October 14, 2009, 23:39

Three reasons why Buran cannot be revived:

1. The people who designed, built and tested Buran are mostly gone.
2. The technological capabilities and facilities used to design, build and test Buran are mostly gone.
3. There is no funding to compensate for 1 and 2.

October 10, 2009, 22:35

Seems a bit speculative to restart Buran when both the ESA (Europe) and JAXA (Japan) have already sent unmanned cargo carriers to the ISS recently, both which might carry crew and return from orbit it's been stated. At one time the Shuttle program or "Orbiter" as it was known on the early personal computer games, which was considered very accurate, was to be a split civilian (NASA, Cape Canaveral) and military (US Air Force, Vandenberg) program, which due to costs and objections to the militarization of space was reduced to the five shuttles for NASA mostly or, as I remember it, the whole program was going to go down in the flames of argument. The "Orbiter" simulation, though not implemented, had laser weapons aboard. Much of the arguments went on as objections to the American participation in the International Space Station were worked out. Still, it would be good to find someway to control and service all that stuff out there in orbit.

September 12, 2009, 01:48

Revive the Buran???? Let's revive the mercury-redstone or the Atlas...Oh pleeease? We (the US) need a driving force like we saw in the lunar exploration program. We have no "right stuff" guys a la Chuck Yeager anymore. The US needs to get off it's collective duff and return to the hard thought and work that gave us manned space superiority in the first place. We didn't get there first (Sputnik) but when we finally did, we got there best. We need to start making things HERE again. We need to awaken immagination and creativity in our youth instead of dulling their senses with mindless video and computer games that leave nothing to the imagination. Our dreams have become nightmares...our efforts circular. Instead of meeting the space transport problem head-on, we rely on the Suyoz...nothing but an overworked bathyscaphe which resembles the boiler in my basement with the cover off. It probably still uses vacuum tubes.

Bottom line...we didn't need the Russians before to accomplish our outer space feats, why do we rely on them now? How embarrassing for the most powerful and creative nation on the planet, after all we've accomplished in space travel technology, to have to "ride along" in the Soyuz (and perhaps Buron). Give me a break!!!

September 06, 2009, 18:26

For those following "The Augustine Commission" at <hsf.nasa.gov> by September 8, 2009 an interim report is expected, with "Final" version at future date.

While we all wait = Let's chat about why diplomats are slow to agree on "Space Situational Awareness" - prelude to "Orbital Space Debris" resolution?

The pieces of space junk are not reduced since the February, 2009 incident over Siberia, when the KOSMOS vehicle impacted Iridium satellite.

As I recall, Boeing Corporation space vehicle controllers for the Iridium constellation offered to provide FORMAL '"early warning" on imminent commercial vehicle collisions.

BUT - I had not heard a formal governmental response nor commitment

THEN MY OWN MULTIPLE inquiries this past month of some selected military space public affairs and operations folks of my acquaintance are also strangely mute on the topic, claiming to know "absolutely nothing"!

[Not even "fifth stool rumors" are evident on this topic]. Likewise from NASA's Orbital Debris Office in Houston.

If anyone should, one would think that our US military & NASA space operations & tracking lads and lassies would be among the first to know such matters. They don't! Frankly, such silence in these times is deafening. There's "more news" on The History Channel via cable television, than from government offices.

During interim since last February, there have been many(!) Vienna & Austrian long opportunities for our diplomats, lawyers & tekkkies to enjoy local cuisine or ambience - all on the taxpayers' dimes and from many countries at that!

What was that fabled US Marine Corps axiom? - "LEAD, FOLLOW or GET THE [heck!] OUT OF THE WAY"!!!

August 29, 2009, 13:42

In Salt Lake City [UT] "The Deseret News" - for Friday edition of August 28th, 2009 (page B-2) is writer James Thalman's "Valve problem halts test of rocket booster by ATK" [re: Aries I] at Promontory in Box Elder County, UT during Thursday - August 27th. In light of the dire forecasts for NASA human space flight funding detailed to The White House by 'The Final Report' of the [Augustine Commission] - <http://www.hsf.nasa.gov>. That delayed NASA follow-on to an aging space shuttle - whose redesign [reportedly under pressure from NASA Astronaut Corps] having labored mightily then delivering with considerable labor & expense what I have called elsewhere "Apollo on steroids" - NASA planners & executives properly SHOULD HAVE STAYED with the 95% complete & ready for prototypes' test flights by the Lockheed Skunk Works "X-33 SSTO / RLV program. Check the time lines on both programs for US Treasury funds blatantly mis-used at multiple felony levels of criminal liability, with blatant and unwarranted congressional contrivances, duplicities and complicity - from members in both houses! CRIMINAL, INDEED!!!!

August 20, 2009, 03:57

The Space Shuttle (and Buran) programs were financial failures. You don't need an 18 wheeler to take people into space - you need a reliable, time-tested design like Soyuz or Apollo for people, and Delta or Energia for the heavy lifting. Shuttle the people and the heavy cargo SEPARATELY. The Russians really did have the right idea from the get-go. Would be REALLY interesting if the US and Russians (and Europeans, and Japanese, and Indians) could all get together and truly SHARE space tech. Form a world space federation.

