American Shuttle an one has a fule tank.  The other
    difference is how it will be used.  It will not be use to bring
    material into space, the Progress units are automatic unman units
    are far cheaper , its main purpose will be to return material 
    manafactured in microgravity and for large crew changes.  The
    Soyuz TM units can handle two or three cosmonauts but if you
    take three there is little room to bring material back.
    
    Other changes are the rear eng, some say they have jet eng
    others say no, I think that the jet eng were just straped on
    for testing the shuttle .  IE you know can fly it up and
    practice normal non-powered landings.
                                
    Else payload is simular, possible a little higher as they
    do not have to have the large eng.             
    
    Rumors have it that they bougth the rejected tile from a company
    in Calf.            
    
    Landing is done by an autopiolit, no human is required to
    fly the Soviet Shuttle.
                                                
    Else put CCCP on the left wing and the Russian Flag on the
    right wing of a US shuttle and remove the rear eng, and a
    a quick glance they look the same.
    
    jb
    
    
    
    

   RE: 471.5 <PARITY::BIRO>

   >The major difference between the two shuttles is the fact that the Soviet
   >Shuttle rides on a booster unlike the American Shuttle that provides the
   >eng and rides on the fuel tank.

       Could someone clarify this for me.  The American Shuttle does have
   engines but it also is propelled into space with the help of SRBs.  The
   tank in the middle is the liquid fuel for the shuttle's engines.  Is that
   correct?

       Also, I noticed in several pictures of the shuttle, the shuttle
   engines' nozzles were able to move/point is different directions.  Is this
   what helps to steer in lift-off?  I notice that a few seconds after
   lift-off, the shuttle rotates right, is this done by the on-board shuttle
   engines or by the SRBs?

   >Landing is done by an autopiolit, no human is required to fly the Soviet
   >Shuttle.

       I thought that this could also be done with the America Shuttle.  In
   fact, I thought that the first few landing of the Shuttle were done by
   computers.  Is this not true.

   Tony

    The (U.S.'s) shuttle has three powerful rocket engines which are
    used during ascent.  The fuel for these engines is contained in
    the external tank.  Two solid rocket motors are attached to the
    external and provide additional thrust during the initial stages
    of ascent.  The solids are jettisoned after approximately 2 mins.
    The shuttle's main engines continue to fire for another 6.5 mins,
    at which time they are shut down and the external tank is then
    jettisoned.
    
    The nozzles in the shuttle main engines and the solid rockets
    can be steered.  I believe they are steered in tandem during the
    initial roll manuever off the launch pad.
    
    So, during ascent, the shuttle's main engines are providing part
    of the thrust for ascent.
    
    In contrast, the Soviet shuttle can be thought of as a glider,
    which is strapped to a rocket.  You could strap a cargo pod on
    the rocket, instead of the Soviet shuttle, and carry freight.
    There are no ascent engines in the Soviet shuttle.  Whether or
    not it has engines to assist during landing is unclear.
    

    re: 6 autopiolet
    The Soviet Shuttle can be flown from takeoff to landing
    under computer control, the landing of the American
    Shuttle is computer assisted maybe even computer controled
    but I dont think the eitire mission could be done that way.
    
    jb
    

	It was said that the Soviet Shuttle can't take material
	into space. What are the implications of this?
	Foresight would indicate this to be an important capability.

	I think someone said that it can take material back from
	space.
	
	Can their shuttle be modified easily modified for building
	structures in space or is this a unique capability in the 
	US Shuttle.

I think what they meant was that the Soviet shuttle was not built to take 
materials into space.  They use the progress rockets for that.  It probably 
could transport material into space, it's just not one of it's missions 
that's all.

Why launch the shuttle when a progress rocket will do the same for you at a 
much lower cost?

I wish we had learned that a long time ago.

Rich

Re:< Note 471.10 by LILAC::MKPROJ "REAGAN::ZORE" >

Well, Progress is to support Mir, and Progress payloads are quite small. 
However, the shuttle boster Energia, without the shuttle attached, would 
be used for large cargos.  The Soviets essentially have the Shuttle AND 
a heavy lift launcher in the Energia/Shuttle combination.

Tony

    OK, so can the US shuttle be swapped out in favor of a materials-only
    payload and an appropriate 'engine pack'?  Or are there inherent
    limitations that prevent that?  What is the lifting capacity of the
    shuttle configuration - including the weight of the shuttle?
    
John

    The Soviet Energia Booster rocket can deliver 27 tons of cargo to
    Mars or 100 Tons of cargo to LEO.  Alexander Dunayev said that
    testing has now entered its concluding stages and it would be
    launched this year.
    
    Energia's power is 170 Million Horsepower and it's lauch weight is
    over 2000 Tons.  As mention in the past notes, large cargo
    (to large for the Progress Ferry) would be launch on its back
    not in the Suttle itself. The Shuttle will be used for large crew 
    changes and to retrun space manafactured goods to earth.
           
    jb
    

    As someone pointed out, if you remove the shuttle (ours) from the
    stack, all you have left is the fuel tank.
    
    What is preventing the creation of a 'Space Truck' that attaches
    in the same manner as the shuttle and has the same engines as the
    shuttle?  The load lift would be quite high as you eliminate all
    the hardware necessary to support life and all the hardware needed
    to return the ship for reuse (yes, you would loose the engines on
    each flight. So?)
    
    What would the lift capability be for such a configuration?
    jim
    

    This sounds like 'shuttle-C', a cargo only version of the shuttle.
    Unfortunately, it costs quite a bit, because it makes use of so
    much man-rated hardware.  Now if they wanted to do something on
    the cheap, there are a few old-style SRBs lying around, that I'd
    ride on if the weather were warm that could be used for cargo, but
    Nasa has no incentive to do anything on the cheap....
    
    Willie

re Note 471.14 by TUNER::FLIS:

> (yes, you would loose the engines on each flight. So?)
    
The engines, designed for hours of use, are especially expensive.  You would
want to develop a cheap engine compatible with the LOX and LH2 of the shuttle.

Bob

re Note 471.15 by SNDCSL::SMITH:

>     This sounds like 'shuttle-C', a cargo only version of the shuttle.
>     Unfortunately, it costs quite a bit, because it makes use of so
>     much man-rated hardware.  


What does "man-rated" imply--that it mustn't blow up?  In that case, given the
increasing complexity and hence expense of unmanned payloads, perhaps you want
man-rating for them as well.  After all, you don't want to lose an object the
price of the Space Telescope, or of a major space station component, because
you used a launcher that was less than the most reliable you had.

(Besides, at least one version of both the Atlas and the Titan must have been
"man-rated".)

Bob

I read somewhere (I have a feeling it was in this conference) that Shuttle-C
is intended to use old-type SRBs that are not suitable for manned launches
and life-expired SSME.  The SSME is not considered to be usable for more than
a fairly small number (5?) of manned launches because of reliability questions.

This will mean that Shuttle-C will be using materials that would otherwise
be scrapped, thereby reducing costs considerably.

    Forget where I saw this, but....
    
    Flight qualified: Height of the stack of paperwork exceeds the height
    of the assembled rocket.
    
    Man rated:  Height of the stack of paperwork exceeds the maximum
    altitude of the vehicle.
    
    Willie

re Note 471.18 by JANUS::BARKER:

> I read somewhere (I have a feeling it was in this conference) that Shuttle-C
> is intended to use old-type SRBs that are not suitable for manned launches

I think I read in AW&ST that the old-style SRB casings can be used for the
upper half (or is it the lower half?) of the SRB segments because in the old
design the field joints and the factory joints were the same, and only the
clevis (or is it the tang?) side of the field joint was modified in the new
design.  So the old casings are suitable for one half of each factory-assembled
section.

(Once again:  if you have something that is so large that it needs a heavy-lift
launcher, then you probably don't want to take any additional risk of losing
it.)

Bob

    
    I was looking at the picture of the Soviet Shuttle and notice
    that the rudder is split in two section.  At first I could not
    understand why one would do this, then  a possible answear was
    suggested.  Could it be for redundency, if the rudder failed 
    there would be no way to 'turn' the glider, unlike the
    American Shuttle the Soviet Shuttle does not seem to have
    jets ( OHMS ? sp)  to help truning  that I assume could be use 
    as a backup system for the American Shuttle.
    I suspose you could also use the wing flaps on each wing to
    change the lift on each wing to help turn the spacecraft.
    
    
    There is an intersting 'magic marker' masked out section on the rear
    section of the main body , if one could remover it
    I would not be suprise to see the word  ' NASA '.
    
    
    jb
    

    A split rudder could also be used as a speed brake.....
    
    Willie

    The shuttle does not use OMS (orbital maneuvering system) in the
    atmosphere. 
    
    What you do not see on the Soviet orbiter are OMS pods. All that means
    is that their equivalent is probably mounted inboard, at the tail.
    Although it is conceivable that they could fly Energia/orbiter on a
    direct ascent trajectory, they still need an OMS for maneuvering and
    deorbit burns. A reasonable guess is that it is the same subsystem
    that was used (and failed) on the cargo pod on the first Energia
    launch.
    
    As to why the two rudder surfaces... no real idea except that they
    may have some reason for wanting to retain some rudder control when
    speed brakes are deployed in flight.
    
    gary

    re:22 & 23
    
    Would a split rudder add that much drag, and I understand that
    the OMS are normally only used in space, but what then is the
    backup if the rudder fails. I dont think I would like to split
    my rudder during reentry, maybe for brakeing druing landing.
    
    I guess what you are saying that the OMS would not be affective
    in the astmosphere. The Soviet Shuttle would need some form of
    OMS and kick motor, but they are not obvious in the released 
    picture. They must be burried in its tail.  
    
    The TV special show what they called a video of the Soviet
    Shuttle but to me, it looked like a video of a picture not
    a video of the real live shuttle, nothing moved in the 
    background. The cammer did pan accrosed the shuttle but
    the image did not seem to rotate.                  
    john
    
    
    
    

    The shuttle's split rudder opens up as a drag brake after reentry,
    while the shuttle is 'gliding' (more of a controlled plummet than
    a glide..) It does add quite a lot to the drag of the vehicle.
    
    It could steer itself effectively using the wing control surfaces,
    which it tends to do anyway.
    
    On a normal shuttle ascent, there is one OMS burn to acheive orbit
    and another one later to circularise the orbit. There is no seperate
    kick motor, the OMS are quite powerful. For fine tuning, rendezvous
    etc, there is a seperate RCS (reaction control system) which consists
    of small thrusters located on various parts of the orbiter. The
    Soviet orbiter clearly has RCS thrusters located in much the same
    locations.
    
    Yes, I suspect that the OMS equivalent on the Soviet orbiter is
    located inside the body, at the tail.
    
    I didn't see the TV special. I've only seen one photo of the Soviet
    shuttle on Energia, reproduced in various places so that may have
    been what they used. A newspaper mentioned that this photo was shown
    on Soviet TV news. Its in this week's AW&ST.
    
    gary

    According to an article in the Boston Globe this morning, the Soviet
    shuttle, named Buran ("Snowstorm"), may go up this week.  It is
    undergoing checks of the on-board systems.  Tass did not say whether
    the test flight would be manned or not, but the assumption is not
    since Soviet space officials have said that the test would be unmanned
    in earlier statements.
    
    						Mike

On NPR (national public radio) the announce that the 
Russian shuttle set to launch maybe latter this week.
The Soviet Shuttle is called ?? BURAN or or SNOWSTORM 
I have Snowstorm as   B b IO L a   but this is mostly
the wind part of the strom, ' bypah ' is the word that 
describe the snow part of the snowstrom or blizzard conditions.
It is also the most popular word used in WWII for the
code name for a Soviet Radio station.
    
                                     
    In other news has anyone heard of the death of Shchuskin
    in a plane crash in mid Aug. He was one of the backup
    pilots for the Soviet Space shuttle, or was he just
    another pilot with the same name.
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Death of another Soviet Shuttle Pilot
Posted: 20 Oct 88 21:03:01 GMT
Organization: The Internet
  
    The Soviet shuttle program has undergone yet another difficulty.
According to Defense Daily Oct 18, 1988, page 252, Moscow announced
about Oct. 15 that Cosmonaut Anatoly Shchukin, another of the shuttle
pilots in training, died in the crash of a Su-26 on Aug. 18.  This
puts his demise just 12 days after the death announcement of lead
pilot, Anatoly Levchenko, who succumed to a brain tumor.  That still
leaves cosmonaut Igor Volk as the remaining member of the original
primary shuttle crew. 

    "'Instinctively I believe the Soviets on this one, but the odds on 
this happening to the two most likely shuttle pilots are astronomical', 
analyst James Oberg [told] Defense Daily." 

    One other strange point here is the plane he is stated to have
crashed. The Sukhoi Su-26 is listed in Janes Aircraft as stunt
competition aircraft that first appeared in the World Aerobatic
Championships in Hungary in 1984 (they were unknown before that).  It
is a single seat prop plane with a radial engine.  Not the type of
aircraft that you would expect for training the shuttle pilots and
apparently a rather rear one. 

    This goes along with the mystery of the photos they released of
their shuttle mated to the Energiya booster.  While the front of the
vehicle is very much like the shuttle there are many changes at the
rear.  For example there are no Orbital Maneuvering System pods,
because those engines are in the tail.  In addition the fact that
there is no weight of the engines in the tail must change the center
of mass.  These both must modify both the shuttle aerodynamic
behavior, which must result in other changes in the system.  Unfortunately, 
the shuttle tail is the least shown part in these photos. 

     However, unlike the United States, the Soviets are not dependent
on the shuttle to get into space.  With the Mir space station manned
continuously for 22 months now, and a steady stream of visitors they
are the only nation that can truly be said to be settling the space
frontier.  It will be at least 8 years before that could be true of
the USA.  It just goes to show, you do not stop flying your operating
manned vehicles to wait for a new fancier design.  That is really what
has killed this country's program. 
 
                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

    CNN had a long sequence yesterday (24 Oct) on Energia/Shuttle,
    including footage of it on the pad and on its erector/transporter.
    They clearly assemble and transport the entire assembly horizontally
    and lift it to a vertical position at the launch pad.
    
    There were no rear views of the tail section so it wasn't possible
    to see the engines on any part of the vehicle. (I wonder if this
    is intentional or coincidental? Its possible that the shuttle could
    be unpowered for its first test if they don't intend to place it
    in orbit).
    
    They said that the first launch would be unmanned and that they
    may be ready for launch this week.
    
    If anyone hears/sees any further details, please post it here asap.
    John, anything interesting happening with the tracking ships?
    
    gary

    There are six tracking ships out, but this also normal for the EVA
    that took place on the 20th.  Two of the SESS have announced that 
    they will be coming into port by the begining of NOV, so I would 
    think that the lauch  has to happen soon.  Also yesterday (24th
    Oct ) down link form MIR had a brief conversation about BURAN, 
    they said something like Buran is perpared to start....
    then went on to another subject. (six SESS indicates a major
    space activity) 
    
    The Tail of the Soviet Shuttle is still a mystery.  The Marked
    out section on the orignial photo is where the big 4 ft high or
    so bypah (BURON) is, why did the Soviets mark over this so that
    one could not read its name.  One my ask, Is it the same shuttle?
    I think so, as the strange poor workmanship on the left wing showed up in
    both the photo and the video with the 'bypah' markings (unless these
    are some kind of connections).
                                 
