Talk:Buran programme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Espionage?[edit]

A sentence or two perhaps should be added discussing if the Buran's design was stolen from the American Space Shuttle. I have seen multiple sources that both confirm or deny that the Buran was based on "stolen" American designs. I do not know which sources to trust on this matter. However it is my personal belief that espionage did play a significant role in the construction of the Buran.

I agree totally. I wrote a couple of sentences for the throngs of authors to butcher. -- Ke4roh 19:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Ilyushin Il-62 airliner looked suspiciously like the Vickers VC-10, and if the Tupolev Tu-144 wasn't a gross (groan) copy of Concorde then I don't know what it was. So, yeah, those russkies'd steal just about anything.
Yes of course, you are right. This is the obvious reason, why "russkies" were the first, who launched both satellite and man in the space, and have done the first flight on Tu-144 (before Concorde).
Buran internally is as far from the US shuttle a PC differs from an Apple computer (however for you, may be there is no difference - the "boxes" are quite similar :) )

That is certainly overstating the differences. Nevertheless, sticking to the facts, I do not believe there has ever been anything published concluding the Buran was based on stolen shuttle designs. Gingermint (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is. Read it and laugh https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm Greglocock (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

The exact location of Buran 1.02 is not known today. A second series of orbiters began construction but was never completed, and at least one of the three was dismantled. There's a Buran in Moscow, in Gorky Park. The local lore is that it's the one that orbited the Earth. -- apoivre 15:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Gorky Park one was a non-flying model. The one that orbited earth was stored at Baikonaur atop an Energia launcher and was destroyed a couple years ago when a roof collapsed due to weight. 12 people died, iirc. --Chairboy 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could this object be one of the mock-ups? --Marc NL 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the OK-TVA, one of the test shuttles now residing in Gorky Park Eptin 17:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the museum Auto & Technikmuseum Sinsheim has acquired one. not sure which thou... Thejakester 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few date-stamped pictures up at English Russia of an unspecified Buran; does anyone know which it is? --Eric3K (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 11F35 K4? It said it was dismantled next to a factory. Cjwon348 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buran on sale on Polish auctions site[edit]

Heavily disassembled (stolen-out) Buran-type space shuttle on 9.1.2005 was still on sale on Polish auctioning site:

http://www.dzafel.s3.pl/aukcje/auction.php?aukcja=38082265

The seller claims it's not a joke and if no one buys it (it's 2 millions złoty = 500 000 USD) it will be sold just as scrapmetal, and the ceramic thermal slabs will be available separately to buy there. The price doesn't include customs or transport :->

I was actually chopped up into peaces. There are sites here and there where you can buy some. I have actually seen a window in a museum! 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Baikonur/Tyuratam note[edit]

Removed from article:

"...(more correctly called Tyuratam; the deception was intentionally performed by Soviet leaders in order to confuse Western intelligence agencies.)"

This doesn't belong here, it belongs at Baikonur Cosmodrome (and is actually already there). - Plutor 13:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also removed this aside:

"...when it was deorbited so that attention could be focused on the International Space Station, and so that it would not re-enter the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner the way Skylab did after plans to re-boost it with the Space Shuttle fell victim to unexpected program delays"

It's about Mir, and really belongs there. No reason to go into the history of Skylab on the Buran article. - Plutor 13:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.--Chairboy 19:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shuttle in Bahrain[edit]

One Shuttle was found in Bahrain: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/23/shuttle.shtml Is seems to be the 002 (is that the 1.02? notations are confusing here)

--195.158.142.141 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Bahrain shuttle is NOT 1.02 (or '002') - It has been mistakenly identified. It's one of the test prototypes - specifically, it's the only one of the eight test models fitted with jet engines to allow it to take off for flight tests.

Suspicious edit?[edit]

I don't know much about this topic, but seeing as just after this article appeared on Slashdot the edit "15:13, 24 Sep 2004" appeared and changed "a capability common to the U.S. shuttle system" into "a capability not available in the U.S. shuttle system." Which of these are actually true? Haakon 15:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think some talk about Buran's automated landing procedures is warrented. The Shuttle also has an automated landing system and continues to this day. As a matter of fact, it looks like the Colombia pilot tried to take control of the shuttle a couple of seconds before Colombia broke up. So, was Buran's automated landing developed before the Shuttle's? Was it more automated?