July 28, 2009, 23:09

The comment from an interviewee saying that Soviet technology was 'superior' to the US because the Buran could land itself automatically is ignorant of a certain fact. The US Space Shuttle CAN land completely automatically (not even 'controlled from the ground'), but the astronauts prefer to do it themselves. Read your NASA history and official records and you will learn a few things.

Forget the fact that most of the Buran's design was blatantly copied (can you say espionage?) from the US program anyway. Similar to what happened to the Condorde designs being swiped and there you have it... the Tupolev TU-144.

July 27, 2009, 14:14

I think the real progress in the Buran program was the Energia heavy lift booster. The system can lift more that the STS dual solids with the shuttle mains and is safer due to the lack of foam materials. In a perfect world NASA should have scrapped the ascent system after challenger and looked at a modified Energia booster. That would have saved at least seven lives and maybe extended the shuttle program (they could have even purchased Buran to replace challenger or columbia). The Orion program abandons the space plane idea and basically recycles tech from the shuttle and apollo programs. It is a shame that 40 years later we have lost the drive and imagination necessary to advance human spaceflight.

July 27, 2009, 04:43

At present we have no clear direction to the manned space program. We have had enormous success with robotic vehicles but these machines are not suitable for human flight. There is one thing the shuttle can do that no other vehicle can accomplish and that is return a large object from orbit. But considering that the shuttle returns empty on most of its missions that capability is rarely used and is of little value. The cost per launch is equal or greater than that for expendable vehicles with similar load carrying capacity so the STS cannot be justified on economic grounds. But the greatest advantage of the space program is stimulation of both engineering advancement and economics. Properly managed the space program would do far more than any politically motivated stimulus program to revitalize the economy and the impact on science and technology would continue to be profound. It probably does not make a huge difference which technology is used to get man to space as long as it works and is acceptably reliable and safe.

I won't live long enough to see it but the space elevator would be the ultimate solution to manned spaceflight.

July 24, 2009, 20:15

The US space shuttle is a cargo vehicle designed to take astronauts and a payload to the space station. The shuttle is only a truck designed to fly from ground level to low earth orbit. In the 1970's and the early 1980's, the politics surrounding the shuttle were designed to make the shuttle appear to be capable of performing almost any job. Satellite launches, satellite repairs and satellite retrieval were much talked about. However, NASA realised the difficulties involved in trying to repair satellites with a fuel load were more difficult than expected. The cost of flying the shuttle is taking up a significant part of NASA's annual budget. It is time to retire the shuttle. Unfortunately, there is no immediate replacement for the shuttle. The report on the future of NASA's manned spaceflight program is due to be published in August. If the Ares V rocket is built according to plan, it may be possible to lift in excess of 100 tons to a low earth orbit which will exceed the capabilities of any rocket which is currently being used.

I have wondered why NASA takes a critical look at the foam insulation on the external tank of the shuttle. In the absence of further information, I think it would have been more cost effective to have looked at enhancing the design and manufacture of the critical heat resistant tiles on the shuttle orbiter. If the foam insulation cannot be made to adhere to the external tank, then surely, the thermal protection tiles could be made to be more robust. Materials processing has advanced considerably since the 1970's when the shuttle was designed and built. Low density insulation foam should not impede a shuttle's progress into space.

I hear you all wanting to comment...... Please let me know your opinions.

July 21, 2009, 04:16

With all due respect, the space shuttle was a pretty bad design to begin with. Why put wings on a space vehicle? All wings do is make reentry harder. A blunt body reentry is much safer and much smarter. A space shuttle reentry is not stable due to it's strange design. It requires careful adjustments to be made throughout. If you lose any part of the control system, you're toast. The blunt body reentry is stable and doesn't need to be controlled. The engineers who designed the space shuttle didn't even put in an escape system, on the grounds that it would never fail. Well, too bad that wasn't true.
When you look at the cost of the space shuttle program and the fact that it is chained to low earth orbit along with it's safety issues, I say it's about time we retire it. And as for servicing the space station in it's absence, I think we will find that the private sector will accomplish what we need for an order of magnitude less. And by the way, happy 40th Apollo! I wish I could have been alive to see it! Let's hope we can find a way to take the next step after 40 years.

July 20, 2009, 17:48

It does seem to me that to retire the shuttle would be a bad mistake at this point because frankly, there's nothing else better. The Orion Space Craft doesn't seem to have the capabilities (cargo wise) as the shuttle,nor could it retrieve and fix a broken or a satellite or bring it back to earth for upgrading. It seems we never used the shuttle as we first envisioned it. Maybe I don't know all that much about space. The only thing I see difficult is controlling cost. The Soviet Union has a no frill space program that seems vibrant and sturdy. Sure they relied on many countries to contribute and have even opened the door to tourism in space. I believe we should form a Unified Space Alliance much like in the way of the United Nations, where ALL countries have a voice and we all contribute our expertise (and money) to ONE specific program dedicated to the exploration of Space to expand on the ISS and move into the 21st Century and Beyond. Just throwing in my 2 cents worth from an uneducated normal everyday person.