    One minor difference between the Soviet Shuttle and the US is the
    way the window Sun visors seem to work.  The Soviets ones pull down, and
    I believe the American ones pull up.
    
    jb
      
    
             
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Soviet Shuttle undergoing final preparations
Posted: 24 Oct 88 18:17:46 GMT
Organization: The Internet
  
     Much more information and photos have been released about the
soviet shuttle today (Oct.23).  Radio Moscow called the shuttle Buran
(Snowstorm) and that name is written on its side.  The shuttle is
strapped to the side of an Energiya core section, with 4 liquid
strapon on a side of the core, about 90 degrees either side of the
shuttle connection point.  The whole vehicle weighs 240 Tonnes
unfueled.  It is assembled horizontally (with the shuttle on the top)
sitting on a large railroad type flatcar (I could not see for certain
whether there were rails beneath it, and how many, but all their other
launchers use that system).  It is rolled out to the pad, then erected
and fueled. That is the reason for the short, squat appearance of the
Energiya - so that it can be erected in this manner (I have argued
this for years). The vehicle is undergoing final checkout, but no
launch date has been set (and position of the information on their
news is so late as to indicate it is not going to occur for a few days
to weeks).  There have been several statements that it will occur
before the end of the year - little else. 

    More information has come out about Anatoly Shchukin, the Russian
shuttle pilot who died Aug. 18th (see my Oct. 19th posting).  Shchukin
was born in Vienna, Austria (his father was a diplomat) in 1946, and
he entered shuttle training in 1982.  He died doing some stunt flying
demonstrations on a Su-26 (doing a low to ground inside loop). 
According to Jim Oberg Shchukin's death was reported in Oct. 15
Sovietskiy Sport and in Sept. 29 Kosmomolskaya Pravda. 

    Success and failure are the twin aspects of any project.  There is
statement attributed to IBM's CEO, "If you want to make faster
progress then make more failures", because failures indicate that you
are at least trying new things.  Obviously it is the success that
count best in the long run.  The things that is most apparent with the
Soviet in the past few years is the number of new vehicles and
programs that they are bringing on line, and the number of failures
they have publicly announced.  Now the world is asking, can they make
them work?  That is the same challenge this country faces with the shuttle. 
 
                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

    The Soviet Shuttle 'bypah' will be launch
    on Satturday at 06:23 Moscow Time or 
    Friday 11:23 EST  
    
    jb
    

    Radio Moscow just announced that the Soviet Space Shuttle
    will launch on Saturday at 02:24 UTC.  It would be unmaned
    and would be the first in the BURAN ( bypah ) series.
    
    I find it very interesting that they
    1st)  used UTC not MSK
    2nd)  called the shuttle the BURAN series
    
    jb
    

    More from this morning's CNN....
    
    The countdown clock has started and fueling operations commence today.
    They said launch time would be around 11:30pm edt Friday or 6:30am
    Moscow time Saturday. They said that it would be two or three orbits
    followed by a return to Baikonour. No mention of live coverage,
    but I'll certainly be watching CNN on Friday night.
    
    They show some more footage, including a view of orbiter tail section.
    Of course the first time I was trying to stop the dog chewing on
    something and second time they had their CNN logo over part of the
    tail section, but it looks like their OMS equivalent is one nozzle
    located in the center of the tail. There are two assemblies that
    extend out from the tail section and had what looked like RCS nozzles.
    There were also shots of the Energia being prepped, mostly of the
    instrument bays.
    
    gary
        

VKK = Vosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl
      Air       Cosmos       Shuttle (big ship)
jb

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Soviet Shuttle launch date and time announced
Posted: 27 Oct 88 03:44:40 GMT
Organization: The Internet
 
 
    The Soviet Shuttle launch date is set for Saturday Oct. 29th at 6:24 Moscow
Time (that translates as 11:24 EDT - Moscow is now off of Daylight time).
This initial flight is definitely unmanned (manned mission possibly in 1991)
The Russian name for their shuttle is Vosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl'
(Air Space Ship), while this particular one is Buran (snowstorm).  Note that
James Oberg was first to use Buran several years ago.  Also the initial photos
of the vehicle had that name blocked out (look at AW&ST Oct. 24), do not
know why.  The dry weight of Buran is 70 Tonnes, of Energiya's dry weight of
240 Tonnes.  The fueled weight is up to 2,400 tonnes, with a liftoff thrust
of 3,600 Tonnes.  This current flight will be using a different pad than the
initial Energiya flight.  This suggests that there is at least one pad for
Buran related missions, and one for regular vehicles.  The launch will be
covered live at least on the short wave, probably on television (maybe even
CNN will carry it).
    Some interesting points here having to do with the Orbital Maneuvering
Systems (OMS) on Buran.  In this country's shuttle after main engine shut down
the dive to release the tank the shuttle is at 95% orbital speed, with the
OMS just supplying the rest.  However, the last Energiya launch had the third
stage separating at about 70% of orbital velocity.  That means the OMS rockets
must supply a much larger delta V (velocity increase).  Hence, this may 
explain the mystery about the tail on Buran - with no main engines as on
the shuttle it should be much lighter than needed to make the vehicle stable.
However, if it must contain more fuel for that maneurver this could balance
out.
   Finally in other man related mission the EVA Oct. 20th to repair the
X-ray telescope was successful, with the first X-ray pictures of a galaxy
being returned Oct. 25th.
   If the USSR pulls this off then they will have the same capacity we have
to return large cargoes from orbit, and to put up large manned crews.  In 
addition of course they have a permanently manned space station with crews
working towards 1 year missions.  Then it will be very hard for those that
argue "our shuttle puts us years ahead of the Russians in space".
 
                                                     Glenn Chapman
                                                     Lincoln Lab
    

    the word Korable has two meaning , the most comman
    is SHIP the second one is that of a biger then 
    normal ship or a Shuttle so I think the 
    correct translation of VKK is Air Cosmos Shuttle
    
    I ran a mock VKK element set and found that the best
    chance for anyone to monitor VKK will be in 
    South America, or the West coast of Africa
    the Middle East and Japan.
    
    If VKK goes for three orbits watch for a landing
    apx 07:35 to 08:00 Utc   on Saterday.
    
    
    
    

    VKK 
    one more try, I like how this one fits
    
    Bosdushno Kosmicheskii Korabl
    Air and Space Big Ship
    or
    Air and Space Shuttle
    
    as this is both a Air and A Space ship
    
    the word Korabl , according to Nick Johnson has been used
    before, Korabl Sputnik, but the American press pick it up
    as big Sputnik.
    
    

    re .37
    
    The Korabl Sputniks were unmanned Vostok tests. They were certainly
    much larger than the original Sputniks. Your VKK translations sound
    reasonable to me.
    
    re .35
>must supply a much larger delta V (velocity increase).  Hence, this may 
>explain the mystery about the tail on Buran - with no main engines as on
>the shuttle it should be much lighter than needed to make the vehicle stable.
>However, if it must contain more fuel for that maneurver this could balance
>out.
    
    Non sequitur (guess what Star Trek was on last night :-)
    
    By the time the orbiter seperates from the Energia core, it has
    sufficient altitude that aerodynamic stability is irrelevant. The
    comments around balance and stability refer to the glide phase of
    the descent and are assuming that Buran is a clone of the US design.
    Any extra 'OMS' propellants won't be there for that phase. 
    
    Two other points: 1) for aerodynamic stability of a rocket, you
    typically have to be careful to move the center of gravity forward, not
    backward and 2) many current military jets are inherently unstable and
    rely upon the avionics to keep them pointed in the right direction. 
    
    Lastly, CNN announced this morning that they are trying to arrange
    for live coverage. The last I heard (about 9:15am) was that Soviet
    TV coverage will not commence until a few minutes after liftoff
    (I take this ti mean that the broadcast will be delayed in case
    something screws up bad). They had more footage today, including
    more of the tail of Buran and it still looks like one large OMS
    engine (it was in shadow so it was hard to see detail). They also
    showed some nice close ups of the Energia core engines.
    
    gary

    if one looks up the word ship in a Russian dictionary
    
    ship  parohbd   (the best I can do with Cyrillic translation) and
    korabl also a ship but not the word one would find looking up ship
    
    I was told that  korabl normally refers to a militray large ship
    and parohdb a commercial one
                  
    
    one trivia question
    I wonder why  a space ship is called a ship an not a plane
    even the SF USS Enterprise is a navel vessel
    
    You will find part of the answear by looking up the word plane.
    a plane is how a bird flys without moving its wings, thus
    a airplane would need air to be called a plane, and a heilocopter
    can not be called a plane,  But the word ships is the unit
    that carries supplies over a sea of water.... the cosmos is not
    water?
    
    jb
    
    
    

    
      BAIKONUR COSMODROME ON THE EVE OF BURAN
 
    
The Final pre-launch operations have begun at the launch complex.
Operation to provide the system with fuel ( which is 90% of the
total mass) began this morning.

The Central Engine module with a diameter of 8 meters has four engines
with a traction of 148 tons each at ground surface.  Liquid hydrogen and 
liquid oxygen are used as fuel components.  The engines on the side modules
operator on oxygen and a hydrocarbon fuel.  The traction of each of them
at ground surface is 740 tons ( 806 tons in space).  

The first ENERGIA was launch last May from a different test stand.
The so-called universal stand start complex which is not located far from
the present BURAN launch site, but it differs form the new one.
I could not understand the description but it sound like the new 
site has three tunnels to let the gases out and the old one had
only one.  This and the fact that this is the first time the
shuttle is on the booster will change the dynamic and the
nature of the acoustic vibrations which will have an effect on the 
Booster system.

Electrical power for launch support is redundant and the power 
intensiveness is equal to the electric consumption of a large
Soviet city.  Scientist also said that the system for the 
automatic control of the launch complex has three levels
with an aggreate of more then 100,000 issued commands and received
signals.  The 1st level is connected directly with the
rocket and acts as a master one with regards to the system
of the other levels which begin to function only upon receiving a 
command from the 1st level system.  I hope you all got that
as there will be a quiz at 12 pm tonight.

When fueling take place it is necessary for the simultaneously 
operation of more then four thousand actuators to maintain a
high precision of the mean temperature of the liquid hydrogen to 
prevent more then a 10 mm deviation of the component level in 
the tank.  A cryogenic increase in metal strength allows the
design of the ENERGIA to have a lower mass.

Special Safety measure are necessary involving the
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.  Their mixture would lead to 
a heaviest explosion ( neat expression ) This is why people
abandon the area of the entire launch complex and take shelter
before a fueling operation begins.  From that time on,
only television cameras monitor the operation.

The communication system which will be ensuring the flight
are undergoing final test.  These involve all ground measuring
stations stretching from the Crimea to the far east , four
Satellite systems, cable and relays lines.

"The Cosmodrome personnel invited journalist to the assembly and
test building of the ENERGIA and BURAN.  Work is now in 
progress on next vehicles under the roofs of the huge space 
hangers factories.  Even in those spacious buildings the vehicles amaze
one with their dimension.  Journalist can see the orbiter which
is referred to as + BIRDIE + It is about 30 meters long,
and 16 meters high.  The area of the swept wing is 250 square 
meters.  The diameter of the fuselage is 5.6 meters.  The 38,000
lightweight heat assorbing ceramic tiles add a somewhat fairy-tale
aspect to the vehicle.  Such a protective cover would resist temperatures 
of even up to 2000 degrees.

The Vehicle is to undergo test in outer space.  The first BURAN
orbiter is ready for the flight.  Tomorrow the high powered
ENERGIA space rocket will  loft it into an orbit where it is to
circle the globe two times and then, upon commands form the
electronic brain and radio commands from the ground, it is to
land on a concrete runway 12km away from the launching complex."


    

Count down got to T-51 seconds when the 'Computer Brain' and the
gyro's detected the fact that the Man Emergency Escape Tower had
not been fully move back.  Safety precaution required the de-fueling
before inspection.  The problem is now understood but the next 
launch will not happen until after the Holiday (7th of Nov)

I check out MIRs ground track for the 7th and found a very 
similar ground track and day/night line with a launch time
of about 0030 and the next two orbits.

    
    

    If their OMS equivalent is based on the design of the
    Soyuz/Progress/Salyut engines, which seems likely, then they are
    following standard procedures. If a Soyuz countdown is halted after
    the service module tanks are pressurised, they unload propellants
    and do major checks/overhauls. From memory, this takes on the order
    of two weeks.
    
    gary 

    IF SHUTTLE don't move its pad then the Launch is "after the holiday"
    else if the Shuttle has to be move to another pad then
    SOVIET SHUTTLE LAUNCH EXPECTED BY END OF NOV
    
    MOSCOW (OCT 31) The Soviet Space Shuttle Buran (snowstorm),
    whose launch was aborted at the last minute Saturday, will blast
    off on the back o fthe massive Energia rocket by the end of 
    November at the latest, an official form the Soviet space agency
    Glavkosmos told AFP Monday.   Glavkosmos offical Stepan 
    Bogdyash said hat the exact date depended on whether the
    shuttle and the 60-meter (180ft) tall rocket whould have to be moved
    form the Baikonour launchpad where the countdown has halted
    following a failure in the launch system.  The Baikonur
    cosmodrome is situated in the Soviet Central Asian republic of
    Kazakhstan.  If Buran stayed on the launchpad, the Soviet
    Uniton's first reusable shuttle could talke off "after the holiday"
    on 7 November  marking the 71st anniversary of the Russian 
    revolution, Mr. Bogodyash said.  But if the buran-Energia complex
    had to be dismantled, the launch would be put off until the end
    of next month, he explained.  The launch of the 100-ton Buran,
    resembling the U.S. shuttle, was halted automatically by computer
    only 51 seconds from blast off after a platform failed to
    seperate frm the Energia rocket body to a safe distance. The
    platform caries a system which ensures an accurate setting
    of the rocket's gyroscopes.   General Vladimir Gudilin, the Baikonur
    cosmodrome chief, said in the newspaper interviews published Sunday
    that the new launch date would be fixed after 7th November.  He
    said "many operatons" had to be carried out, but space
    authorities were ready to try for a new launch "fairly quickly".
    
    jb
    

    The Soviets have announced that there are to be FIVE
    orbiters -- two flights each per year eventually.
    
    5*2 = 10 flight per year
    
    jb
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: New Soviet Shuttle launch date
Posted: 1 Nov 88 21:42:41 GMT
Organization: The Internet
  
     The USSR has announced the new launch date for their shuttle
Buran. Currently they are saying about Nov. 8/9, though no time has
been stated for that date.  The problem with the previous launch's
second try is now stated as being due to a service platform failing to
withdraw (actually one used for an emergency escape when there is a
crew on board).  The count was stopped at minus 51 seconds. 