Buran's automated landing system was developed after the Space Shuttle (just like the Buran itself). It was also more sophisticated, and could complete takeoff, orbit, deorbit, and landing with full automation, as it did in its only flight. The Space Shuttle systems, despite upgrades, require human intervention at key points in the flight, and landing is always done with a human at the controls. Whether this is because of pilot pride or technical issues has not been made entirely clear. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
User 'nautical' changed it back to suggest the US shuttle can land fully automated. This isn't accurate, but I can see how the text that was there might create the confusion, so I altered it to conform to the explanation in Jenkin's Shuttle.--Chairboy 08:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An-225 vs. Spruce Goose[edit]

The Spruce Goose is larger in every size dimension except one. MTOW or being in-service does not relate to it being the 'largest.' See also [1]. -Joseph (Talk) 18:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

The Spruce Goose *is* not anything. It does not exist. AN-225 is the largest aircraft in existence. Besides, who said that wingspan defines how large an aircraft is? MTOW does very much relate to it being the largest. --Liss 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because the Spruce Goose is in a museum doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Carnildo 20:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. It certainly exists. It has flown, and there's no reason it couldn't fly again. Certainly no worse than the second An-225. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Yes, it does exist, that was a bit of an overtstatement :) --Liss 07:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It flew for only 70 seconds, 20m off the ground. That is barely flying. The An-225 is still larger anyway.(preceding unsigned comment by YMB29 (talk • contribs) )
The criteria isn't "largest aircraft that flew more than 70 seconds", and the An-225 is a bit smaller. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not smaller. It is longer but has a shorter wingspan because its wings are swept back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.105.45.121 (talk • contribs) .
AKA, 'smaller'. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, wingspan does not mean everything, especially when it is swept vs. unswept.
if Spruce Goose is larger? why does it carry less volume? D: Akinkhoo (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPS tiles optimal?[edit]

This paragraph was originally lifted verbatim from [2], and in any case is unsubstantiated. Judging by this picture (context: [3]) the tile layout is certainly not strictly optimal with respect to thermodynamics. The fluid flow, which anyway would vary with flight regime and attitude, would not exhibit such a zig-zagging discontinuity. It was undoubtedly a compromise among thermal protection, durability, manufacturability, maintainability, and cost (as would have been the U.S. design). —Fleminra 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting changes by 81.77.147.236/130.246.132.26 again. The Columbia incident was not caused by thermodynamic deficiencies of the intact TPS system. If anything, the problem was the tiles’ durability. If there is evidence that the Buran tile layout is more durable than the U.S. design (in addition to the unsubstantiated thermodynamic superiority), please cite the reference. —Fleminra 18:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I did a quick websearch, and found a suggestion that the silica ceramic tiles used by Buran were much more resilient than those on Columbia. However, the primary failure on Columbia was shedding huge lumps off of the external tank and impacting the leading edge of a wing; silica ceramic tiles aren't used on leading edges due to excessive temperatures, so it's unclear whether that's at all important. And, whilst we don't know whether the Energia sheds in the same way, they both use hydrogen and it requires extensive external insulation which is unfortunately likely to be susceptible to shedding ice or foam. And even though Buran made it down ok, I found a comment that Buran had extensive damage to the leading edges of the wings- the implication seems to be that something damaged them; although I don't know if it was diagnosed what caused this. Either way, it sounds really, really bad, and the claim that Buran was much better overall seems extremely suspect it sure doesn't look that way to me.WolfKeeper
All in all, I wouldn't like to bet that Buran was better on this front, the two systems are laid out very similarly, and in this case, even though many of the internals of Buran are quite different, it strongly seems to suggest that Buran would be vulnerable to the same general problem that downed Columbia- multi-kg masses impacting at mach 1 or so is probably a vehicle killer almost anyway you design it.WolfKeeper
You will find a lot details on [4] including details of the lost tiles after the orbital flight. Summary is that they lost less tiles as on first shuttles (7 including 3 consecutive). The 3 consecutive tiles on the wing tip look a little more severe but not extensive.--89.60.246.120 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Buran as type class[edit]

