Live data from Hacker News

Space Shuttle vs. Buran

buran.su

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#21
post #12

Why did I get the vibe I was reading pro-Buran propaganda in 2016?

Perhaps because it takes every opportunity to point out how Buran was superior, sometimes correctly (better automation, for example) and sometimes not (reused boosters, and the thermal protection bit seems dubious), while never once mentioning anything the Shuttle did better (reuse engines, or actually do something useful). Still, great reading.

The engine reuse isn't exactly the Shuttle program's brightest moment anyway. The SSME was designed for 55 uses… By the time of the Challenger disaster, that number was 4-5. By the end of the Shuttle program NASA counted themselves lucky when some of the engines managed 15 uses; and refurbishment between each flight was only marginally cheaper than building new expendable engines for every flight. Even with the added benefit of 30 years of progress in material sciences, SpaceX is unlikely to manage 55 reuses on their engines specifically designed for it.

The Energia solution wasn't as high-tech, but it was highly pragmatic: The boosters were also used as expendable rockets on their own right (Zenit), so high production volumes – and easier to handle fuels – decreased prices significantly, to the point that several Zenit-derived engines are in use by American and South Korean companies; and the main engine was exactly the scaled-down, cheaper, expendable SSME that NASA could have used to drive down Space Shuttle launch costs.

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#22

Interesting, I was just reading up on the space shuttle design process, and how the shuttle design was hurt by politics and scope creep. Apparently the project was in jeopardy at some point and needed buy-in from the Air Force. So they made a few changes, such as making it much bigger, and the tank disposable for potential military applications. Well, turns out the shuttle was never used by the military. But the lega…

The military did use the shuttle but maybe not in the way you think: they didn't have a separate military only shuttle, but the shuttle was used to launch many very large military satellites into orbit.

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#23

The principal functional difference between the Shuttles and Buran is buried in the last paragraph: The main advantage of Buran over STS is that it was made from start to be fully automated. The entire test flight from launch to the landing was done _completely_ autonomously. The most impressive part of it though was the landing when Buran aborted first landing run that happened to be into a strong crosswind and retr…

Jesus Christ, 4MB? Did they write the whole thing in machine code?

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#24
post #21
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because it takes every opportunity to point out how Buran was superior, sometimes correctly (better automation, for example) and sometimes not (reused boosters, and the thermal protection bit seems dubious), while never once mentioning anything the Shuttle did better (reuse engines, or actually do something useful). Still, great reading.

The engine reuse isn't exactly the Shuttle program's brightest moment anyway. The SSME was designed for 55 uses… By the time of the Challenger disaster, that number was 4-5. By the end of the Shuttle program NASA counted themselves lucky when some of the engines managed 15 uses; and refurbishment between each flight was only marginally cheaper than building new expendable engines for every flight. Even with the added…

You're right, reuse didn't work out with the Shuttle nearly the way they wanted it to. But it did work out to some degree, while Buran's version of it never went beyond paper.

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#25
post #23

The principal functional difference between the Shuttles and Buran is buried in the last paragraph: The main advantage of Buran over STS is that it was made from start to be fully automated. The entire test flight from launch to the landing was done _completely_ autonomously. The most impressive part of it though was the landing when Buran aborted first landing run that happened to be into a strong crosswind and retr…

Jesus Christ, 4MB? Did they write the whole thing in machine code?

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

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#26

Interesting, I was just reading up on the space shuttle design process, and how the shuttle design was hurt by politics and scope creep. Apparently the project was in jeopardy at some point and needed buy-in from the Air Force. So they made a few changes, such as making it much bigger, and the tank disposable for potential military applications. Well, turns out the shuttle was never used by the military. But the lega…

Although the particular modifications were not used, the Shuttle (as a launch system) certainly was used by the military or at least the NRO. Several missions were classified, most were presumably spy satellite launch and maintenance.

It caused a lot of communication problems because everything was coded, astronauts forgot what code words meant and the whole thing was a bit of a joke.

http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318...

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#27
post #23

The principal functional difference between the Shuttles and Buran is buried in the last paragraph: The main advantage of Buran over STS is that it was made from start to be fully automated. The entire test flight from launch to the landing was done _completely_ autonomously. The most impressive part of it though was the landing when Buran aborted first landing run that happened to be into a strong crosswind and retr…

Jesus Christ, 4MB? Did they write the whole thing in machine code?

Back in the day, not everything needed jquery and bootstrap deps to be considered "modern" ;)

Jokes aside, russian space program had some AMAZING developers working in some very low-level languages with unbelievable efficiency. I had the pleasure of working with some of them many years later on enterprise software at large banks.

NASA has written some amazing software as well. Start here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8063192

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#28
post #10
post #6

The Shuttle, despite its many problems, flew 133 successful flights.

At a direct cost of around 1.5 billion dollars per flight. This includes a lot of flights that were essentially milk runs, bringing satellites into orbit or doing other light work that could have been just as easily done with much cheaper capsule flights.

A large number of those missions were flow for the DoD, repairing/refuling satellites and potentially also capturing enemy satellites.

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#29
Buran was a neat system. Although it looks like a copy of the US shuttle, it wasn't. Buran was a payload, with no engines.

Because Buran was designed after the Shuttle, the designers had the benefit of knowing US mistakes. Buran's thermal protection is better. The Space Shuttle tile system was a huge headache; not only did it cause one crash, even successful flights required excessive maintenance of the tiles. The US tile system could not handle rain; Buran could.

The US shuttle had autoland.[1] The astronauts didn't want to use it. Post-Columbia, the shuttles did get full unmanned landing capability, so that, in some emergencies, a shuttle could be returned from the ISS with nobody on board. This was never used.

[1] http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/194

Re: Space Shuttle vs. Buran

#30

The principal functional difference between the Shuttles and Buran is buried in the last paragraph: The main advantage of Buran over STS is that it was made from start to be fully automated. The entire test flight from launch to the landing was done _completely_ autonomously. The most impressive part of it though was the landing when Buran aborted first landing run that happened to be into a strong crosswind and retr…

I'm wondering whether they built a simulation environment to test their software.
Post reply on HN