     I just want to take some time to reply to several postings about
the similarity and differences of the US and Soviet shuttles.  In v9
issue 69 (Oct. 31) Space Digest Henry Spencer commented on my previous
posting:

>>    This goes along with the mystery of the photos they released of their
>>shuttle mated to the Energiya booster.  While the front of the vehicle is
>>very much like the shuttle there are many changes at the rear.  For example
>>there are no Orbital Maneuvering System pods, because those engines are in
>>the tail.  In addition the fact that there is no weight of the engines in
>>the tail must change the center of mass.  These both must modify both the 
>>shuttle aerodynamic behavior, which must result in other changes in the
>>system...
>
>There is a "mystery" here only if you assume that the Soviet shuttle was
>copied from the US one in more than superficial details.  Near as I can
>tell, that is a paranoid delusion rather than a realistic assumption.
>Is it so hard to believe that the Soviets have competent designers?
 
     Sorry Henry (and others that said the same),  there are real
important mysteries here.  Of course their shuttle shape is partially
determined by aerodynamics.  For example I have a picture from the mid
60's showing Yuri Gagarin and several cosmonauts clustered around a
wind tunnel model that looks almost identical to the shuttle. 
However, certainly the measurements of Buran are so similar to the
shuttle that there was also significant copying (look at the tile
pattern and the position/shape of the forward jet nozzles).  Some
copying of existing systems is always part of good engineering (why do
you think that almost every company buys copies of its competitor's
products and test them to find out what they have done better). No,
the important part is where the systems differ, and that is in the
tail assembly.  As I noted previously Energiya is only at 70% of
orbital velocity when the core stage burns out.  What sort of engines
and fuel does Buran carry (it must be much more than the tiny OMS
engines on the NASA shuttle). What thrust does it have, and how can
that be used to modify their mission profile.  No information on this
has been released that I can find, while significant data is available
on Energiya itself.  Probably it will appear just after the flight, in
the same way it did for Energiya. 

     Also note what else they did not copy.  All the engines on their
shuttle/Energiya are liquid.  Therefore it is a much safer system from
the point of manned flight.  Those engines can always be shut down if
something goes wrong and the shuttle separated at any time during the
flight.  Thus there is just a narrow window (the first few seconds
while the shuttle gets up to several hundred meters) during which a
nonexplosive engine failure need result in the loss of the crew, while
for the shuttle nothing can be done while the solids are burning (the
first 2 minutes). 

     The Russian's shuttle is going to have a big impact on their
program. When it is operational (Say in 1992) they will have all the
infrastructure for large manned operations in Earth orbit - a heavy
lift launcher (carries >3 times maximum US load), an operational
expandable space station, two working manned systems (Buran and Soyuz
series), robot fueling/cargo systems for the station,  and at least 4
types of highly tested unmanned boosters (7 to 20 tonnes to orbit
range).  At that point the NASA station will still be at least 5 years
away.  Without a lot of effort on the US's part (or bad luck on
theirs) nothing is going to prevent the USSR from being the dominant
manned space activity nation for the rest of this century. If you do
not like it, then do something about it. 
 
                                                  Yours truly,
                                                  Glenn Chapman

    "I am certain we shall soon be hearing a human voice coming from
  space - and that it will have an unmistakable Russian accent." 

       - Werhner von Braun speaking to a Congressional Commitee on 
         Space, November of 1959.

    re:45
    The Soviet has not announced that the launch dat will be
    NOV 8/9 but that the 8/9 is the earliest that they will
    announce the date of the launch.
    
    I have not found any offical date  but I believe
    that it will be the middle of the month   (14-17)
    or posponed until after Jan.                          
    
    I do not believe they will do it after the 21st of
    Nov.  The Guest French Astronaut will be visiting MIR
    at that time and will stay on MIR until DEC.
    
    
    
    

    BTW, I have not seen it reported here, but on the night of the aborted
    launch, Radio Moscow reported that Buran could stay in orbit for
    several weeks  (was it 2 or 3?).  I wonder why they need missions
    that long when they have Mir?  Could they mean that Buran might
    stay docked to Mir for several weeks?  Maybe they plan to have Buran
    in other orbits (like Polar?) sometimes.
    
    Burns

    One correction the French Mission has been posponed until the 26th
    of NOV for political reasons.
    
    I have a question on when the T-51 sec hold happen, was it 
    before or after the 4 hour hold.  IE did the T-51 hold cause
    the 4 hour hold or did the T-51 hold stop the launch after
    the 4 hour hold.   One reason given for not showing the launch
    of the Shuttle live was that the first launch time was before
    the normal working hours of the press, but after the 4 hour hold
    this was not true yet they said that agian the launch would not
    be carried live.   
    
    jb
    
    

    then next launch of BURAN will be at 0600 MSK on tuesday
    the 15 of NOV , hear in the east coast of the USA that 
    will be late monday night, I am not sure as some times
    there is a 6 or 7 hour difference depending if they
    use daylight saving times or not, FCC does not but
    the rest of the country does.  So it could be as
    early as midnight Monday or 1 am Tue.
    
    jb
    

    FWIW, CNN claimed it would be around 10pm EST. No word on coverage yet.
    They had lots of footage this morning of the Buran/Energia complex
    being moved in or out of it's assembly building.
    
    gary 

    
    msk to utc = delta 3 hours
    utc to est = delta 5 hours
    ---------------------------
                       8 hours
                       6 hours msk
    ---------------------------
                      22 hours est
    
    ok I goofed,  gary is right it should be 10 pm est
    
    thanks john
    

    The news segment of the TODAY show had a short video of the launch
    and landing of the shuttle this morning.  If I didn't know better,
    I would say that I saw one of ours landing.  The similarity is amazing,
    right down to the speed brakes on the tail.  
    
    Ken Roller

    
    
Soviet TV carried and strangely edit footage of the launch of
BUPAH and its landing.  I found the landing most interesting.
The first view of the landing appeared to be the view of shuttle
from that of the chase plane.  The next view was the landing with 
the rear wheels making contact first, then as the nose of the 
Shuttle came down one could see the chase plane with its landing 
gear down fly behind the shuttle on a 'touch and go landing'. 
It gave me the feeling that he chase plane was in control or
could have taking over control of the Shuttle landing.
    
    

    The whole business of the way the Soviets do their coverage is
    sort of amusing.  Radio Moscow (NA Service), at their news at 2100
    (EST) said that Buran was to be launched at 0600 Tuesday Moscow
    time.  They did not give the translation into either EST or GMT,
    nor did they say "one hour from now".  The news at 2200 did not
    say a WORD about Buran.  They may have said something at 2125
    or so...I was watching CNN, and only caught the tail end of another
    newscast on RM.
    
    Anyway...CNN this morning had some nice pictures of the landing,
    but only about 5 seconds worth of the launch.  (The launch pix
    were of the part just after ignition where the whole pad is covered
    with smoke, but the bird has not yet emerged.  Real interesting
    :-()  [yawn symbol]).  The landing pix were real nice, though.
    I have not been one to keep saying that Buran looked just like the US
    shuttle, but the landing sequence really did.  I thought at first
    they were showing a file photo of ours.  The only thing that seemed
    slightly different to me was that it seemed like the wheels were
    deployed earlier than we did.  They first showed an approach picture
    which had the wheels down the whole time.  They then showed an earlier
    shot from a chase plane with the wheels up.  They did not show the
    actual deployment.
    
    Burns
    

       The Soviet's have just completed a three (3) orbit un-manned
    Buran flight, and the Buran has safely landed in the USSR.
    
    
    							Bob
    

>    right down to the speed brakes on the tail.  

Does the US Shuttle have a "prachute" acting as a speed brake? According
to what I heard, the US is only planning to install this now!

To some extent I was amazed at the Soviet demonstration of their control
systems. One would have expected the Soviets to have men aboard and the US
with its hi-tecch to have a automated system first.

-parthi

    re .54
    
    The Soviets did not relay pix on domestic TV until about 11:20pm EST
    (about 1:20 after liftoff). CBS was relaying Soviet domestic TV in real
    time (with conversion to NTSC, quite impressive) on one of their
    newsfeeds from 10pm untill 11:28pm. Since they were carrying weather
    forecasts for the Moscow region I presume this was picked from a
    Molinya. 
    
    FWIW, they showed basically the same launch shots that CNN had although
    they started with a brief sequence at their Mission Control Center.
    After the liftoff sequence (two views of the launch, not sure if both
    were on CNN) they cut back to MCC. I think this was a little later. If
    I interpret the flight path diagram correctly it was at about the time
    of Buran/Energia seperation (there was also some applause from the
    observers). 
    
    After cutting back to the TV clone (Soviet breakfast TV appears to be
    as bad as breakfast TV everywhere else in the world) they went back to
    MCC live. The big board was showing the orbital flight path and what
    appeared to be video from the orbiter looking down at the earth. Lots
    of views of consoles and a commentary, in Russian of course. At that
    point CBS broke the link so they could distribute whatever mindless
    program they normally show at 11:30pm.
    
    I was kind of surprised to see this. Given the delay in announcing
    the launch, I expected them to not release video until after the
    landing.
    
    From what I could tell, it flew a direct ascent trajectory similar
    to that used on the last shuttle mission. There is a period after
    pitch over where the entire assembly loses altitude, trading it
    off for velocity.
    
    gary

    re .56
    
    You are correct, the US orbiters do not have drag chutes.
    
    Its fairly consistant with their previous history to launch a
    man-carrying system unmanned for the first one or two launches.
    A lot of western observers use the criteria of two successful unmanned
    flights indiacting a manned flight in the near future, although
    I get the imprssion that the next Soviet shuttle flight could be
    manned.
    
    Also, their early manned systems were completely ground controlled. The
    Soyuz was the first to have any amount of manual override for the
    cosmonauts (and its not clear how much they have during launch). I
    suspect that they will use the same avionics (and possibly the same
    propulsion) in the cargo pod for unmanned flights of Energia.
    
    Still, it is an impressive achievement despite some obvious borrowing
    of technology (the aerodynamics and thermal protection of the US
    orbiters do work well, they are definitely the parts worth copying).
    
    gary 

    RE .56
    
    Yes, no chute, but if you look closely, you will see what appears
    to be a split control surface on the vertical tail section.  This
    surface can be split out on both sides (instead of only one, a la
    rudder) to create large amounts of drag.  This acts like a brake.
    
    How do you tell that from the pix they sent you ask?  Well, take
    a close look at it and you will see that just prior to landing the
    right side surface opened up.  If it truely was a rudder, then given
    the speed one would have expected to see a fairly severe yaw to
    the right.  Since that did not happen, then the assumption is that
    there is a counteracting force on the other side of the tail, and
    what we see is braking action.
    
    	Ken Roller
    
    

    re .59
    
    I assume you are talking about the Soviet orbiter. Yes, it has BOTH
    a split rudder speedbrake and a drag chute. Both are visible on
    the video.
    
    The US orbiter has only the split rudder at present.
    
    gary

The by-now-perennial space "expert" James Oberg was the guest on ML Newshour's
extended article on the USSR Buran. He had some interesting comments:

- the Soviets stole the aerodymanic shape as early as 1981 and decided that
	this was the safest bet since it had been proven.
- almost every other system [inside the shuttle - the tiles ofcourse were
	"bought" from the US!] is of home grown Soviet design. He added "they
	are first class rocket designers".
- then he said that the shuttle arose not from the Soviet space team; but from
	their aviation industry! And he said that this would provide tremendous
	benefits to the Soviet aviation industry.

He concluded by saying that to assume that the Soviets could progress only
by stealing Western technology and that the US could maintain its tech lead
by just protecting its current knowledge is "dangerous. They have proved that
they can do anything that we can do. The only way to maintain our lead is
to keep advancing"!!

-parthi

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!jon
Subject: "Beyond the Energia crisis"
Posted: 15 Nov 88 20:05:29 GMT
Organization: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
 
    This is a resume of an article which appeared in the English
newspaper The Guardian  on  Tuesday  15th  November  1988.   It  was 
written  by  David Whitehouse but the article does not give  any 
further  information  about him.  Mr  Whitehouse believes that the
Soviet shuttle is a planned copy of the American shuttle and goes on
to give his reasons. 
 
He starts with a brief history of the Soviet space program.  One  thing  I
found curious was claim about the demise of the Soviet moon project.
 
  "The superbooster designed to put a Russian on  the  Moon  first  didn't
   work.  A  damage-limitation  exercise was started.  They didn't want to
   go to the Moon they said.  What they intended to do along was to  build
   space stations.  Curiously the West believed them."
 
This is the first time I have heard that  the  Russian  ever  had  serious
plans to land a man on the moon.  Is it true?
 
On the design of "shuttleski" he says
 
  "In the early Seventies many in the USSR weren't convinced that  the  US
   shuttle  would  work.  But they decided they dare not take the risk, so
   the USSR had to have one too."
 
  "The  shuttle  design  effort  was  centered  at  Ramenskoye   airfield,
   south-east  of  Moscow.  It  had  the  best  wind  tunnel and computing
   facilities in  the  country.  It  was  also  secure.  Work  was  spread
   between  almost  all  the  major  design  teams,  the Korolev team, the
   Glushko Bureau and the Moscow Aviation  Institute.  Just  as  NASA  had
   done  a  few  years  before,  they  went  over ever possible design and
   variation of the space shuttle and decided they could not build any  of
   them."
 
  "They knew that their technology was inferior to that of the US but they
   had  kept  up  making better use of the technology they had.  Now there
   was the possibility that the gap between them would be just too  great.
   There was only one possible course of action."
 
  "There is an office at Ramenskoye whose job it was to  obtain  all  NASA
   documents, reports, evaluations and photographs of their shuttle.  With
   such freely available, high quality data, the decision was made to  use
   it  to build a Soviet space shuttle that looked almost exactly like the
   US one.  Billions of roubles, many years and much face would be saved."
 
  "But there were three major problems.  The computers  available  in  the
   USSR  weren't up to the job of controlling the shuttle; they lacked the
   technology to make fused silica material used to protect the outside of
   the  US  shuttle  from heat; and they couldn't build a re-usable rocket
   motor of the power  and  reliability  of  the  three  US  shuttle  main
   engines."
 
  "The answer to  these  problems  was  to  abandon  the  idea  of  having
   re-usable  rockets  on  the  shuttle and place them on the booster that
   takes the shuttle into orbit.  This  has  some  design  advantages  but
   economy isn't one of them.  The computer problem had to be tolerated in
   the hope that a major  internal  effort  to  improve  the  quality  and
   reliability  of  Soviet  computers  would  be adequate.  The insulation
   problem was solved by obtaining data on how the  US  made  the  shuttle
   tiles - and eventually a sample."
 
He then goes on to describe the Soviet shuttle as it is now, this is  well
known  to readers of this newsgroup so I won't repeat it.  He finishes off
as follows -
 
  "And so today, as it heads for orbit for the first time, there  will  be
   much jubilation in the USSR.  But there will be other emotions."
 
  "Some will worry that it smacks a little too much of  prestige  and  not
   enough  of  function  -  a combination that lost them the Moon.  Others
   will say that they have now got a  shuttle  like  the  Americans  which
   makes  them  level  and  level is the worst possible position they will
   allow.  Yet others will wonder what use they can make of  this  vehicle
   now  that  they've  got it.  They've never been in that position before
   but this is the type of problem the Soviets are good at solving."
 