The article is unclear whether Buran describes the whole class including Shuttle 2.01 which has an orphan article of its own. Both articles make 2.01 appear outside the 'Buran' class which I think applies to all five Soviet shuttles up to 2.03. In fact - worse - the Buran article contains a panel at the top where 'Buran' only appears to be a single craft. Am I right? If so, could an expert please correct the misleading articles? Shuttle 2.01 doesn't even mention the classname Buran! Benet Allen 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Buran was name of the entire class. I don't have exact reference, but f.e. [5] mentions the "Buran program" so it's only logical that it refers to the clase. Nikola 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buran program vs. Buran orbiter[edit]

I think we need to reform this article (perhaps coupled with modest changes in the articles for the other orbiters) so that there is one article for the program, and a separate one for the Buran orbiter. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a major overhaul IMO.SteelyDave 08:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph link[edit]

There was a link in the now-"Current status" section (was: Aftermath) to an image showing the aftermath of the collapse of the hanger holding the Buran (http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2169/burandamaged7jm.jpg), which I've removed as it provides no information about its source. Mike Peel 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Status table[edit]

Completed the table with extra information on most of the ships that are part of the Buran program. If possible, I'll expand this table on to separe articles. For now, there's a OK-GLI page that duplicates some text from this page. --Ricnun 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle Baikal[edit]

We seem to have a near-orphaned article, Shuttle Baikal, which probably wants to be linked to from this article - but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? --Mike Peel 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptichka: finished or not?[edit]

This article disagees within itself about whether Ptichka is finished and unused, or unfinished. The Space Flight Burans box lists it as completed and unused, but the rest of the article lists it as incomplete. -LeoO3 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated all the status for consistency. I think it makes sense now. Ptichka is more than 95% completed but of course infinished. I think it's considered unused because the main crucial systems are installed (life support, for example).--Ricnun 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a buran shuttle on google earth[edit]

i don't know which one it is, but it is clearly visible at these coordinates in google earth: 

55°43'43.37"N
37°35'48.22"E

86.61.83.114 11:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye! That's indeed OK-TVA in Gorky Park (as indicated in the article) Saintamh 18:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:StarToysCover.png[edit]

Image:StarToysCover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buran and US Shuttle similarities[edit]

I have read articles and had a professor in college state that the Buran design was a design that was originally rejected by NASA because it was to dangerous. The design was fed to the Soviets through a joint CIA/FBI counter espionage effort. The KGB was carrying out Direcorate X at thise point. The US had been notified by the French of the project and started leaking corrupted information. The problem with all of this is i can't find sources and i am not going to reference my college notes. Anyone have any information on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.107.161 (talk • contribs)

Why was it dangerous??? I think it's a kind of conspiracy theory you are talking about. Buran was designed independently by Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy group. Though I admit that the basic ideas could be copied from NASA, but all the interior design was made independently. As you know, Buran flight was fully automatic. Is Shuttle capable for the same? Does Shuttle have an ejector seats? Etc. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuriy, yes, the Shuttle did have ejector seats originally - Columbia's first test flights included them. They were subequently removed, because there was no way to give the additional crew members below the flight deck ejector seats. SirThoreth 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot to say that Buran Energia was not just a fuel tank as on Shuttle, but a booster rocket. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 08:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't think it was a booster rocket. Energia was the rocket and Buran was the "cargo". AJKGordon 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might be confusing what booster means. Apologies if so. AJKGordon 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Key differences from the NASA Space Shuttle" reads more like "Why Buran is better than the NASA Space Shuttle". Presumably there are things that could be added to make this a little more NPOV. --Nucleusboy 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good online article (http://www.buran-energia.net/documentation/birds%20of%20a%20feather.pdf) describing the social-cultural effect on different design decitions of both programs. He's also sugested that as NASA published a lot of early design studies in the open open source domain the russians had no reasons not to use this data. Nobody want's to invent the wheel twice.--89.60.194.214 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the internet to have a NPOV on Buran is a fool's errand. That section is pretty much the standard list of trolls rolled out by anyone who wants to pat themselves on the back for liking the more obscure spaceplane. Maybe it would help NPOV to add the standard list of counter-trolls: Differences between the Shuttle and Buran: "The shuttle flew more than once." "The Shuttle demonstrated payload and mission capability, crossrange capability, passenger capacity, and reusability." "The Shuttle made contributions to science and human spaceflight." "The Shuttle program did useful work." etc. All of these are citeable. If a wikipedia article is going to include a flamewar just because it's citeable, why not include both sides? 50.0.88.55 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astronautix has a good page on the dimensions of the two vehicles, they all seem to be within a meter of each other.--Craigboy (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction section[edit]

Since we've had some back and forth, let's bring the issue of whether or not to keep the "Buran in science fiction" section to a discussion.