July 16, 2009, 23:38

It might not be cost effective to do so, with robotic ships for cargo and the trustworthy Soyuz for people the technology exists to get the job done. The Russian people have have proven access to space at a very reasonable cost for years. I admire their frugal approach to space travel. There are plenty of heavy lift rockets out there for cargo, and use the Soyuz for transporting people.

July 16, 2009, 07:21

Three points:
1/ The Buran couldn't land "automatically" it was piloted remotely from the ground
2/ One of the Russian Shuttles is in Germany at Sinsheim museum
3/ Re-inventing the wheel is NOT progress

June 26, 2009, 22:30

The space shuttle is a viable but aging system. The most cost effective way of reinventing our space program is to redesign and improve upon the existing shuttle. With new materials available, it can be more resistant to thermal damage and strikes than its predecessor. The external tank can be designed not to drop chunks of ice or lose insulation, with the right forethought and design.

The concept of Mars exploration is tantalizing, yet will be very expensive and risky. We have been to the moon and found nothing much of interest with the exception of readily available deuterium which can be mined and returned to earth using robotic ships. The pressing need is our ability to continue with low earth orbit flights to continue servicing the space station. The ISS would have not been built without the heavy lift capability that the shuttle provides. We need to continue to use and improve upon this capability to provide continued access to earth orbit.

June 19, 2009, 06:51

KRIS - re: Rocket engine technology advances, could we also mentioned - beyond mere chemical propellants which NASA is determined to cling like a 'Peanuts' cartoon series security blanket -- which US commercial space transportation leaps ahead (a) using turbo-fan jet engineers aboard "WhiteKnightTwo" mother ships, from higher altitudes; then (b) the traditional rocket-propelled "SpaceShipTwo" carrier/cargo missions?

Further, could we also consider the 1960's Apollo Era 'linear-aerospike [ram] engines" being developed by North American Rocketdyne -- which were for intended use by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works aboard the "X-33 SSTO/RLVs" --- when even a one/tenth scale model of same was mounted atop an SR-71 for test flights @ Palmdale, CA? AND NASA "pulled the funding plug on this promising technology" PLUS highly efficient maintenance turn-around planning, too? OMG!!!

Further, at the Scaled Composites web site there are intriguing -- not yet revealed -- "TIER THREE" prototypes mentioned which might prove interesting, too!

June 18, 2009, 11:03

I agree with Viktor. A revival of Buran ain't going to happen. This story is pure flim-flam! Something you'd expect to see on April 1st.

June 18, 2009, 05:59

The "Viktor" COMMENT herein [as of June 16th @ 00:34 hours] IS JUST NOT TECHNICALLY NOR HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, WHILE BEING MIRED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN A TECHNOLOGICAL 'TIME WARP' AT LEAST A DECADE OLD! Under a previous joint NASA - industry "paperless procurement" - NASA and Lockheed Skunk Works labored to bring forth the "X-33 Single Stage to Orbit / Recoverable Launch Vehicle (SSTO/RLV)! The program was 95% complete and ready for prototype test flights, when NASA Administrator Dan Goldin "pulled the plug" on funding. Goldin's unbelievably stupid, bureaucratic decision (arguably!) was reportedly due to "pressure form NASA Astronauts" who did not like "X-33" automated piloting system - far more advanced than 'Buran" some decades earlier. SO NASA returned to the drawing boards and brought forth a replacement - essentially "Apollo on streroids"! FAR stronger words come to mind, but are simply not suitable for this forum!!!

See also comments elsewhere about blatant "mis-statements" and historically inaccurate testimony of the US Senator Bill Nelson of Florida before the Augustine Commission [NASA Human Space Flight Review] during first public hearings on Wednesday - June 17th, the first day of public hearings in Washington, DC! As a former astronaut from a state where spaceflight is a major industry, Senator Nelson apparently IS NOT AWARE of two prior [CY 2009] NASA contracts let to two different commercial space firms in this (U.S.) country so that NASA space transportation systems [to and from I.S.S.] are not solely reliant upon a Russian 'Soyuz' monopoly in the near term. US taxpayers deserve (1) a correction to the public record, then (2) a formal apology from that US Senator within 24 hours of his public mis-statement. HIS OWN STAFF DID NOT SERVE HIM nor their employers (US taxpayers) well in this case.

June 17, 2009, 18:23

I must say it does amuse me; all the commentators saying how our technology has progressed! To give you an example the new J-2x rocket engine has a 26% performance increase over the final version of the original. It weighs in @ 225% more! THAT's progress?!? I Don't Think So! Ask any rocket engineer about the problem of increased weight and it's effect on performance of a rocket-powered vehicle.
BTW, how many people here are aware that American space technology only advanced with an influx of "soviet" engine technology in the 1990's: check out the origins of the Atlas launcher engines!

June 17, 2009, 08:12

Maybe part of the answer to this discussion lies in the Russian 'Prospective Piloted Transport System', the details of which are on the internet.