What I was left wondering  after  reading  this  article  is,  who  is  Mr
Whitehouse  (A  fictitious  name  maybe :-)), and where did he get all his
information.  The whole article smacks of sour grapes to me.
 
Anyway I've just seen the launch itself on Swiss TV ... well I didn't  see
the  shuttle  clear  the  launch tower, just a lot of smoke.  Then a quick
switch to the control room, then another switch  to  the  shuttle  gliding
into  land.  As  the  Swiss commentator said, they may be able to launch a
shuttle like NASA, but they don't how to produce good news coverage of it.
 
Did anyone see anything more than this?  I mean the shuttle we saw landing
might not be the same one. :-)
 
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                                      |
|   Jon Caves         UUCP        - {uunet,...}!mcvax!cernvax!jon      |
|   Division DD,      EAN         - jon@priam                          |
|   CERN CH-1211,     EARN/BITNET - jon@cernvax                        |
|   Geneva 23,        JANET       - caves@cern.cernvm                  |
|   Switzerland.                                                       |
|                                                                      |
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA03570; Wed, 16 Nov 88 08:25:20 PST

    re -.1
    My feelings exactly.  I don't care if they copied the disign, might
    as well use a proven technology.  But I never saw the shuttle lift
    off the pad!!!  My guess is that the engines were fired up, a story
    was made up, and we saw pictures of a shuttle that was dropped from
    an airplane!
    
    I'm sure the US knows the truth.  They probably won't deny the Russian
    story though.  Bad for US/Soviet relations.  Besides, they probably
    want to drum up more support for the US program, and letting people
    think the Russians really have a workable shuttle may help NASA
    in it's efforts to obtain more money.
    
    Does anyone have any real proof that the shuttleski actually did
    do a few orbits?  If so, please share it with us.
    
    Ron

    .1+.63  Bupah had all the signs of atmospheric reentry (A lot more
    discoloration than the US orbiters), so I'd say it at least went
    once around.  My theory about the TV coverage is that there was
    selective editing.  Both launches of the Energia were poor television
    viewing.  There were no close ups of the ascent either to avoid
    detail of a technical problem that MIGHT come up or hide some features
    of the booster.  There was a peculiar breakaway shot of Bupah's
    landing where the footage showed a radar installation.  There could
    have been some disturbance in the flight path at that point or
    something.
      In any event, the Soviets should be congratulated.  A completely
    automated flight and landing was quite a feat.  Copy or not we
    have t give them credit.
      By the way, in regards to Bupah being a copy, have any of you
    noticed that the nosewheel is in a different location than the US
    shuttle?  It's further back.  Maybe due to the greater load-carrying
    ability of the Soviet version.  Second item is that I wonder if
    on this flight they used fuel cells or batteries?  If it is the
    former, this is a first for them.
    
    Cheers
    

                                     
    
    Buran did fly, all indication from Soviet Tracking Ships etc
    indicates this was so, soon the 30 day NASA Bullitens  should have
    the Element Set and I will check it out.  I think the strange
    editing of the launch was do to the fact that Energia is a
    Militray Rocket whild the Buran is not, thus good coverage
    on the landing and poor coverage on the launch. Notice that
    whenever the Energia is show one is beign given the tour
    by someone it the Soviet Military but when Buran is shown
    by itself one could be given the tour by someone in cilvilian
    cloths.
    

    So Far I don't know of anyone who had a visuale sighting, the
    Inclination of 51 deg and only 2 cycle would not put Buran in visual
    sigthing range (or radio) of continential US, but I am sure next week AW
    will have radar cross section estimatest of the size of Buran 
    thus confirming that Buran did fly and it sized matched.
    
                             
    Orignaly it was though the MIR would play a role, maybe to
    relay data on the full 2 cycles as the Soviets do not have
    complety cycle coverage, they have the ground stations in the
    Soviet Union and maybe 4 or 5 of the SESS (Special Event
    Support Ships) loacated in the Atlantic and the Pacific were
    for support or Buran only and the rest for MIR etc.. but This 
    would have less then 180 degrees of coverage for each cycle
    (unless there was a satellite relay but the only knowned bird
     is in a geo orbit at 12 deg West).
    
    jb
    

    re various
    
    Ever watched the ESA coverage of an Ariane launch? It's only marginally
    better the footage released of Energiya/Buran, although it is in
    real time. Producing 'good TV' for a launch takes practice and the
    Soviets are very new at it. NASA learned a long time ago how to
    do it, but it took them a while too. It is relatively recent that
    the Soviets have released much launch footage at all.
    
    All Soviet rocketry, LVs included, is military. If Buran was developed
    by one of their aviation design centers that may account for the
    slightly different attitudes.
    
    Finally, there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that there
    was a Soviet man-on-the-moon project. NASA evidently thought it
    was real enough to reschedule Apollo 8 to be a circumlunar flight.
    If anyone is interested in reading up on this, Oberg's 'Red Star
    in Orbit' is a good start. If you have access to back issues of
    'Spaceflight', there were a couple of articles around 1972 by Charles
    Vick on the Soviet Super-boosters that make interesting reading.
    Coincidentally, one of those issues has a long letter discussing
    various Kosmos flights that performed orbital changes that matched
    the delta-V required for lunar orbit insterion and escape.
    
    gary

- the Deputy Chief Designer of BURAN is Myacheslav Mikhaylovic Filin

- Fueling of ENERGIA began about 14 hours before the launch.  Fueling
  is preceded by several hours of nitrogen purge.

- BURAN is 36 meters long, 5.6 meters in diameter, and a wing area
  of 250 square meters, and a wing spans of 24 meters.

- The crew cabin has nearly 70 cubic meters and can accommodate
  two to four cosmonauts.  There is also room for six passengers.

- The payload bay is 4.7 meters in diameter by 18.3 meters in length

- the reentry protection system consisted of 38000 ceramic tiles

- The overall mass at launch of the orbital spacecraft can reach 105
  tones and landing maasss can reach 82 tones.

- The maximum payload mass which can be place in orbit is 30 tones,
  and the maximum return payload from space is 20 tones.

-  At 2.5 min into the flight BURAN was at an altitude of 60KM
   ENERGIA role last for 8 minutes Orbiter separates first,
   then boosters separated, in pairs failing into a "pre-designated area"
   There are planes to equip them in the future with soft-landing
   devices for a second use after checkout and repair
   at 8   min speration form the central core of the booster
          occurred at an altitude of 100 km
   Second stage falls in the Pacific Ocean
   The Buran's propulsion system was fired at and altitude of 160km
   for insertion into a 160x250km orbit.  One half an orbit later, it is
   fired again to circularize it into a 250x250 km orbit.

-  The Shuttle landing strip at Baikonur is 12 km from the launch pad,
   and is 4.5 km long by 84 m wide.  Radar equipment can detect BURAN at a 
   distance of 400 km and at altitude of 40 km. Landing can be made form 
   the east or from the west.

-  Landing speed at touchdown is 310 to 340 km/hr, and the roll-out is
   1100-2000 meters. The runway is lined with 15 TV camera that monitor
   the landing to a full stop.

-  BURAN has a braking parachute which is jeterison when the ground speed
   reaches 50 km/hr.  The parachutes are 75 square meters.

-  I was wrong when I said I though they only had 180 degrees of TLM
   coverage. Telemetry relay was provide by four Soviet Ships. Four
   satellites were also used, two Molniya a Loch and a Gorizont.
   Telemetry was received continuously thought the flight.

-  It is planned that BURAN will retrieve used satellites and other
   large size structures form orbit.  It can also dock with MIR

-  The assembly and test shop at Baikonur is the size of an Olympic
   Stadium cover with a roof at the 22 story level. " both the
   ENERGIA and the Space Shuttle are made here."

-  Contractor plants prepare section for transport to the areas on 
   " a transport plane of special design for this purpose: the rocket
   "sits on top of the airliner."

-  After final assembly, both the shuttle and the ENERGIA undergo
   their first series to test.

-  "Next the shuttle and rocket are joined in the horizontal position
    and then all system are tested again. "

-  The concrete launch pad extends five stores below the surface.  The
   underground part " contains insulation and temperature control systems-
   a refrigerator and compressor.

-  The launch pad has "2 service towers, 64 meters each, 1 tranversing
   tower, 100 meters, several 225 meters high lightening conductors, a
   fueling tower, and and automatic gas (?) control tower."

-  Embarcation and escape shuts connect the spacecraft " with an
   underground bunker 100 meters away. "

-  Future crews will be "taken aboard in special carriage moving
   inside a 4 meter wide pipe of the embarcation chute."

-  "In case of emergencies, cosmonauts and service personnel will leave
   the spacecraft and launch pad through the escape chute."

-  ENERGIA delivers 35000 tons of thrust " during the initial phase of
   flight.

-  ENERGIA is 60 meters tall with the shuttle, has a mass at launch of
   2300 tons.

-  BURAN is over 30 meters long 15 meters high and 5.6 meters dia.
   wing surface = 250 sq meters, and can carry 30 tons of cargo,
   2-4 cosmonauts and 6 passagengers.

-  
    

    re .67
    
    Is this more from RM? (must be an echo in this file :-)
    
    The piece about the staging/seperation sounds a little odd, although
    not impossible. Looking at the trajectory display implies two
    'significant events' close together, late in the flight. They COULD
    be orbiter seperation and booster seperation, I guess.
    
    Do you have the exact text for that part, if the note isn't already?
    The Soviets often use very convoluted sentences that are open to
    misintepretation.
    
    gary 

    
    it is offical NASA tracked BURAN and issued a prediction bulletin
    
BURAN_VKK  1988 100A                                         
1 19637U          88320.17858347 -.00000614                   0   036
2 19637  51.6203 109.7433 0006023 262.0967 097.9456 16.08201003   017
    
    this put it in a 265 x 252 km orbit very simular to the target of 
    250 x 250 km
                    
    It makes it easy to remember it was the 100th launch of 1988...
    jb
    

I did a sanity check to see where/who made up the NASA element
and the answer would be Ascension Island.

( I took the Epoch data  @ 04:16 Z BURAN was in range of Ascension Island)


     Element Set  1: BURAN_VKK   (OBJ 19637  Set:    3)                          
    
      U.T.C.   HEIGHT   LAT   LONG  PHASE
     HHMM:SS   km      km    N+S-   W+E-  <256>

     0414:00   251   -9.8   16.1    61
     0415:00   252   -6.7   13.8    63
     0416:00   252   -3.6   11.6    66
     0417:00   252   -0.4    9.3    69

    

    AvLeak has several pages on the launch, much of it obviously from
    the same source.
    
    They imply that the boosters seperate and the Energia core/orbiter
    conitnue for some time before the orbiter seperates. Of course,
    the details given make it hard to be certain (i.e. they state that
    the boosters seperate at mach 4-6; anyone happen to know the speed
    of sound at 60 miles?)
    
    Anyway, it has quite a lot of detail and a few pix... worth a trip
    to the library.
    
    gary 

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!guest
Subject: US, USSR shuttles a costly error?
Posted: 22 Nov 88 15:56:29 GMT
Organization: McGill University, VLSI Design Lab
Posted: Tue Nov 22 10:56:29 1988
  
    [From the Montreal Gazette, 22 November, 1988]
 
    U.S., U.S.S.R. SHUTTLES A COSTLY ERROR: SOVIET
 
    New York (AP) - The former head of the Soviet space research
agency says both the Soviet and U.S. space shuttle programs are costly
mistakes that will yield few scientific benefits until the next century. 
 
    "It went up.  It came down.  But it had absolutely no scientific
value," was Roald Sagdeev's accessment of the 3 1/2 hour unmanned
flight last Tuesday of the Soviet shuttle. 
 
    Sagdeev said the inaugural launch of the Soviet shuttle - like the
1981 flight of the first U.S. Shuttle - was an "outstanding
technological achievement." 
 
    He said, however, that the shuttle "is technology of the 21st
century.  Why should we pay 20th century money for it?" 
 
    Like many U.S. scientists, he fears the costly shuttles are
drawing money away from basic science and that manned flight is
unnecessary for most research. 
 
    "My personal view is that American experience with the shuttle
indicates that from the point of view of cost effeciency, the shuttle
is in deep trouble," said Sagdeev, a physicist who has followed
closely the U.S decision making process on the shuttle. 
 
    "It is much simpler and cheaper to fly a payload with any kind of
expendable vehicle." 
 
    In a recent interview, Sagdeev, 55, also confirmed that he has
resigned after 15 years as Chief of the Soviet Space Research
Institute.  The agency deals with space exploration, astronomy, and
planetary missions.  He said he left voluntarily because he felt no
one person should dominate an institute for such a long time.  Sagdeev
was in New York to sign a major book contract. 

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!
Subject: Buran orbital elements
Posted: 22 Nov 88 17:34:46 GMT
Organization: Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
 
    NORAD's orbital elements for the Buran flight, if anyone's interested: 
 
Object: 19637 (1988-100A)
ElSet: 3
Epoch: 88320.17858346
Rev: 1
Inc: 51.6203
Arg P: 109.7433
Ecc: 0.0006023
Node: 262.0967 
Anom: 97.9456
Mean Motion: 16.08201012
 
    The corresponding orbit is 248 by 256 km, suggesting that an OMS
circularization burn had taken place before this data was taken.  That
altitude is reasonably typical of the US shuttle post OMS-2 burn
orbit. Note that the inclination is the same as that of the launches
by the Proton launch vehicle (and,of course, the Mir orbit). 
 
    No other object associated with the Buran launch was tracked.
Meanwhile, the Mir crew are littering space a bit, with another half
dozen garbage bags ejected from Mir last week.  They'll burn up pretty
quickly, though. 
 
    Only two catalog numbers were assigned for the recent Titan 34D
launch, USA-33, implying a single payload and a rocket stage.  This
suggests that rumours of a double SDS launch may be incorrect. 

    
    On the 17th of Nov RM announced that on future flights of BURAN
    some sections of Salyut 7 will be returned to Earth...
    very intersting
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!agate!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: More data on the Soviet Shuttle
Posted: 8 Dec 88 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet
  
    Some more information has come out about the Soviet Shuttle Buran.
In post flight information it was released that the orbiter went into
a 250 Km (155 mi) orbit at 57 degrees. The actual vehicle mass is 83
Tonnes empty, 106 Tonnes on launch.  On landing it has a 2000 Km
(1,250 mi) cross range capability (compared to the 1600 Km (1000 mi)
the US shuttle can alter its initial landing path). The shuttle uses a
ceramic tile, though news reports said it was soft material similar
rather than the hard substances western experts had expected. A second
shuttle named Ptichka (little bird) has been shown strapped to an
Energiya, and is about 30 meters (98 ft.) long;  6 meters (20 ft.)
shorter than Buran. Three or four more shuttles are under
construction, but they expect to make only 2 - 4 flights per year.
Alexander Dunayev (head of Glavcosmos) said that with other launchers
available they would not need to launch their shuttle at every
opportunity, but rather restrict it to missions to bring large crews
up to space stations, returning large cargoes to earth, and bringing
up material that would not withstand the rigors of the Proton launches
(that booster has higher vibration and G levels than Energiya). Plans
are underway to dock Buran with Mir station. Long missions connected
to their space station seem reasonable operations to expect,
especially with the larger crews that the Mirgrad complex talked about
for the mid 1990's will require. With more than a dozen people that
would take more than 4 Soyuz transports, tying up a lot of docking ports. 