Personally, I think the section should go, as it is basically trivia, and therefore cruft, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited stuff[edit]

Shouldn't it just remain with the appropriate wiki 'citation needed' tag to indicate citation needed? I'm a new visitor to this page but reverted its deletion thinking (inaccurately?) that it was deleted by a vandal. But it seems like the section's been there awhile so it seems that a 'citation needed' indication would be at least an option for it. It doesn't read like "hype" as the original person noted when deleting it. I defer to the wikigods, of course, for they know more than I. - Ageekgal 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see an edit that basically restored some of it with a citation link. That's fine. The stuff that's not cited, though, is fair game for removal. The way I see it, {{fact}} tags are for places to mark where a citation is needed and where one is likely to be found. If it's not likely to get a citation, then it should go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energia lift capacity[edit]

Energia#Vulkan-Hercules claims that "the largest ... configuration could have launched up to 175 tonnes into orbit", but here in Buran_program#Key_differences_from_the_NASA_Space_Shuttle, it's claimed that that the "heaviest configuration (never built) would have been able to launch 200 tons into orbit." Can anyone offer insight into the disparity? Thanks! --Rob* 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ok-ks.jpg[edit]

Image:Ok-ks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ok-ml-2.gif[edit]

Image:Ok-ml-2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OK-ML-1.jpg[edit]

Image:OK-ML-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buran with jet engine[edit]

According to http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-consti-reacteur.php the two top jet engines as seen on OK-GLI are integral part of the orbiter design too. The additional engine pods on the sides of OK-GLI are additions allowing for autonomous take off that required addtional engine power compared to only horizontal flight during landing. The first orbiters had them unfinished, like some other systems, as well as weight considerations at the early Energia version. However it seems like the engine bay still existed and were just covered allowing a potential retrofit. The rationale behind jet engines being the needed range for emergency landing as the spreading of Burans planned landing strips are stategical inferior to the Shuttle system, especially in the pacific/atlantic section of the flight path. Shuttle had jet engine considerations during design too, however because of needed main engines in the orbiter and weight considerations jet engines were dropped early from the design. I aded this in the comparisation section. --89.60.194.214 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

I noticed a merge tag on the Buran hangar collapse and didn't see a discussion. The hangar collapse article is small and can and should placed in the program article. Most likely in the cancellation section. I will take care of it. Thoughts? or has this been discussed already?--NortyNort (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion, but thanks for taking care of it. I've been meaning to do that for a loooooooong time. The article was forked out, and needs to get folded back in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all done.--NortyNort (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated landing capability[edit]

Did the Buran possess a true fully-automatic landing capability? That is to say, computers controlled the entire flight back to earth, or was it remotely controlled, with a human operator piloting it from the ground?Axeman (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question. While short on details, this nasaspaceflight.com article states: "To record, the only orbiter that has completed an unmanned landing came during the one and only flight of the Soviet Shuttle orbiter Buran, although her flight – which was fully unmanned from launch to landing – employed a very complex style of remote control, unlike the AORP." (AORP = Autonomous Orbiter Rapid Prototype, the predecessor to the Shuttle's Remote Control Orbiter. system) -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So was the American system originally designed to be fully autonomous and was later scaled back to remotely-controlled? Axeman (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the American shuttle was never contemplated to fly autonomously. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the Buran landing not only was autonomous, but it aborted its first attempt to high crosswinds, flew around and then landed, all completely autonomously. AFAIK, at no point was the flight controlled from the ground (such would be highly dangerous, even with only a half second delay), other than the obvious mission phase commands. Whoever did it did it good. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SkoreKeep, what is the source for that? Buran had no atmospheric engines for a go-around, and lift alone wouldn't achieve it. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, at http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-1erVol.php there is a good description of the landing. Apparently where ever I read that it did a fly-around is wrong. It came down the expected trajectory toward the Baikonur airport, and then made a decision (automatically) to fly to the north and take an optional approach that used up more kinetic energy. That apparently startled the ground handlers, but was quickly recognized as a valid approach within the automated system's capabilities. The landing, with a 17km/hr cross wind was smoothly done. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SkoreKeep, aha! Very nice, thanks for the update. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'massive experimental laser weapons'[edit]

The article currently states:

The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. Soviet officials were concerned about a perceived military threat posed by the US Space Shuttle. In their opinion, the Shuttle's 30-ton payload-to-orbit capacity and, more significantly, its 15-ton payload return capacity, were a clear indication that one of its main objectives would be to place massive experimental laser weapons into orbit that could destroy enemy missiles from a distance of several thousands of kilometers.

Can anyone explain this to me? Should I infer that the Soviet officials wished to build their own 'massive experimental laser weapons'? Is this why they build Buran? If not, in what sense was Buran a 'response' to the Shuttle program? If the Soviets didn't plan on building their own 'massive laser weapons' then Buran would neither hinder the US program, nor aid the Soviets.

I don't have the access to the given source, Energiya-Buran : The Soviet Space Shuttle but it sounds a bit fishy to me. Is there a second source for this claim? If no-one has any comment I'm inclined to delete it in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed what the source says; they even use the words "massive experimental laser weapons" (I can see it via Google Books). The Energiya-Buran book gives a reference for their information: "Bert Vis interview with Sergey Tresvyatskiy, Zhukovskiy, 13 June 2003". Vis is one of the authors, and I don't know who Sergey Tresvyatskiy is. But the publisher is Springer Praxis, so I guess this book counts a reliable source.
Regarding your other points, I'm not sure one can infer very much about the Soviets' motivations, based on this blurb, other than "They have one, so we want one". Mlm42 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levchenko's death[edit]

My addition of the sentence "Unfortunately for the Buran program, Levchenko died of a brain tumour the following year." has now been twice removed. The explanation given for the removal was that it wasn't clear the relevance. I have now added why this is relevant for the Buran program; this is backed up in the reference. Mlm42 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. so you've now removed the statement "Unfortunately for the Buran program", stating that it's POV? The references say "unfortunately", "sadly", and "tragically" regarding his death.. do you have reason to believe that this wasn't unfortunate for the Buran program? Unless there are reliable sources to the contrary, I think it makes sense to add "unfortunately" here.. so I plan on readding it, unless you give justification why not. Mlm42 (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fortunately", "unfortunately", "sadly", "tragically", etc. are all opinion words, and express a point of view. The sources can present the information however they want. We, however, must present the information on Wikipedia neutrally, which precludes use of opinion statements like the one removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would it be neutral to say something like: "[somebody] viewed Levchenko's death as unfortunate for the Buran program", with a reference showing that was true? Mlm42 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "Levchenko died of a brain tumour the following year, which space historian David M. Harland viewed as unfortunate." with a reference to his book "The story of Space Station Mir". Mlm42 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to. We've stated the fact, and it's got a citation, and so I believe our best course of action would be to just leave it at that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think we should leave it as it is.. but my question was more out of curiousity regarding the NPOV policy - is such a statement considered from a neutral point of view? Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'not supported by physics'[edit]

The current text reads:

Soviet officials were also concerned that the US Space Shuttle could make a sudden dive into the atmosphere to drop bombs on Moscow, despite the fact that such a scenario was not supported by physics

Sourced to

Years after a sceptical Pentagon had given up on the shuttle, even as a delivery truck for spy satellites, the Russian officials continued whispering to journalists that the US orbiter had a secret capability - to make an undetected "dive" into the Earth's atmosphere and suddenly glide over Moscow dropping nuclear bombs.