     James Oberg, in several interviews, called Buran's similarity to
the US shuttle "only skin deep".  That is a perfect description, as
the shape and tile pattern of the shuttle are clear copies of the US
version. However, within the vehicle all the electronics, controls
systems, life support, computers and programs are purely Soviet.  Also
it is clear that these shuttles came out of the USSR's aeronautics
design bureau, rather than the rocket sections.  That is the reason
that so little was said about them by the Russian space people over
the previous years.  Of course there was some cooperation, for example
in the design of Energiya itself (which clearly came from the rocket
design bureau), and the engines on Buran.  But it appears that the
rocket people really did not think that the aerospace designers could
make a working vehicle as soon as they did (neither did western observers). 

     This week saw US astronauts on the shuttle, plus USSR and French
spacemen in Mir.  In a year or so there will be two shuttles in orbit
at the same time from different countries, and two space stations (Mir and 
Salyut 7); but both of those will be Russian. Very simply they are ahead. 
 
                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

   "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Neil Peart

At the Soviet Export Good Exhibition the Glavkosmos display has
the video of the BURAN launch.  There was some very interesting
data in the Video.  It show the launch off the ground instead of
the edited version that only show ignition on US TV coverage.
I can understand after seeing it why they edited it, as soon
as the Energnr/BURAN cleared its own height it was in the
clouds and all one could see was a the fire ball of light
threw the translucent clouds.  BURAN it went on to day
is an "all-welded, detachable, 70 cu.meter cockpit". When
we asked Glavkosmos eng what that means they did not know.
In the tape it mention that the first flight was postpone
for the failure of the retractable unit and of gyro problems.
The failure of the retractable unit was a design fault that
had not been found and had to be modified.  Also, Glavkosmos
said that all orbiters will be called BURAN.  They likened it
to Soyuz, Progress, etc.  They joked about the blacked out name --
apparently some nervous photo editor.

    

    Re: .70 Anybody know what velocity Mach 1 is at 60 miles?
    
     Well, the chart I have here only goes up to 200,131 ft (200,131
    is used because it is a boundary between layers of constant thermal
    gradient).
    
     Anyway, at 200,131 ft (or 37.9 miles, it is 619.4 ft/sec.or 421
    miles per hour.
    
     i am not sure that Mach Number is a relevant issue at 60 miles
    - the atmosphere is pretty thin.
    
     Anyway, the generat formula is:
    
      Mach number = V/ sqrt(gamma*g*R*t), where
    
    v=true airspeed
    gamma=specific heat ratio
    g=gravitational constant
    R=gas constant
    T=ambient temperature.
    
    		Gregg

    While the atmosphere is indeed very thin at 60 miles, the Mach number
    is important as it determines the nature of the airflow over the
    orbiter.   (I guess you could argue that something like Reynold's
    number is more useful for this, but this really started because
    I was wondering what the real speed was)
    
    I agree that using it as a general indicator of vehicle speed is
    somewhat irrelevant. But it sounds impressive to the casual observer,
    like 'supersonic'.
    
    gary

    Yeah - I love it when they say that the orbiter is doing Mach 25!
    
    			Gregg

    Next week AW will have some interesting pictures of the
    Buran Pathfinder.  I understand they will show details
    never show before...
    
    jb
    

    
    Take a look at the cover photo of 'buran' on  last week AW (16 Jan)
    What is of interest is the tail section.
    
    Take a close look, there appears to be what could be discribe
    as two ram jet engines.  A friend called about this and was 
    told more pictures of these 'ram jet ' engines will appear
    in this week AW (23 Jan)..  I have not recieve my copy yet
    but was told that when view from the back they do not look
    like 'ram jet' engines as they do not have and noticable
    exhaust ports..
    john
    
                                                   
    

    According to Volk the first flight of the Buran Space
    Shuttle under jet engines was 100 percent on its own
    power. ( IT was not droped from an airplane ) It took off
    and lander under is own power,  Not much more was done
    on the first test.  Other flight practice typical landing
    that Buran would see.   I think he said they had 3 engines
    mounded on the tail to do the flight testing.
    
    
    john
    

    Nothing new in this week's issue.
    
    How do you tell a ramjet from a turbojet from one exterior photo? I
    certainly can't, although I'm no expert in jet engine technology. I
    think it would take more data even for someone extremely well versed in
    jet engines to tell. 
    
    Its been mentioned several times that the test orbiter took off
    under its own jet power during tests. At least one of the photos
    in last week's AW&ST was of a 'high fidelity test article' (I think
    that was the term), i.e. not a vehicle capable of space flight.
    I think that was the one with jet engine pods.
    
    gary

    The ramjet look was what one of the AW people called it, I have
    no idea, but it does not make since if the unit has to take off
    under its own power,  I think that is why they called ram-like. 
    If I remember right a ram-jet has to be at a minimun speed 
    before it can start.
    AW does not  think they are eng. as the photos from the rear
    do not show any exhaust ports.  Look at last weeks cover,
    follow the tial down to just below the horizontal stageing
    and their one can see the two '???'.  One explantions I can
    think of is that they are only models for testing fit..
    john        
    
      
    

    TASS announce today that the unmanned test flight programs 
    have been cut and that the next flight will be maned.
    
    Two cosmonauts will be involved in the space ship test flights,
    but perhaps up to ten researches might go into space aboard the
    Buran Space ship.
    
    Ne landing strips are to be built for Buran and other resualbe
    space ships  one in the area of Simferopol (Crimean Black Sea Coast ) 
    and the other in the Eastern Part of the Country.
                                 
    Possible future international space flights ( said Vladimir Shatalov)
    have been reached on a Soviet Austrian and a Soviet  West German
    flight meigh be held by early 1990.
    
    Negotioations are also on the way with Britan and Malaysi
    represenatives. the French have also asked for a month-long flight
    every two years.
    
    Possible orbit time is from 7 days to one month.
    
    
    

    I have notice something different in the Soviet Tracking
    ship that would make be think that one of 3 things 
    have happen
    
    1) something related to Phobos, unlikly as I do  not think
       the SESS has the deepspace range
    
    2) a ship has had a failure, this is very possible
    
    3) or 3rd, the one I think is most possible they are
       getting ready for the next Buran Launch
    
    Nothing has been said on TASS or Radio Moscow but
    I would put the launch in mid April...
    
    john
    

    Just a WAG, but could they be getting ready for the launch of Mir
    expansion module, which I believe is scheduled for mid-April?
    
    I'd guess that they would not launch this and a shuttle close together.
    
    gary

    Re:86
        That is posible
    But the Control Ships on Progress and Salyut Missions are normally
    in different parts of the Ocean
       
    But being a larger then the normal mission it may require  a different
    control point
    
    And I have not seen a Militray Ship go out yet, but they are hard
    to find.  If I do then it is an Buran launch else it couud just
    be a strange location for the upcomming expansion module.
                                                              
    Two new SESS have just left  port,  I will have to wait and see
    where they go.
    
    jb
    

    It is unlikly that the recent SESS movement has anything
    to do with Buran.  For the Buran launch the Soviets had
    move a GEO bird from its normal 'parking lot' to 12 deg
    East to give Pacific coverage.  This GEO bird has now
    been moved back to its 'parking spot', so I do not
    expect a Buran launch soon.
    
    jb
    

Xref: utzoo sci.space:10276 sci.space.shuttle:2728
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Space news from January 16 AW&ST
Date: 	Mon, 27 Mar 89 23:50:26 EST
 
    Letter in the letter column observes that in 1984, AW&ST published
a drawing of the Soviet shuttle with some lettering that made no sense
at the time:  Just aft of the mid-deck, it was labelled "Buran"!
Somebody knew the name of the spaceship four years before the Soviets
revealed it. 
  
    More photos and coverage from Baikonur.  Buran's mission was
nearly letter- perfect, including landing 1.5 m from the runway center
line despite an 18 m/s (40 mph) crosswind 30 degrees from the
centerline.  Soviets say their thermal tiles are designed for about 10
reentries before replacement, and admit that applying them to the
shuttle is difficult.  Final checkout of the second orbiter should be
completed this year; apparently there is still some uncertainty about
its name.  The Soviets are starting to use "Buran" as a generic name
for their shuttle, creating some confusion. Photo of orbiter #2
surrounded by workstands.  Buran was parked outside during the visit
(in subzero weather) for inspection of propellant tanks. AW&ST says
the orbiter building looks frankly shabby from outside, although
workmanship is much better on the inside -- evidently outside
appearance was not a priority.  Igor Volk and Rimantas Stankiavicius
are in training for the first orbital shuttle mission. 
 
    The An-225 Mria begins flight tests.  [This is the giant cargo
aircraft fitted to carry Soviet shuttle components externally.] 

    Photos of the launch pad used for the first Energia mission. 
Soviets say it is earmarked for non-shuttle missions. 
 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
 

    This week's AW&ST contains a very small news item (in the News Briefs
    section) that says that the Soviets have announce that there will be no
    flights of their shuttle system in 1989.
    
    gary

CAPE CANAVERAL, April 29 - The Soviet space shuttle is still at a
very early developmental stage and has more technical problems
than its successful first flight last November would indicate,
according to Igor Volk, the shuttle's chief test pilot. A major
technical concern is a possible design flaw in the shuttle's
complex automatic flight control system, according to Volk, who
was here to observe the U.S. space shuttle launch that was
delayed Friday. In addition, Volk said, the Soviet Union has not
outlined a clear use for its space shuttle. "The purpose of the
program hasn't really been established yet," he said. "The main
problem now is simply to design it." The shuttle's second flight,
which like the first will be unmanned, will not come until at
least late 1990, he said. It will not carry a human crew before
1992. This is the second downbeat assessment concerning the
Soviet space program here in recent days. Top Soviet scientists
who toured the space center earlier this week announced that
although they plan to forge ahead with two robot missions to Mars
in the next decade, other facets of the space science program are
being scaled back because of a lack of money. Volk, 52, is the
leader of a group of seven Soviet shuttle pilots known to some as
"the wolf pack." (Volk means wolf in Russian.) The shuttle pilots
are bureaucratically distinct from the cosmonaut corps. They are
part of an organization called the Flight Research Institute, and
their training base is in the town of Zhukovsky, near Moscow, he
said. Volk is technically a cosmonaut because he flew an
orientation flight aboard a Soyuz space station in 1984. In his
first interview with a western reporter, given during a tour of
space facilities here, the former tactical bomber pilot said he
started training to fly the shuttle in 1978 and has flown 16 of
the 24 shuttle test flights the Soviets have performed so far.
The tests are carried out in a test plane modeled aerodynamically
to resemble the real shuttle orbiter, and in two other less-
elaborate training planes that simulate its lower-level,
atmospheric flight characteristics. Volk said he plans to fly
another test soon after returning to Moscow. "This is a very
serious program and we're only in the beginning of it." This may
come as a surprise to some western observers who thought, because
there has been a year's hiatus in the flights, that testing in
Earth's atmosphere had been discontinued, according to Soviet
expert and author James Oberg. It seems the flights were halted
only while the pilots worked on the first orbital flight of the
100-ton shuttle, called Buran (Snowstorm). That flight took place
on Nov. 15 and lasted two hours. Volk, the first Soviet shuttle
pilot to visit the United States, was touring Kennedy Space
Center and other NASA centers this week as the guest of a friend,
former U.S. astronaut John Fabian, and the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, which is hosting a conference he
plans to attend in Washington next week. Volk seemed to slip
easily into the laid-back beach culture here. Wearing white
bermuda shorts and an Atlantis/Magellan T-shirt, he sipped tea
from a Mason jar at a cafe near the space center. He called his
visit a "very significant demonstration of good relations"
between the two countries. Volk, who spoke mostly through an
interpreter, said he is particularly concerned about the design
of the Soviet shuttle's automatic pilot, the onboard computer
system that controls flight. "In my view, the problems that exist
are part of the basic design . . . . The pilot does not have
enough input, enough stick and rudder control," and the design of
the automatic flight control system is therefore much more
important. "It's not just a question of pilot safety, but of the
whole mission," he said. "So much depends on this automatic
program." Although the first flight of the Buran was hailed as a
triumph, he said, "What seems to journalists might not seem to
the engineers." He noted that a two-hour flight is much less
complex and easier to achieve than a longer flight would be. His
next flight test objective, he said, will be to work on the
system for automatic landing, "trying to make it so it will land
exactly on predetermined coordinates." The automated landing of
Buran - an extremely difficult technical feat -looked impressive
to many westerners who saw it on television. "That's a fact,"
Volk said. "But sometimes between the facts there can be a lot of
room." One of his test team who had followed the descending Buran
in a chase plane reported afterward that it made some unexpected
violent turns before it landed. "Now I wonder if what they saw
worried or even frightened them," said U.S. expert Oberg. Volk
said the question of how many more Soviet shuttles will be built
"depends on how the next two flights go." Prominent Soviets, most
notably Roald Z. Sagdeyev, a top space scientist, have criticized
the Soviet shuttle as having "absolutely no scientific value" and
some have complained that it was mainly an attempt to match the
United States. Some westerners have speculated that the Soviets
plan to use the shuttle, and the giant Energia booster that
carries it to orbit, to assemble a large new space station. The
Soviets have suffered a series of setbacks in their space
program, most recently deciding to mothball their space station
Mir (Peace) for at least several months to save money. And the
high costs of the space program have become a political issue
under glasnost.
--------
That would make Volk 55 before a manned flight--he may never get
to fly it!
 
    

    re:91
    
    forgot
    
    credits Kathy Sawyer Washington Post Staff Writer
    

    	FWIW, a number of astronauts who have gone into space were in
    their fifties.  I know the G-force "shock" of launching and re-entry 
    is a potential hazard, but I would figure that the microgravity
    environment of space would make any infirmness due to age negligible.
    
    	Larry
    

    According to AvLeak interviews with Volk, the first manned flight is
    slated for 1992.
    
    The next flight will be unmanned, in 90 or 91, pending major changes to
    the flight control instruments. It sounds like they are going through
    the same 'are we pilots or passengers' arguments that the Mercury
    program did.
    
    gary

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
=====================                           [Nashua, NH, USA               ]

                     Soviet Shuttle At Paris Air Show

    The Soviet Union will take the space shuttle orbiter, a Mil Mi-28
    Havoc combat helicopter and two Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker fighters to the 
    Paris air show in June. The orbiter to be displayed at Le Bourget
    will be a nonspaceflight vechicle, according to the deputy director
    general of the Soviet Aviaexport organization. It will be shipped to 
    Paris on the back of the new Antonov An-225 six engine heavy lift
    transport.

                          {AW&ST May 15, 1989}

  <><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1820    Thursday 18-May-1989   <><><><><><><>

    I caught a news feed on its way to Japan showing an orbiter being
    mounted on the back of an An-225, presumably related to this story
    (commentary was in Russian). Two things struck me as interesting.
    