Never mind that such a scenario was not supported by physics or by common sense.

from Buran - the Soviet 'space shuttle' by Anatoly Zak. This is opinion from Zak, not reportage. The BBC is a source for news, it is not an engineering or physics journal. I will remove this claim shortly. - Crosbie 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide a link, but I've heard that the Buran shuttles had (or were proposed to have) a secret bomb bay built into their bottoms to perform this exact type of an attack. If it's "not supported by physics", then that must mean it was planed to be a one way trip. GMRE (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buran programme → Energiya-Buran programme – This programme was always called Energiya-Buran programme, look to Russian wiki or for example here: National Space Society (NSS) or: here in pdf Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. While the official program name may have been "Energiya-Buran programme", this article is almost strictly about the Buran component, with relatively few mentions of Energiya. We already have an article dealing with the specific "Buran" spacecraft, so I'm not sure what title could be used, if a change is even warranted. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure here will be more text about Energiya later. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose you can create a separate article on the overarching program, this is focused on the shuttles. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But important on wiki is always an official name, there was never any Buran programme, only Energiya-Buran programme. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not important. WP:OFFICIALNAME clearly states that the official name is not the most important factor in naming articles. Besides, if you create an overarching article, that should get the name you're proposing anyways. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cost[edit]

"At the time of its cancellation, 20 billion rubles (roughly 71,534,000 USD)[citation needed] had been spent on the Buran program." - Seventy-one million dollars seems extraordinarily low for a programme of this magnitude. The reference gives a total cost of 20 billion rubles, so that half of the equation is probably correct, although it's pretty clear that the writer meant 20bn to 1993; my hunch is that the person who included the above simply plugged 20,000,000,000 into xe.com and came up with a dollar figure circa 2007 (say), without taking into account the possibility that the ruble's value had dropped significantly since the early 1970s. The USD figure is completely misleading. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more intact shuttles were discovered (2015)[edit]

They're reported to be nearly complete and abandoned in some large building at Baikonur. Source 1 (in estonian, news). Source 2 (in russian, several good pictures). Does this mean that there was actually 7 shuttles? Are these 2 actually some test mock-ups that were misidentified? Is this a hoax? GMRE (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the MZK building 80 at Baikonur, and the shuttles are OK-1K2 "Ptichka" and OK-MT (an engineering test model). I could be wrong, but that's based on translations from the Russian site and our article. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The identity and locations of these two spacecraft have been known for quite a while; the Kazakhs have never made a secret about their being there. The Ptichka was in the same building as the original Buran but escaped its fate. Later it and the test article were moved to the MZK building (44.9405,63.3184), a building apparently reinforced against explosions during fueling of rockets. The flight article is the 2nd Buran of the first series, 95-97% complete and never flown. The test article is the OK-MT engineering mockup; as it was never meant to fly. A third test article at Baikonur sat, until 2007, on a pad near the MKS building, but in 2007 was refurbished and moved to the museum near where Yuri Gagarin lived while he was at Baikonur. There were planned, altogether, 5 flight objects (one scattered, the rest accounted for) and 8 test articles in various stages of completeness, 3 of which are loction unverified or have been scattered in parts. See the last table in the main article for an exhaustive list of all the known shuttle flight and test objects, and where they have been spotted by satellite and currently reside. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

These two link to images which I cannot find on the article
Exotropic Snail (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future references[edit]

Buran-class shuttle
[Буран] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Illustration of Buran at launch pad
FunctionCrewed orbital launch and reentry
ManufacturerRKK Energia
Country of originSoviet Union/Russia
Size
Mass42,000 kg (93,000 lb)
Capacity
Payload to LEO30,000 kg (66,000 lb)
Launch history
StatusDecommissioned; programme halted in 1993; 1K1 destroyed in a 2002 hangar collapse, 1K2 in storage in Baikonur; 2K1 at Zukhovsky Airport; 2 other orbiters barely started when programme was cancelled. Test articles in various exhibitions.[1]
Launch sitesBaikonur Cosmodrome
Total launches1 (1K1)
Success(es)1
Failure(s)0
First flight15 November 1988[2] (1K1)
Last flight15 November 1988[2] (1K1)
Type of passengers/cargoN/A
stage – Energia rocket
Powered by1 RD-170 (4 nozzles)
Maximum thrust29,000 kN (6,500,000 lbf) sea level
32,000 kN (7,200,000 lbf) vacuum
Specific impulse309 s at sea level
338 s in vacuum
PropellantRP-1/LOX
Core stage
Powered by4 RD-0120
Maximum thrust5,800 kN (1,300,000 lbf) sea level
7,500 kN (1,700,000 lbf) vacuum
Specific impulse359 s at sea level
454 s in vacuum
Burn time480–500 s
PropellantLH2/LOX
[edit on Wikidata]

--Aledownload (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Eight feared dead in Baikonur hangar collapse, RSpaceflkight Now.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference nasa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change in location[edit]

Comes 67.160.44.79 changing the lat/lon of a shuttle on display at Gromov Research Institute at the MAKS airshow in 2011. The original point is about 70 meters from the shuttle image out on the field between the runways on 5/8/2013 and 7/31/2012; the new location is 1033 meters from the shuttle in a grouping of fighter aircraft on an apron parking space. As a result I have reverted the location. That location does have the shuttle in it on 9/11/2016, so I'm adding an entry in the table for it. Good find, 67.160.44.79. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Buran programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi[edit]

Comes 145.132.173.78, adding links to the story of a free-lance photographer sneaking into Baikonur and taking a couple of pics of the shuttles in the MJK building, and an Energia rocket in another building. Yeah they're pics of those shuttles, but there are far better ones, done with permission. It sounds more like self-advertisement, and it comes with spurious comments from someone who styles himself an expert on rockets, Russian/Khazakh relations, and a fuck it anything for the money attitude. Not appropriate for wikipedia nor this page, in my opinion. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter designations[edit]

I noticed that in Buran-related articles on Wiki, in several places hull designations and GRAU serial numbers merged into constructions like 1K2 being the reference to third orbiter (1.02, 3K), when [in fact] it is designation for second flight of first orbiter (1K). Tried to fix this where is possible. And prefix OK- (Orbitalny Korabl, Orbital vehicle) seems to be overused, since all constructed shuttles share orbital vehicle design. I tried to left this only in designations of test articles, as [sources] referred to them like that. Qydm (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largest and most expensive space programme in Soviet history?[edit]

The introduction makes these claims; up until late 2010, it had no source. Then, page 8 of the book The Rebirth of the Russian Space Program was claimed as a source, but looking at it online, there is no such mention at all on that page, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere in that book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmTz6Phf5WYC&pg=PA8 . I have my doubts, since, if you count Soyuz as one programme, it's gone on for over 50 years and made over 140 flights (if you count unmanned Progress resupply flights to space stations, over 1,000). Can anyone find a reliable (ie not based on this Wikipedia page) source for this? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Site 110 vs 250[edit]

Comes Gleb Fadeev (no User or Talk pages) changing a picture comment from Baikonur site 110 to 250. Site 110 is (according to my notes) the Soyuz 7K-LOK and the single Buran/Energia launch site, used from June 26, 1971 to November 15, 1988. Site 250 was used only once for Energia and the Polyus anti-satellite system on May 15, 1987, and is now (or has been; I don't have a recent update) the site of the Baiterek ("Poplar tree") joint venture for a launcher for the 26-ton payload Angara rocket.

I am reverting this because there is no reference for the change. If Gleb has a reference (even a relatively weak one, as the picture is an artist's impression, not a photo) then I'll yield on this. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buran[edit]

Buran 151.251.243.135 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buran (spacecraft) article[edit]

I've noticed that there's a Buran (spacecraft) article that surprisingly has less information on the orbiter than this article. I've added a link to the Buran section and was thinking whether it makes sense to move technical details about Buran from this article to the dedicated one to prevent duplication. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question on type of English used in article.[edit]

Since this is article based in Cold War politics and militarism between the US and Soviets wouldn’t make sense to change the version of English used from British English to American English as one most the the comparisons used reference the US Space Shuttle and two since the Buran was shrouded in Cold War espionage and good old fashioned militaristic fear of the Space Shuttle’s potential use to disrupt Soviet satellites for military purposes which didn’t end up happening but the Soviets didn’t know that at the time. Rabbipika (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vehicles[edit]

I moved the "List of Vehicles" from the Buran 1.01 spacecraft article to this one. 4throck (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buran_programme&oldid=1206477797"