    The An-225 is HUGE!. The orbiter looks quite tiny sitting on it,
    compared to the US orbiter and its 747 SCA. Not surprising when you
    consider that the An-225 can carry the Energia core instead of the
    orbiter. But still, it looked large enough that you could fit entire
    sections of 747 fuselage inside.
    
    The other point was that they show some good tail shots of the orbiter.
    The tail assembly where the engines are mounted is clearly set up to
    hold three of something. Two of the slots hold the OMS/orbital
    insertion engines while the other had a cover on it that looked like it
    should been labelled 'T.B.D.' or similar.
    
    gary

    a Good source says that the Soviet orbiter can have up to four jet
    engines so that it can take off and land by itself. At first I
    though this might not be true but the more I think about it the
    more I think that there is a model with jet engines. Take a look
    at the AW photos of the new Shuttle being built, it does  seem
    to have two jet engines on it tail and it is shorter then Buran.
    It will be interesting to see just what Soviet Shuttle will
    be shown at the Air Show....
    
    john
     
    

    The Soviets have said that they built an early model with jet engines
    to use for approach and landing tests, and training, but that the jet
    engines would not appear on operational models.
    
    BTW, I was referring to the rocket engines mounted in the tail (where
    the SSMEs are in the US orbiter) in my previous note, in case I wasn't
    clear.
    
    gary

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Space news from May 1 AW&ST
Date: 	Sun, 28 May 89 23:23:20 EDT
 
    Soviets have apparently decided not to bring a shuttle orbiter to
the Paris airshow, although the An-225 Mriya, its carrier aircraft,
will appear. 
 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
 

    TASS 24 MAY
    Reported the succussful completion of the experimental flight of the
    MYIYA (Dream) airliner AN-225 with the piggybacked reusable spacecraft
    Buran.  The MRIYA with BURAN will soon leave for the International Air
    show at Le Bourget (France)
    
    So TASS is still saying it will go...
    
    john
    

    from various TASS articles:
    
    The ENERGIA-BURAN project cost 14 Billion Roubles over 13 years
    
    Expected payback is 4-5 Billion Roubles per year 
    This is expected in added life by servicing their Electronic and Radar
    ovservation satellites from 2-3 years to 5-7 years.  
     

    Rumors have it that Soviet Shuttle Orbiter # 2 which is now in
    construction will have a manipulator arm and a docking port.  It is
    also rumored that the flight of # 2 will be unmanned and will dock with
    MIR.  There was a Radio Moscow World Service broadcast a few months
    back that indicated "interaction" with MIR on the next mission.
    
    jb
     

    This months 'Spaceflight' reports on the conflicting rumours. They seem
    to agree that the first manned launch will involve rendezvous and
    docking with Mir (maybe requiring the expansion module with the
    airlock?.. speculation on my part).
    
    The rumours disagree on when that flight will be.
    
    gary

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial.
Date: 21 Jul 89 03:14:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
    More on Buran's appearance at Le Bourget.  Photo from above
showing Buran on Mriya; Buran looks tiny compared to the US orbiters
on 747 back.  The orbiters are almost exactly the same size -- the
difference in appearance is because Mriya is so bloody enormous. 
 
    Yuri P. Semyonov, chief designer of Buran, says "Anyone who says
Buran is a copy of the US shuttle is a fool".  Despite the general
similarity in shape, the systems are very different.  Semyonov
revealed that Buran was battery-powered during its flight last fall,
as its fuel cells are not yet ready for flight.  (The USSR does not
seem to be giving Buran a very high priority at present.)  What
surprised US observers most was the Soviet decision to fly Buran in
during rainy weather.  The US shuttle carrier is never flown through
rain or even damp-looking clouds, and a weather aircraft precedes it
to be sure.  But Buran/Mriya came in for a landing at Paris through
wet clouds and visible rain, with no escort. Semyonov says:  "We are
not afraid of rain."  The Soviet tiles seem to be rather more durable
than the US ones, although apparently they are less heat-resistant,
and may need replacement after only 10 missions. Semyonov did not
discuss the specifics of the tile design.  US observers were generally
impressed with the appearance of Buran's tiles; there is little sign
that Buran had flown a reentry.  Some of this may be just weather
exposure:  photos just after Buran's landing showed more upper-
surface blackening than was visible at Paris, and the difference may
be because Buran has been sitting outside at Baikonur.  There was a
bit of streaking in some areas on the wings where filler material
between tiles had apparently melted; the same thing happens on the US
orbiters. 
 
    Buran's propulsion systems are a bit different from the US ones. 
Notably, Burans attitude-control and maneuvering engines burn LOX and
kerosene rather than hypergolic fuels.  There are general similarities
in overall thruster placement, but many detail differences.  An
important internal difference is that the shuttle's nose jets run off
tanks in the nose, whereas Buran puts all its major tankage in the
tail, with only small supplementary tanks in the nose. 
 
    Unlike the US orbiters, no tailcone fairing is used for ferrying
Buran on Mriya.  Anatoli Bulanenko, deputy chief designer at Antonov,
says that such a fairing was used when carrying orbiters on smaller
aircraft, but Mriya's wide-span horizontal tail has no central
vertical fin and there were no turbulence problems with it.  [Mriya's
tailspan exceeds the wingspan of WW2 heavy bombers.]  Bulanenko says
"...it was very simple for us... it was just another payload." 
 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Date: 2 Oct 89 01:11:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
      (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Space news from August 21 AW&ST

    [From Flight International, 15 July:]

    Igor Volk, Soviet shuttle test pilot, says that Buran's on-board
systems are still so crude that there was no possibility of flying it
manned for its first flight, and much work will be needed before
manned flights are practical. 
-- 
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

    	I couldn't find any place to put this so I'll post it here:
    
    	There has been much speculation in the West about a series of one
    or two orbit tests of what appeared to be a Soviet mini-shuttle similar
    in size as the European Hermes. It was further speculated that this
    mini-shuttle would be launched on a man rated version of the new Zenit
    launch vehicle. After years of denial and stone walling, the Soviets
    have finally released some details of this program.
    	A recent issue of Pravda stated that this vehicle (which they
    designated BF-4 I believe) was part of a wide ranging research program
    dealing with the problems of hypersonic flight. In particular this
    alleged mini-shuttle was being used to correlate wind tunnel tests with
    actual flight measurements and to test the thermal protection that was
    to be used on the Buran class space shuttle. At the recent
    Astronautical Federation congress in Torremolinos Spain, the Soviets
    gave additional details of their hypersonic research including a full
    sized turbojet powered version of the BF-4 lifting body for atmospheric
    testing, a fully reusable shuttle designed by the Mikoyan Design Bureau
    making use of a hypersonic carrier aircraft, and subscale models of the
    Buran shuttle launched on sub-orbital trjectories to speed of Mach 16.
    
    	What this all means is that there is no mini-shuttle and that the
    BF-4 was at best only one among several candidates for a Soviet space
    shuttle. These programs could be considered analogous to the US X-15,
    X-23, X-24, and HL-10 programs (among many others) that were used to 
    experiment with various aerospace vehcle concepts.
    
    				Drew
    

    Has anyone heard any rumors about a Soviet Shuttle Launch in January
    1990?   I have an  Atlantic SESS going into the Pacific in January,
    the only time this has happen before was for a Shuttle Launch.
    
    John
    
    

RE:          <<< Note 471.107 by VOSTOK::LEPAGE "Truth travels slowly" >>>

>                     -< The (Alleged) Soviet Mini-Shuttle >-

An issue of Aviation Weekand Space Technology in the last few weeks has a page
of photos of the hardware you described.
						-- Tom

    scratch # 108 about the SESS going into the Pacific in January.
    
    I need to get a Soviet Map, they have different names for 
    places, for example Ivory Coast is Elephant Bones, 
    and Cape Verdie is the Island of Green Penisula...
    
    so all SESS are in the Atlatic where they belong,
    getting ready for the launch on the 26th.
    
    jb
    

From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Soviet shuttle pilot dies
Date: 10 Sep 90 17:50:21 GMT
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
 
    On page 11 of the 10 September 1990 Boston Globe there is a little
blurb headlined "Soviet pilot dies in crash" describing an accident in
Salgareda, Italy describing the crash of an Su-27 at an air show. 
The last two sentences read, "Organizers said the pilot, Rimas
Stankiavicius, described as one of the most experienced Soviet test
pilots, was killed instantly.  He had recently been appointed chief
test pilot of the Soviet Union's space shuttle program." 
             
    This is the third or fourth person to die who has been identified
as a Soviet shuttle pilot.  This cannot be helping the Soviet shuttle
program. 

    Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

Article: 67988
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:14:45 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <1993Jul23.103403.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: 

>We can conclude from this that it would be *very* interesting to learn
>what the claims were when developers were "selling" the Buran project
>within the Soviet bureaucracy.  Alas, I don't think our chances of
>finding this out within the next few years are very good.  Fans of
>Russian aerospace history may wish to comment on this...  Dennis? 
>Chris? Glenn?
 
Here's the way its reported in Russia. It still does not point out the
judgement of all parties involoved, but its a good first look. Thank
the JPRS-FBIS folks for the colorful translations....
 
"...Smirnov, former VPK [military-industrial complex] chairman and a member 
of the same Dnepropetrovsk team, in his regular report to Brezhnev on the 
state of our space efforts, once mentioned in the end: The Americans are 
intensively working on a winged space vehicle. Such a vehicle is like an 
aircraft; it is capable, through a side maneuver, of changing its orbit in 
such a way that it could find itself at the right moment right over Moscow
possibly with a dangerous cargo. The news disturbed Leonid Ilyich [Brezhnev] 
very much, he contemplated it intensively, and then said: We are not country 
bumpkins here. Let us make an effort and find the money. Of course, nobody 
dared to contradict "No. 1." The VPK leadership took the instructions from 
the four-times Hero of the Soviet Union as gospel. In the documentation, the 
idea of creating the Buran is justified by the necessity of maintaining 
military-strategic parity with the Americans. Another person who was 
successfully pushing this concept was then Central Committee Secretary D. 
Ustinov, in charge of defense and space issues. Once again, economic 
interests were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In 1974, 
when the work was started, this grandiose project had been seen as a 
military program. Later, our Pentagon rejected it as holding no future 
promise."

[Moscow KURATY in Russian 2I Dec91 pp. 8, by Engineer B. Olesyuk: "The 
'Buran' Blind Alley", JPRS USP-92 001, 27 January 1992]
 
"On 17 February 1976, a decree was signed in the CPSU Central Committee 
and the USSR Council of Ministers concerning the creation of the reusable
Buran space system. I wasn't able to ascertain who fathered the idea that 
one must look for the roots of Buran in the Ministry of Defense. 
Indirectly, that is confirmed by two other decrees dated May 1977 and 
December 1981. Those venomous tongues say that, after becoming familiar 
with the American Shuttle, the leaders of our armed forces became very 
afraid and ran to Marshal Grechko [Minister of Defense] to try to talk 
him into building the same kind of airplane. The Minister of Defense very 
sanely decided that that would hardly be necessary. So then, going around 
Grechko, they began to use the Shuttle to frighten L.I. Brezhnev, and 
they explained to him that that damned Shuttle could zoom down on Moscow 
at any minute, bomb it to smithereens and fly away. And they're all hoping
that Leonid Ilich himself understands how much responsibility rests on his 
shoulders, the shoulders of the Marshall of the Soviet Union and Chairman
of the Defense Council. Brezhnev understood. Yes, of course, an 
alternative weapon is necessary."

[ Moscow IZVESTIYA in Russian 12 Dec 91 pp 1,3;13 Dec 91 p3; 14 Dec 91 p 3;
17 Dec 91 p 3;18 Dec 91 P 3,  by Yaroslav Golovanov: "Just Where Are We 
Flying To?", JPRS USP-92 001, 27 January 1992 ]
 
(Note in following: Semenov is head of NPO Energia builder of many
components of the Energia-Buran system.)

" "It is no secret to anyone in our sector," says Yu. Semenov, "that the 
Energiya-Buran system was ordered from us by the military. It was said 
at meetings on various levels that the American Shuttles, even on the 
first orbital revolution, could perform a lateral maneuver and turn out 
to be over Moscow, possibly with a dangerous cargo. Parity is needed, we 
need the same type of rocket-space system. We made a better one than the 
Americans did. But the former customers are now abandoning it, outlays 
for defense are being curtailed. "

[Moscow Izvestiya in Russian 4 Apr 91 p 3, by Ye. Konovalov, IZVESTIYA 
science commentator: 'Domestic Companions of Rockets: Why There Will Be
No Mass Firings at the Firm Where Gagarin's Spacecraft was Developed",
FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]
 
"When the decision on the development of the Soviet aerospace system was 
made, the Molniya Scientific Production Association, which Lozino-
Lozhinskiy heads, proposed to take as a basis its "ancient" (13 years 
had been lost) Spiral design. However, it was rejected with a quite 
strange explanation: "This is not at all what the Americans are doing." " 

[Moscow KRASNAYA ZVEZDA (First edition) in Russian 31 Jul 91 p 4, [Article
by Colonel M. Rebrov "The Revolutions of 'Spiral'. A Biography and 
Portrait of the Chief Designer of the Buran Space Plane"] 
FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]
 
"[The Spiral] was very good project, but it was one more mistake of our 
government. They said Americans didn't have a space shuttle and we 
shouldn't have one [either] and it was destroyed. And then after you 
made your space shuttle, immediately they demanded a space shuttle. 
It was very crazy of our government."

[Interview with cosmonaut Georgi Grechko by Dennis Newkirk, 4/6/93] 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
 
Article: 68098
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Buran Hype? - FBIS/JPRS info
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 18:53:25 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <231rcr$5q0@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Jul26.151445.29252@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
>dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes: 
>>Here's the way its reported in Russia. It still does not point out the
>>judgement of all parties involoved, but its a good first look. Thank
>>the JPRS-FBIS folks for the colorful translations....
>
>What's  JPRS-FBIS  for our general edification
 
Good question, this should be in the FAQ if its not already...
 
FBIS is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service which is done by the
CIA, gets all kinds of foreign radio, television, etc. broadcasts
which is of an informational nature and translates it. They've been
doing it since just after WWII according to a book I read recently.
Apparently JPRS does the same thing with print media. Together they
put it all in either daily or periodic reports. The Dept. of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service sells them to anyone. They
cover many countries and many topics mostly of political and
technological nature. NTIS has a nice catalog of these products. See
below for excerpt from their catalog. 
 
For about $75 a year you can subscribe to the "JPRS Report: Science &
Technology: Central Eurasia: Space" and get most of the significant
articles on space subjects published in the CIS from newspaper and TV
news to technical journals. Its published about every 2-3 months
according to when they can fill up 50 or so pages. 
 
I kind of wish they would do the same for the USA... BTW: NTIS says
they are funded only by the sales of the reports but I doubt that
includes the cost of gathering or translating... 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) and Joint Publications
Research Service (JPRS) publications contain political, military,
economic, environmental, and sociological news, commentary, and other
information, as well as scientific and technical data and reports. All
information has been obtained from foreign radio and television
broadcasts, news agency transmissions, newspapers, books, and
periodicals. Items generally are processed from the first or best
available sources. It should not be inferred that they have been
disseminated only in the medium, in the language, or to the area
indicated. Items from foreign language sources are translated; those
from English-language sources are transcribed. Except for excluding
certain diacritics, FBIS renders personal names and place-names in
accordance with the romanization systems approved for U.S. Government
publications by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. 
 
[[[A sample of JPRS Serial Reports is listed below. There are many
other types of reports available.]]] 
 
Asia Serial Reports:
  Korea Kulloja 
  Mngolia 
  Southeast Asia 
  Vietnam Tap Chi Cong San 
 
China Serial Reports:
  China 
  Quishi 
 
Europe & Latin America Serial Reports:
  East Europe Report 
 
Near East & South Asia Serial Reports:
  Near East and South Asia 
 
Central Eurasia Serial Reports:
  Aviation & Cosmonautics 
  Foreign Military Review 
  Military Affairs 
  Worldwide Serial Reports
  Arms Control 
  Epidemiology 
  Proliferation 
  Telecommunications 
  Environmental Issues 
 
Science & Technology Serial:
China 
  China-Energy
Europe 
Japan                         
Central Eurasia
  Chemistry 
  Computers 
  Earth Sciences
  Electronics and Electrical Engir 
  Engineering and Equipment 
  Life Sciences 
  Materials Science 
  Physics and Mathematics 
  Space 
  Science and Technology Policy 
 
FREE Catalogs & Information
Call (703) 487-4650 and ask for any of the following catalogs
PR-827 - NTIS Products & Services Catalog
PR-858 - Tour NTIS by Video Tape. NTlS-The Competitive
Edge, is available. The 8-minute tape gives an overview of NTIS
and its activities.
PR-797 - NTIS Alerts (formerly Abstract Newsletters)
PR-888 - CD-ROMs & Optical Discs Available from NTIS
PR-868 - Environmental Highlights
PR-758 - Environmental Software & Datafiles
PR-882 - Central & Eastern Europe Business Information Catalog
PR-746 - Directory of Federal Laboratory Resources
 
International Air Mail:
Paper copy reports and micro-fiche copies are shipped surface
mail unless Air Mail is requested. Canada and Mexico add $4 per 
paper copy report $1 per microfiche copy. Other countries add 
$8 per paper copy report $1.25 per microfiche copy. Computer 
products are shipped by overnight courier at no extra cost.
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161            
 
To order subscriptions, call 703-487-4630.
TDD (To place orders), call 703-487-4639.
Rush Service : 1-800-553-NTIS


Article: 67987
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Energia re-use
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:02:11 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <CAp1MA.Lyx@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes: 

>In article <1993Jul23.181817.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: 
>>>   3) are any components of the Energia lifter salvaged after lauch?
>>I think the liquid strap-ons are recovered, but it takes a huge
>>helicopter.
>Russian accounts seem to differ on whether any recovery has actually been
>done.  The strap-ons certainly are designed for it, and there have been
>claims that the core is meant to be recoverable too (although I don't
>quite see how).
 
There have been at least a couple of designs to change recovery of
components. One puts Buran type wings on the core stage and some TPS.
I suppose the core is supposed to land once-around in this plan.
Another also adds wings to the strap-ons for runway landings.
Apparently nothing was ever recovered with reuse in mind, I believe
the 1987 launch wasn't equipped with parachutes, I don't know off hand
about the 1988 one. The boosters may have been recovered by now
because an effort is reportedly being made to clean up some of the
spent stages littering the landscape. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 68992
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: u1086aa@unx.ucc.okstate.edu (11086)
Subject: Re: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Sender: news@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center, Stillwater OK
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 19:18:57 GMT
 
In article <22s80c$9nj@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: 

>In article <1993Jul23.103403.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: 
>>
>>We can conclude from this that it would be *very* interesting to learn
>>what the claims were when developers were "selling" the Buran project
>>within the Soviet bureaucracy.  Alas, I don't think our chances of
>
>At least in Space News,  there have been sideways references
>to Buran  being hyped on the basis of the space shuttle.
>
>The statements were,  THe americans are building Spaceski Shuttleski.
>It will fly over,  steal satellittes with Bay and canadarm  and
>drop nuclear bombs on moscow.   
>
>around about 1986, the Ruissians  caught on the STS was not
>a happening thing.  by 1989, it was obvious Buran wasn't either.
 
A couple of years back I was fortunate enough (at Goddard Space Flight
Center) to hear a speech by the director of the Soviet space program.
(I can't remember his name, unfortunately.) He made to statements that
amused us all greately (the quotes are certainly not exact, but make
the point): 
 
1) "While we were developing Buran, we kept asking 'What is its
    mission?' We were told 'the American's have built one and they are
    very smart, so it must have a mission.'"
 
2) "Gorbechov (sorry, I can't spell) tried to impress Reagan when he
    introduced me to him by saying 'He is close friends with many
    American scientists, such as Carl Sagan!' I don't think he
    understood American scientific politics very well."
 
------------
My opinions are my own
 
Jim West
Associate Professor
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University
jwest@jwest.ecen.okstate.edu

Article: 77252
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 16:02:51 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <2bjb3j$lsa@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov
(Claudio Egalon) writes: 

>>	Whatever happened to the Soviet Buran (sp?) shuttle?  I remember 
>> there was one unmanned flight, but I've heard nothing since.
>
>At least two things happened;
>
>1. the soviet cosmonaut that was coordinating the next flight of Buran , 
>which was supposed to be a piloted one, died and the program was set
> back and
 
NO! In no way were the deaths of any of the Buran pilots connected
with the programs demise! And, Igor Volk, the Chief of the Buran
cosmonaut group, still is alive! Volk was widely rumored to make a
first flight whenever it eventually happened. I can think of 3 others
that did die during their years in the Buran group, do there's plenty
of room for confusion... (causes of death were, aerobatic plane crash,
Yak test flight, and brain tumor). 
 
>2. They run out of money (that is also a reason why Energia has not 
>flown either).
 
Well, yes, but more importantly there are no payloads for either
launcher. Buran was only to dock with Mir to deliver a minor telescope
module to attach with Kristal, and then dock to a Soyuz before landing
automaticially but this was its only planned mission. For Energia
there is only KB Salyut's man tended materials processing module, and
the mythical 20,000 kg. communications satellite. The military was the
Energia/Buran's only real customer, and they lost interest in it. IF
the orignial Mir-2 plan had proceeded it was to use a Energia launched
core module and probably in-orbit assmebly which Buran could have been
used for. 
 
>... the Soviet Shuttle has 
>several  features that the American Shuttle does not have:
>
>1. It has the capability of making ONE "go-around" maneuveur when 
>landing whereas the Shuttle does not have such capability;
 
NO! There are NO jets on the Buran. ONLY the GLI-Buran was equipped
with jets for conventional takeoffs to perform landing tests. There
were no 'drop-tests' of Buran. 
 
--- AND ---
 
From: charles.radley@pcohio.com (Charles Radley)
>Buran-1 flew once.  It is not re-flyable due to re-entry damage.
 
Buran was not equipped with any life support systems, and probably
other support systems. Pulling it apart for installation of these for
the next planned flight (the docking with Mir and crewed use) would
have been very costly to the program already hurting for funding. Any
reentry damage was minor as can be seen in landing video and Av Week
photos of Buran taken at the Paris Air Show after Burans flight. But,
the full story of the development of the Buran orbiters has yet to be told. 
 
>Buran-2 was built, but there is no funding to fly her, it
>is sitting in a hangar (in Baikonur I think) and is a tourist attraction.
 
Buran-2 is NOT a legitimate name for the second orbiter. It has never
been officially named by the Russians (at least in reports that reach
the US), only nick-names. Buran is at Baykonur also. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 77278
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle?
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 93 19:45:42 GMT
 
   When I was in Star City, I asked spcifically about future plans for
the Energia HLLV and Buran. I was told that the Buran probably will
never fly again, due mainly to lack of money and lack of a specific
use for it. 

  The "go-around" capability that is often mentioned was not on the
one orbital test flight, but was used as a safety feature during
preliminary atmospheric flight testing of the orbiter. 

 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |  
| Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   | FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |  SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Article: 77719
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: soviet shuttle?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 20:14:17 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <2brjq1$p9s@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov
(Claudio Egalon) writes: 

>Are you sure it is Buran-2? I remember reading that the Soviets, at 
>the time of launch of Buran, was constructing another Shuttle which, 
>as far as I  remember, was christened Pitika which, in Russian, means 
>Small bird, wheras Buran means "Snow-storm" .
 
I think this was printed in Av Week, but that's not sufficient evidence
to believe that was the name it would have been given for its flight. Most
likely it is some nick-name that was overheard somewhere... and then
Av Week published it in passing in an article. 'small bird' just doesn't
fit as a real name for an orbiter like a Buran. At this time I think
its safest to say 'the second orbiter' until we know what the second
flight designation and orbiter name were planned to be. Since Buran-2
can be construed as a projected second flight of the Buran (before it was
retired) or the projected first flight of the second orbiter.
 
>Are you sure it has no main engines??? My memory might be failing now but,
>as far as I remember, the Soviet Shuttle DOES  have three main engines BUT
>they are not exactly like the American's. Nor it is an improved version. On
>contrary, their main engines are heavier than the Shuttle's. For this
>reason, the wings of the Soviet Shuttle is displaced slightly forward to
>keep the center of gravity in the proper place.
 
I don't know where you picked this up, your memory must be good at times to
remember the name above, but on this point there's a problem. No, there
were no main engines on the orbiter. There are 4 RD-0120 LH-LOX engines on
the Energia core stage which enable Energia to carry a shuttle or a cargo
pod. The shuttle only has 2 OMS type engines at the rear along with 2
clusters of attitude control thrusters. Most recent books on the Soviet
Space program should have pictures of Buran, I suggest you find one, or
better yet, look up the Av Week from the Paris Air show after Burans flight
(that would be around June 1989 if my notes are right). 
 
Here's some published facts about Burans return:

- 4 tiles (out of 38,000) fell off during the flight
- disassembly of major system was scheduled but not performed before June '89
- June 1989, Shatalov says some redesign will be needed before next flight
- rumors that the orbiter made some unexpected turns during landing phase
- in 1989 Yuri Semenov said 5-6 more flights were needed to complete the
  testing of the shuttle system
- in 1985, 10 flights were planned for the first 3 years, with the 
  last 8 carrying crews of 2-3
- the shuttle cosmonaut group expected to resume approach and landing
  tests (using the GLI_Buran) before the first manned flight
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL


Article: 77821
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ghe370@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it ()
Subject: Buran Five years ago
Organization: C.d.C-Politecnico di Milano
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 07:16:17 GMT
Sender: netnews@cdc486.cdc.polimi.it (NetNews)
 
Just if you forgot it, five years ago the Soviet space shuttle Buran
made its first and, so far, only flight.

It was launched from Baykonur at 6.00 Moscow Time and landed on the
dedicated Baykonus strip 3 hours 25 minutes later.

Plans were made for two other unmanned flight and the first manned
flight in 1992, but it was never to happen. Now all the flying
specimens are grounded, Buran 1 is retired after its debut at the Paris
air show in 1989 (I was there the only day it flew, 17 June, my 18th
birthday) and the only flying one appears to be the atmospherical
prototype appearing regularly at russian airshows.

I believe it is one of the most ambitious, expensive yet useless
space programs ever conceived, but it is a pity that it never flew
again (just to see it again being escorted by MiG-25...).
 
*********************************************************************
"Please, Sir George, I whish to give  ** Paolo Ulivi
notice, I was hired to drive, and not ** E-Mail Address:
to fly" - Sir G.Cayley's Coachman     ** ghe370@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it
*********************************************************************
 

Article: 78362
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Koptev: Buran costs too much to fly
Date: 24 Nov 93 12:04:30 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego
 
Space Shuttle Buran Not To Be Used
Moscow Radio Rosii Network in Russian
2000 GMT 16 Nov 1993
Reported in FBIS Daily Report, Central Eurasia 
FBIS-SOV-93-220 17 November 1993, p.59
 
[Text] "The reusable space ship Buran is to be mothballed and will not
be sent into space any more.  This was announced today by Yuriy Koptev,
the Russian Space Agency director.  He said one launch of the similar
U.S. space ship shuttle cost $800 million.  The expenditure on the
launch of a Buran is no less and we cannot afford such expenditure,
Yuriy Koptev pointed out." 

Article: 78368
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Koptev: Buran costs too much to fly
Date: 24 Nov 1993 21:44:47 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA: 800-969-9090
 
To quote Saagdev on Buran's first flight :
 
"It went up, it went around, it went down.  Big deal".
 
This quote can be applied to certain other transportation systems.
 
pat
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually
fearing that you will make one -- Elbert Hubbard.

     "A scientist can discover a new star, but he cannot make one.
      He would have to ask an engineer to do that."
        -- Gordon L. Glegg, American Engineer, 1969

Article: 83097
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:40:20 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <CLAE7y.LAw@ecf.toronto.edu> bahrami@ecf.toronto.edu
(BAHRAMI  KAMRAN) writes: 

>	Could someone update me on what happened to the Soviet shuttle
>Buran after its test flights?
>
>			Thanks.
 
It made only one flight. It was inspected and flown to the next Paris
Air show on a An-225. Its structure was only qualified for 1 flight.
It never had any life support system installed. The next mission was
to be flown by an orbiter which is still in a hanger at Baykonur along
with another partially complete orbiter. You may have heard of the
Buran being installed in a Moscow park, this is not a real orbiter but
some old test article with tail and wings painted to look like a
Buran, the rest of it was still bare metal as of last fall. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL 

Article: 83114
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Sender: usenet@abo.fi (Usenet NEWS)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:35:29 GMT
 
In <2ju1va$f57@nwfocus.wa.com> gunnerso@halcyon.com writes:
 
> bahrami@ecf.toronto.edu (BAHRAMI  KAMRAN) writes:
> 
> >	Could someone update me on what happened to the Soviet shuttle
> >Buran after its test flights?
> 
> I don't have much info, but recently I read an interview with one of the
> leaders of the Soviet space program. There was a picture of
> Energia/Buran with the caption "<Name> says that Buran was a mistake.."
> 
> From this I assume that they really didn't have a need for it given all
> their existing launchers.
 
Buran was built for propaganda reasons only. At least they did a
better job (on paper) than NASA by moving the engines to the Energia
booster rocket, thus creating an efficient HLLV at the same time. I
imagine the Russian engineers tried to make the best of a stupid
situation, giving the Communist Party what it wanted while creating
the Energia to do the serious work. 
---
As an aside, Victor Chernomyrdin now wants to revive Buran/Energia
again, to justify the huge development costs. The Russians apparently
feel Buran is too expensive to remain on the ground. 
 
> -- 
> Eric Gunnerson
> gunnerso@halcyon.com
 
MARCU$


Article: 83103
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: James Oberg on-line
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:54:25 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
James Oberg author of numerous articles and books about spaceflight
and prominent Russian spaceflight observer is now on-line. 
Write to:  jamesoberg@aol.com 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 83183
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:59:58 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <CLE0Fy.sJ@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes: 

>In article <1994Feb17.113529.12707@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI
(Marcus Lindroos INF) writes: 
>>> From this I assume that they really didn't have a need for it given all
>>> their existing launchers.
>>
>>Buran was built for propaganda reasons only....
>
>Could you explain how you reached this conclusion?  Last I heard, if you
>looked carefully -- because this was *not* publicized much -- it was quite
>clear that Buran was built (like the US shuttle, but to a greater extent)
>to *military* requirements, which then evaporated.  It looks purposeless
>only if you take the embarrassed silence at face value.  The Russian
>military is still not very talkative.
 
Yes, the story goes... Brezhnev was told by the military that a US
shuttle could be launched and sweep over Moscow dropping a payload bay
full of warheads on the capital. The only way obvious to counter this
threat was to build their own shuttle, and a shuttle intercepter which
was apparently in development in the 1980s (that spaceplane launched
on a SL-16) but that part is not yet clear. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 83205
From: prb@access2.digex.net (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Date: 19 Feb 1994 18:13:33 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA: 800-969-9090
 
I think the Russian air force officers read too much science fiction.
 
While it is theoretically possible for a shuttle to retrieve a opposition
side satellitte,  in practice, i think it'd be way loads harder
and  why risk a 1.5G dollar vehicle and crew looking and stealing a
60 Million dollar short life platform.
 
All the russians needed to do, was rig a few birds with a couple of
pounds of C-4, wrapped in ball bearings,  and safed on a command
circuit and proximity fuse.  One of those would trash an orbiter,  
and that would end any Tom Clancy type novel in a heartbeat. 
 
BURAN was this stupid competitive to the end, idea.  and one of the major
complaints of the design team was that it had to be  like the US shuttle
not better.
 
pat
 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how dire the situation, don't panic  -- LLIB #280

The second answer to .118 clearly demonstrates the usleness of a shuttle picking
up a satelite in orbit.

It does not refer to the capacity of the shuttle to launch a surprise attack on
the FUSSR with essentially zero warning.  

Tony

Article: 83486
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 18:33:54 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <1994Feb24.143450.1585@rachel> walker@hap.arnold.af.mil
(Bill Walker) writes: 

>The Energiya launcher was developed initially NOT for MIR2 and NOT for
>Buran.  When (person whose name I forgot) took over the Soviet space 
 
That would be VP Glushko.
 
>program in the mid-70s, he cancelled development of the N1 moon rocket
>because he didn't like Sergei Korolev's design nor using "inefficient
>kerosene."  
 
This is a big generalization. Its very unclear what Glushko's true
motives were. Reliability of the spacecraft for the moon landing was
more a concern than finishing development of the N-1. Without
spacecraft for the moon mission, the N-1 rapidly lost support, and
loosing the race to the moon further diminished support. Shuttles and
SDI were still years away and Salyuts were still state of the art so
big stations were still far off, so there was just no need for
immediate funding of N-1 development. 
 
>He renamed the organization "Energiya" and started work on a
>HLLV using LOX and LH2. 
 
Mishin's N1/L3M long duration lunar landers would have been launched
on N-1 with LOX-LH stages. This was the first Soviet HLLV under
serious development using LOX-LH. A 10 meter tall engineering model
was shown in Spaceflight last year. 
 
> During development, a particular satellite was
>developed to take advantage of the new rocket. 
 
Maybe, if so it was apparently never finished, like the mythical
20,000 kg communications satellite often used in the last few years to
garner continued support for Energia flights. 
 
> After that, they were
>pressured by the military to develop Buran.  The satellite was launched,
>Buran made its 3-orbit, unmanned flight, then the whole Energiya program
 
The first Energia launched a big satellite which according to one
report was quickly thrown together to take advantage of the Energia
launch, not the other way around. Clearly, at this time Energia was
for Buran first, maybe other secret projects later. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 83560
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amante@aluxpo.att.com
Subject: The BURAN...what happened?
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:42:04 GMT
 
Last week there was an article in my local paper from the Associated
Press. In it, they mention that one of the Buran space shuttles was
being sent to Moscow's Gorky Park where it will be open in the spring
as a tourist attraction.  The article included a photo of a shuttle
(minus its tail fin) on a barge traveling down the Moscow River. 
 
The article also stated that the costly program has been quietly
shelved as the (Russian) space program tries to stretch its dwindling
rubes.  "It's the last, greatest monument to the folly of the space
race, where each country had to build something better than what the
other country had, whether it was really practical or not", said James
Oberg, a senior American space engineer and author who follows the
Russian space program closely. 
 
Walt
<amante@aluxpo.att.com>

Article: 917
From: geoff@hisnext.Stanford.EDU (Geoffrey Rutledge)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Russian Space Shuttle ?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 21:19:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Sender: news@medmail.stanford.edu
 
In article <1994Feb24.161254.24416@kodak.rdcs.kodak.com>  
sunilp@mailroom.itu.kodak.com (Sunil Prajapati) writes:

> Do Russians plan to develope or had plan to develope a space shuttle ? If
> so, can someone post relavent (Technical) information about the same ?
..
> [Mod Note: Yes, they did.  ... 
   -gwh]
> 
> Sunil
 
I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Georgi Grechko, cosmonaut,
aerospace engineer and atmospheric scientist, who discussed his
experiences with the Soviet Union's Space Bureau at Korolov. He stated
that whereas the Americans built the shuttle thinking it would be less
expensive than expendable boosters, the Russians knew at the time they
designed and built it that a shuttle-like orbiter would cost more than
their current lifting mechanisms. So it was a political move "to keep
up with the Jones'" The Russian shuttle program was cancelled due to
lack of funds and lack of mission. 
 
Dr. Grechko also said he was one of the engineers who calculated the
Sputnik orbit (at the time, they had a single computer in all of
Russia, with 1000 bytes of RAM and 4000 bytes of drum storage. "But 
we still launched the first artificial satellite"). He went on to
numerous orbital flights, including a prolonged Mir mission (Over 1
year, if I remember correctly). He was in line for an Apollo 8 style
orbit of the Moon when the lunar program was cancelled by the "higher
ups" after the successful Apollo Moon landings. 
 
--
Geoffrey Rutledge	rutledge@camis.stanford.edu
moderator of astronaut-candidates@camis.stanford.edu mailing list
send signup requests to astronaut-candidates-request@camis.stanford.edu
 
Article: 939
From: pam@astro.as.utexas.edu (Pawel Moskalik)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Russian Space Shuttle ?
Date: 28 Feb 1994 02:43:50 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin
 
In article <1994Feb25.211934.4917@medmail.stanford.edu>,
Geoffrey Rutledge <rutledge@camis.stanford.edu> wrote:

>I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Georgi Grechko, cosmonaut, aerospace  
>
>artificial satellite" ). He went on to numerous orbital flights, including a  
>prolonged Mir mission (Over 1 year, if I remember correctly). He was in line  
 
   This is not correct. Georgi Grechko was in space 3 times. His
longest flight was lasting 96days (Soyuz 26 mission to SALUT 6
station, 1977-78). He was on board MIR for a short stay of 9 days 
only (Soyuz T-14/Sojuz T-13, 1985). 
 
Pawel Moskalik
 

re .119
    
>The second answer to .118 clearly demonstrates the usleness of a shuttle
>picking up a satelite in orbit.
    
    I assume that was meant to be uselessness. To me the whole of .118 is
    flawed. (However, as we all know, perception is reality...)

re .118
    
>Yes, the story goes... Brezhnev was told by the military that
    
>a US shuttle could be launched
    
    With the current on time launch record the Shuttle doesn't make a very
    good military weapon. It's also rather difficult to launch a Shuttle
    discreetly. The Soviets by tracking the ascent profile can deduce
    immediately certain things about the mission. The Shuttle is rather
    big and is not stealthy.
    
    There only four of them (although I guess since a pre-emptive strike by
    the Shuttle on Moscow would obviously trigger MAD, noone would be
    counting Shuttles afterwards).
    
>and sweep over Moscow dropping a payload bay full of warheads on the capital.
    
    I doubt that the Shuttle can reenter upside down to enable the warheads
    to drop out of the payload bay or that it has been tested doing twinkle
    rolls once in aerodynamic lower Mach number flight. That leaves bombs
    that can somehow be deployed going upwards out of the payload bay
    (without destroying the Shuttle). I'm not sure what you do with the payload
    bay doors. Just for grins anyone got any ideas?
    
    The Shuttle does provide some advantages over ballistic missiles (e.g. the
    ability to hover in orbit before de-orbitting, cross range capability
    of around 1000 miles(?)).
    
    These arguments could be countered by viewing the current Shuttle as a
    precursor to a militarily useful vehicle which given the normal level
    of military paranoia could be taken seriously.
    
>The only way obvious to counter this threat was to build their own shuttle,
    
    This isn't really sound logic.
    
>and a shuttle intercepter which was apparently in development in the 1980s
    
    This at least follows. But it's not clear to me that more conventional
    means of interception could not be used. The Shuttle as a flying brick
    could be rather vulnerable.
 
>While it is theoretically possible for a shuttle to retrieve a opposition
>side satellitte,  in practice, i think it'd be way loads harder
>and  why risk a 1.5G dollar vehicle and crew looking and stealing a
>60 Million dollar short life platform.
    
    It's not clear why anyone would want to steal a satellite. Disable,
    yes.
    
    In any case many satellites are not reachable by the Shuttle.
    
    Typical military communications constellations would be in a too high
    altitude orbit. Anyone know the exact Shuttle maximum altitude?
    
    Typical reconnaissance would be too high inclination (polar or near
    polar orbits giving the maximum coverage). That's not to say that the
    Shuttle couldn't intercept the orbit of a polar sat but their relative
    speed of miles per second would preclude easy capture.
    
    As .118 implies it is probably only the Soviets' expendable (retrievable
    film) photo reconnaissance sats that could be reached and I'm sure they
    can launch them faster than we can retrieve them.

Article: 945
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Russian Space Shuttle ?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:53:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <1994Feb25.211934.4917@medmail.stanford.edu>
rutledge@camis.stanford.edu writes: 

>In article <1994Feb24.161254.24416@kodak.rdcs.kodak.com>  
>sunilp@mailroom.itu.kodak.com (Sunil Prajapati) writes:
>> Do Russians plan to develope or had plan to develope a space shuttle ? If
>> so, can someone post relavent (Technical) information about the same ?
>> [Mod Note: Yes, they did.  ... 
>I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Georgi Grechko, cosmonaut, aerospace  
>engineer and atmospheric scientist, who discussed his experiences with the  
>Soviet Union's Space Bureau at Korolov. He stated that whereas the Americans  
 
Just a few corrections needed here, no doubt due to the language barrier.
Korolev's Design Bureau is what you mean, headquartered in Kaliningrad.
It's the largest but not the only space design bureau in Russia.
 
>built the shuttle thinking it would be less expensive than expendable boosters
>the Russians knew at the time they designed and built it that a shuttle-like  
>orbiter would cost more than their current lifting mechanisms. So it was a  
>political move "to keep up with the Jones'" The Russian shuttle program was  
>cancelled due to lack of funds and lack of mission. 
 
Military need was paramount, they drove development and funding.
 
>Dr. Grechko also said he was one of the engineers who calculated the Sputnik  
>orbit (at the time, they had a single computer in all of Russia, with 1000  
>bytes of RAM and 4000 bytes of drum storage. "But we still launched the first  
>artificial satellite" ). He went on to numerous orbital flights, including a  
>prolonged Mir mission (Over 1 year, if I remember correctly). He was in line  
 
        No.

        Dr. Grechko graduated form the Leningrad Institute of
Mechanics in 1955. In April 1964, he was among 13 men selected from
Korolev Design Bureau for cosmonaut group. Master of Technical Science
1967. Based on his work in Korolev Design Bureau on lunar probes, he
was assigned to train for Zond/L-1 circumlunar mission. After
cancellation of the circumlunar mission in 1968, all Zond/L-1 trainees
transferred to lunar landing mission including Grechko. After
cancellation of lunar landing mission all cosmonauts transfer to ASTP,
Salyut, or Almaz programs. He was on backup crews for Soyuz 9, Soyuz
12, Soyuz T-11. He flew on the Soyuz 17/Salyut 4, Soyuz 26/Salyut 6,
and Soyuz T-14/Salyut 7 missions totaling over 130 days in space.
Grechko then became the head of a laboratory at the Soviet Academy of
Sciences specializing in high altitude atmospheric physics. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 83645
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: The BURAN...what happened?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 15:20:36 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <2kqqaa$mij@donal.dorsai.org> anderson@dorsai.dorsai.org
(Jim Anderson) writes: 

>: Mishin's N1/L3M long duration lunar landers would have been 
>: launched on N-1 with LOX-LH stages. This was the first Soviet HLLV
>: under serious development using LOX-LH. A 10 meter tall engineering
>: model was shown in Spaceflight last year.
>
>What issue was that, Dennis?
 
Try Sept-Oct issues, that should be it. The photo was in the letters
section. The model was also mentioned in a Russian article earlier in 
the year. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 21893
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: dennisn@sc734 (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Buran - the real story
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 19:00:27 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
In article <332cs6$ld2@pendragon.jsc.nasa.gov>,
begley@l14h13.jsc.nasa.gov writes: 

> In article <777166890snz@maxw.demon.co.uk> max@maxw.demon.co.uk (Max White)
> writes:
> >In article <32t1hu$rki@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> >           w3wes@edison.gsfc.nasa.gov "William E. Smith" writes:
> >>      I just read a brief article that Buran is to be put on static
> >> display in Moscow near the Kremlin in Gorky Park.  It is being modified
> 
> >I think you are on about one of the Buran prototypes which is now an
> >ice cream sales outlet - also may be one of the Burans they had with the
> >jet engines on to do the atmospheric tests and landings.
 
NO
 
> >From what I have heard, the flown Buran is in storage at Baikonur, 
 
YES
 
> >but is still slated to fly again, it is not totally dead.
 
Only in their dreams.
 
>    The original poster is refering to the Space News article and photo
> on page 15 of the August 8-14, 1994 issue.  It specifically states that 
 
Space News did not do a good job. The description below is more accurate.
 
        The western press has paid some minor notice this spring to
the movement of a static test mock-up Buran orbiter from NPO Molniya
Tushino plant to Gorky park in Moscow. The Kosmos-Zemlya company
formed by NPO Molniya, the park, Kosmoflot and headed by Gherman
Titov, is trying to make a buck by using the test article as the
framework for a new space motif restaurant. Videokosmos is producing a
video production of Earth views to be shown in simulated port holes as
up to 60 patrons eat from a 100 varieties of space food for a cost of
$70.  Following a May 25, 1993 decision of the Council of Chief
Designers the Buran project has been placed in mothballs. Orbiters at
Baykonur are being placed in storage and LII and Air Force cosmonaut
groups trained for Buran flights are waiting to hear of their
reassignment. Meanwhile, ITAR-TASS announced the imminent launch of
the Buran, on April Fools Day. 
 
-- 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL