Slashdot Mirror

The Buran was destroyed, but there are more "Burans proper" (actually orbiters); in various stages of completion (first one on the list below was almost completed)

http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-modele-102.php
http://www.buran.ru/htm/2-01.htm
http://www.k26.com/buran/Future/2.02/space_buran_2_02.html

And you know, pretty much all vehicles we use in space can be qualified as spacecraft / spaceships... I'd argue that things like Apollo, Soyuz, Progress, Shenzou or ATV (not to mention all deep space probes) are actually much fuller "honest to god space ships". They were designed and built with greater focus on the actual spaceflight, often have missions lasting around half a year, plus Apollo and Soyuz travelled beyond LEO.

We don't need such construction vehicle when the modules can rendezvous independently. That said, I agree it will probably remain for a looong time the most impressive looking vehicle (with the possible exception of mentioned Buran (have you seen the plumes from its engines?), but yeah...not only flew only once, but in heavy cloud cover ;/ )

'The primary criteria for the shuttles' location will be the stability of the site and whether the chosen institutions can exhibit them for the next 500 years.'"

That is just a knee-jerk reaction to what happened to the Russian space shuttle. After retirement (after one flight) it was stored in less-than-stable circumstances in Kazakhstan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)#Destruction
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg

BTW, the Russian shuttle was largely a copy of the US shuttle, except they added some safety features. When the Russians start making safety improvements to your design, you know you have a problem.

Actually, that one flew, albeit only for landing tests. (in Russian, but with better pictures) It's pretty much the Soviet Enterprise, only unlike ours, that one had four turbojets mounted on the back so it could take off.

Actually, that one flew, albeit only for landing tests. (in Russian, but with better pictures) It's pretty much the Soviet Enterprise, only unlike ours, that one had four turbojets mounted on the back so it could take off.

I wonder what they'll do in what looks like the increasingly likely case that they won't get an orbiter? Maybe a Buran?

Only if they have a lot of time to reconstruct one. While I do not know the ultimate fate of the Buran, but judging from the last photos, I suspect it's in a landfill. Such a shame.

I'm going to miss the shuttle. I watched the first one go up on television at five years old. I had a copy the local newspaper proclaiming the launch in my room for decades. It is/was not a rocket, but an actual honest to god space ship. Yes it has it's problem. Yes, the requirements were repeatedly changed and made more stupid. Yes, being able to return cargo from space wasn't really needed. It's a construction vehicle. And while I'm now critic of the manned space program[*], I'm going to miss it. It's like we've taken a big step backwards back 50 years. As someone said (and I really wish I could find the quote), "I always knew I'd see the first man step foot on the moon. I just never realized I'd see the last as well."

[*] Until there's a reason to send humans into space, why bother? It's far, inhospitable, and boring, and colonization is nigh-impossible and driven by pulp fiction fantasies and crass appeals to emotion, not reason. Astroid mining? Come back when iron and nickel are rare, or they find a solid gold nugget.

I wonder what they'll do in what looks like the increasingly likely case that they won't get an orbiter? Maybe a Buran?

Only if they have a lot of time to reconstruct one. While I do not know the ultimate fate of the Buran, but judging from the last photos, I suspect it's in a landfill. Such a shame.

I'm going to miss the shuttle. I watched the first one go up on television at five years old. I had a copy the local newspaper proclaiming the launch in my room for decades. It is/was not a rocket, but an actual honest to god space ship. Yes it has it's problem. Yes, the requirements were repeatedly changed and made more stupid. Yes, being able to return cargo from space wasn't really needed. It's a construction vehicle. And while I'm now critic of the manned space program[*], I'm going to miss it. It's like we've taken a big step backwards back 50 years. As someone said (and I really wish I could find the quote), "I always knew I'd see the first man step foot on the moon. I just never realized I'd see the last as well."

[*] Until there's a reason to send humans into space, why bother? It's far, inhospitable, and boring, and colonization is nigh-impossible and driven by pulp fiction fantasies and crass appeals to emotion, not reason. Astroid mining? Come back when iron and nickel are rare, or they find a solid gold nugget.

The summary seems to imply otherwise. And not only almost finished or barely finished orbiters, also models for static tests, etc. Those also ended up as tourist attractions or in museums (or rusting in scrapyard)

In fact, the Buran, the one that made orbital flight, was probably destroyed by a hangar collapse in 2002... (along with the remaining Energia mock-up on which it was laid to rest...)
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur90.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg

BTW, Should we really count Enterprise as a prototype? It couldn't made it into space...Columbia seems more appropriate. Or, if insisting on rules lax enough to include Enterprise, Endeavor seems a better choice as the "first", actually. Since it's a rebuild structural "airframe" that was used for static tests (so likely before Enterprise), to replenish the fleet with fully capable orbiter after Challenger disaster.

PS. Free Shuttle parts for the cost of transport?! Please, will somebody in the know confirm you don't have to be some large educational institution or venerable museum? ;)

The summary seems to imply otherwise. And not only almost finished or barely finished orbiters, also models for static tests, etc. Those also ended up as tourist attractions or in museums (or rusting in scrapyard)

In fact, the Buran, the one that made orbital flight, was probably destroyed by a hangar collapse in 2002... (along with the remaining Energia mock-up on which it was laid to rest...)
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur90.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg

BTW, Should we really count Enterprise as a prototype? It couldn't made it into space...Columbia seems more appropriate. Or, if insisting on rules lax enough to include Enterprise, Endeavor seems a better choice as the "first", actually. Since it's a rebuild structural "airframe" that was used for static tests (so likely before Enterprise), to replenish the fleet with fully capable orbiter after Challenger disaster.

PS. Free Shuttle parts for the cost of transport?! Please, will somebody in the know confirm you don't have to be some large educational institution or venerable museum? ;)

The Buran orbiter was destroyed in 2002 when its hangar collapsed. Two other orbiters weren't completed, although the Ptichka was very close to completion and could theoretically be bought from Kazakhstan and completed. The other one, Baikal, only really has the frame built.

Don't be an ass, the Russian Space shuttle is real and I was asking an honest question, have they decommissioned it? or is there some other reason why they could not take the part up?

Here is a drawing for you of the Russian Buran shuttle next to the American Shuttle.
http://www.buran.ru/htm/compare.htm

According to Wikipedia after the maiden flight in 1988 (which was quite successful) they couldn't afford to keep the program going and scrapped it in 1993. In 2002 a hangar collapse destroyed the shuttle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program ...and yes, the rocket that carried it into space was Kerosene/Oxygen propelled, as opposed to the more dangerous, but more powerful (and more expensive) Oxygen& Hydrogen mix the US shuttle uses.

What I want to know is, how do I get ahold of a used Soyuz capsule? It would make just about the most awesome lawn decoration/flower planter possible ;).

In fact, the Buran design was superior - it had no lift engines of its own and could ride on top of the real rocket.

Of course the Soviets noticed this was a bad idea (it would be smarter to send the cargo on top of the Energia rocket and not carry Buran's dead weight)

and aborted the project after the first flight.

Still, fairly impressive a fully automated launch and landing. 25 atmospheric flights were also conducted with the OK-GLI model (comparable to Space Shuttle Enterprise).
See this site for cool videos of the launch and general Buran eye candy.

The jet powered takeoff is a particularly intriguing sight given the reputed brick like qualities of the Shuttle/delta design.

Still, fairly impressive a fully automated launch and landing. 25 atmospheric flights were also conducted with the OK-GLI model (comparable to Space Shuttle Enterprise).
See this site for cool videos of the launch and general Buran eye candy.

The jet powered takeoff is a particularly intriguing sight given the reputed brick like qualities of the Shuttle/delta design.

they knew then better than most of us do now the risks of going to outer space. but they went anyways, to advance science and explore farther frontiers.

i say we owe those pioneers mucho respect!

and just to make this post tad more useful, here's a link to the russian "buran" website: http://buran.ru/ with tons of interesting info.

Looks like a copy of the Soviet Spiral spyplane to me.

It'll re-enter like a lifting body or a glider (like the Space Shuttle). Capsules drop.

Russia had several plans for lifting body or glider manned orbital space craft, such as the Spiral.

So did NASA, which recently had Scaled Composites (of SpaceShipOne fame) develop the X-38 (notice the similarity to the Russian Bor), only to see it cancelled because of the cost. That cost, incidentally, was slightly higher than the projected cost for the Kliper, and still half that of a successful Space Shuttle flight.

That is the one thing of the US space program I still don't get. Why have a hugely expensive and dangerous shuttle program, then claim at the same time that astronauts' lives and money are so important, when you have a half-developed, modern, cheap and presumably safe system sitting on the shelves?

In Soviet Russia (this is not a joke), Space Shuttle Buran flew one unmanned orbital flight. It landed in a 57km/h crosswind and was only 1.5m off the center line of the runway. The program was cancelled after the end of Communism in Russia. Buran was destroyed a few years ago when the hanger it was being stored in in Kazakstan collapsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran
http://www.buran.ru/

Buran isn't a copy of the US shuttle, although it looks similar. Buran has no main engine; it's launched on the back of an Energia booster. So there are more expendable components, but it's simpler.

The russians already built a mini-shuttle, called the MAKS. It was to launch atop the giant six-jet cargoplane AN-225. The project was cancelled. Probably the risks.

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/maxokb2.jpg

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm

The russians already built a mini-shuttle, called the MAKS. It was to launch atop the giant six-jet cargoplane AN-225. The project was cancelled. Probably the risks.

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/maxokb2.jpg

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm

They had a test craft called BOR, which you can buy from Buran.ru. (They don't mention a price.)

a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Spa ceShipOne "Although impressive, the achievements of SpaceShipOne are not comparable with the Space Shuttle. The energy requirements of true orbital space flight are in the order of 33 times as much as a SpaceShipOne ascent."

SpaceShipOne is great and all, but for my money, i wouldnt go for a "3-minute high" (pun!).. I'd rather wait for an orbital craft that can stay there as long as we like it to (@ about 500 km height).. this Buran Spiral Orbital Program website and another one about the MIG 105-11 (aka "teh wooden shoe") talks about several orbital aircraft designs..

I am Korben Dallas and this is my hot wife Lilu Dallas!!

There are several other sites as well. http://k26.com/buran/ and http://www.buran.ru/ are the two I have visited so far.

1. the automatic landing of Buran from orbit onto airdrome;
2. the absence ot the main rocket engine on the orbital aeroplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tonns of payload against 30 tonns for Space Shuttle;
3. the hight lift-drag ratio of the space aeroplane Buran is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle;
4. the space aeroplane Buran returned 20 tonns of payloads against 15 tonns for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an aerodrome;
5. the cutting lay-out pattern of thermoprotection tiles of Buran is optimal and longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. The tile belts of the Buran fuselage and fin have an optimal position.

Talk to me when they get the thing back from an orbital flight.

Competition is good, and I don't think Americans will sit around while the Russians start testing a Mars spacecraft..

Yes indeedy, I know all about Buran. :) I've gone by that name on the net for years, and I've been surprised by just how many people recognized its origin! I very nearly put a mention of the Buran program in the original submitted story text, but it got dropped during my editing process since I felt it detracted from the actual story subject.

A lot more information is available here -- most of it in Russian, but there are some English pages. And there are many, many diagrams and images.

Hermes was designed to fly on the Ariane 5, but was never built; a Japanese shuttle, Hope (Kibo) was designed to fly on the H-2 rocket but was also cancelled; its name survives in the form of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) which is to be launched to the ISS soon. It is currently undergoing prelaunch processing at KSC.

Interesting, what this project is based on ? Existing projects like Energiya/Buran ? buran, MAKS , spaceplane RAKS(Igla) , Zarya Or something new ?

Interesting, what this project is based on ? Existing projects like Energiya/Buran ? buran, MAKS , spaceplane RAKS(Igla) , Zarya Or something new ?

Interesting, what this project is based on ? Existing projects like Energiya/Buran ? buran, MAKS , spaceplane RAKS(Igla) , Zarya Or something new ?

There is a project that russians were working on awhile back. It is shuttle like and was tested number of times during cold war. I suppose most of people here wouldn't know about it ala Lunokhod.

New project based on that technology is MAKS (mnogocelevaya aviacionno-kosmicheskaya sistema) which claims to be able to reduce cost per kilogram down to 1K usd. (from 12-15 nowdays). It's not space elevator, but definitely more possible at this time.

Read about Buran and MAKS here -
http://www.buran.ru/

Its a shame that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were developed in competition rather than cooperating on a space system that would be better than each individual system. If NASA used a lift system like Energia or the Energia itself, we would probably still have Challenger and Columbia which could be fitted to say, land on the moon or mars and then launch like a plane using internal fuel tanks and the SSMEs to return to earth.

With the cancelling of Venture Star and pipe dreams like the Space Plane, there aren't that many options left, and money isn't in great supply.

So back to the topic at hand, I read the restoration plan for the Saturn V at USS&RC. Nowhere does it mention any type of protection, just restoration. So in another five years it's going to cost another 5 mil to restore? Screw that, come up with a plan that doesn't require continued large spending.

some more interesting reading on Saturn V

All failed because unexpected delays, manufacturing problems, and cost overruns caused research to take a back seat to budgets. I'm reminded of the Navy not willing to spend the money to test more than 2 Mark torpedoes. Those torpedoes turned out to have several defects that seriously impacted the early phases of the war in the Pacific.

Besides, if you wanted to start from scratch, I know buy some surplus Soviet prototypes.

Honestly, they're 30 years old, we've needed something else for years. They scraped the Venture Star(x-33) program, but that could be revived and give us a cost effective single stage reusable orbital vehicle. If not the venture star why not give the Russians the money we spend on the shuttles(most of NASAs budget) to revive their Buran program. IIRC both the Venture Star and the Buran had an estimated TOC that was something like a magnatude less than the shuttles.

A google search for spaceplane turns up lots of articles. Another slashdot reader already recommended Gregg Easterbrook's 1980 article on Columbia's first launch. I guess one lesson from looking back on it is to take the claims of the designers with considerable skepticism. Fity or more launches per year? Cost a third or less per ton of the cost of single shot rockets? Ha.

Yet, I would guess that the general public was seeing the American shuttle as being a big success. I expect people will see it as a success again.

I like the idea of putting aerospace workers from the former Soviet Union to work. I like the idea of putting them to useful, peaceful, dignified work. I don't like the idea of them being owed six months of paltry back-pay. Not when some of them have skills developing WoMD.

I like Dennis Tito's answer to one of the questions he was asked when he returned from being the world's first space tourist. He was asked whether it was frivilous to spend $20,000,000 on a vacation, when the world faced terrible problems, like grinding poverty. He said something like:

You are correct. That money should have been spent helping the poor. And it was. Do you know the average wage of a Russian aerospace worker? About $100 per month.

But then it turned out that the Buran cafe project was a project of the former Buran workers. They were all involved.

I couldn't help really feeling for these men and women. I imagined they had traded back-pay they were never likely to see for the Buran mockup they were turning in to a cafe. (Cafe patrons were going to get to order real cosmonaut space rations.) But they hadn't given up. They hadn't given up on aerospace. They hadn't given up their dignity. They hadn't given up on peace. They hadn't given up on their country.

The Soviet Union had a space program any former citizen could be proud of. I'd like to see their talents put to use. This isn't charity. They were talented.

Plus, there is the peace factor. Everyone is worried that "rogue states" are going to acquire weapons of mass destruction by subverting penniless former defense workers from the former Scviet Union. Well, why don't we address this issue by making sure they weren't left penniless?

Yes, I know organized crime is (was?) a terrible problem throughout the former Soviet Union.

Still, would the dollars, yen, euros of the international community be better spent in the former Soviet Union, where paying an aerospace worker $1000 a month would be a ten-fold pay increase, then in, let's say, the USA.

The USA, or more precisely, the US aerospace industry, is the land of the $1000 spanner. Let's be honest. That too, is a kind of corruption.

The US's milltary-industrial complex built many weaspons systems over the years. Do you know which one provided the greatest invulnerability?

That would have to be the one with a sub-contractor in every congressional district.

The Russians were able to keep a space station in orbit for years, while only using 'capsule' technology. Until we get a new generation of reusable spaceship going, let's go back to that. It was good enough to get us to the moon and back 30+ years ago. Imagine what they could do now. Safer, cheaper, etc.

You actually hit on a very interesting point. As far as the reusable Shuttle Program was designed to make space travel more common and more efficient, I don't know (1) what was the end purpose of this, and (2) how well it achieved this efficiency.

Some would argue that during 60s when Apollo program was being developed, it had a clear purpose of putting manned mission on the Moon. That mission was achieved, and very successfully at that, U.S. seemed to slam the Soviets back with "Aha! Take that!" answer to Soviets' first man in orbit.

After that, it is my opinion, that NASA had a general lack of guidance towards such a specific goal as before. The Shuttle Program was being developed during 70s. Since the U.S. didn't at that time have or plan to operate a space station, why was there such a need to take extensive cargo and operate regularly in the orbit? Some would argue that, this happening during the heat of cold war, it was going to be used to easily lift heavier cargo into space, possibly with defense and military implications. Hence, Soviet response to the Shuttle Program was the development of their own reusable vehicles in the same period.

A very interesting website describing this program, its achievements and failures is located here. Buran was the name of the first of several vehicles Soviets planned to make and operate. It was designed to take more cargo, more people into space, and operate in conjunction with the Mir space station, and future Mir2. They did manage to make and test Buran with the test flight in the orbit in 1988 before the cash-strapped program was cancelled in 1993; in addition, of course, to the break-up of the USSR and other major political events at that time.

The interesting part are the differences between the U.S. Shuttles and Buran:

- Buran is taken to space by the heavy lift system "Energyia", able to lift more weight into orbit than any existing system;
- Buran does not have the main engine, like Shuttles. The main engine is part of Energyia system; this provides for a safer design while allowing the vehicle to lift more into space;
- Energyia uses 4 (I believe) liquid rocket boosters, rather than NASA's solid rocket boosters, also providing for a safer method;
- Most of Energyia system, other than the main tank (I believe), is reusable;
- Buran is totally automatic, including re-entry and landing are controlled from the ground.

In fact, Buran's only test flight in 1988, even in NASA's words, demonstrated much promise. The unmanned orbit flight, return and landing were a success. They say there were 5 tiles missing, but there were actually 6 missing on Buran. Russia can not operate Buran after its funding problems. They have stuck with Soyuz capsules.

This raises some questions as well as opportunities. First questions:

- Since both Shuttle Program and Buran(s) were designed during cold war for (at least) partly military purposes, are they still the best way to operate orbital flights and research?
- Many argue Shuttles have an undefined purpose within the space program. What are space program's mid and long term goals?
- Does ISS, or any such multi-national alliance provide NASA the tools with which it can achieve its goals?

Depending on the answers above, I am wondering if it could be a possibility, at least in the short to mid-term to revive the Buran program and/or to use the heavy lift system like Energyia as a transition to a newer, safer, more efficient, and more reliable spacecraft like NASA has planned for future.

Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported?

Yes :) There's a cargo jet called the AN-225 (Antonov 225) - supposedly there are only like 3 and their primary purpose is to fly to air shows. Also called mria - you can find hords of pictures of it on the net - including some with the orbiter on top.

BTW - there's some good pictures and videos of buran taking off and landing here: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm

The Buran shuttle was indeed transported like the NASA shuttle, atop a massive An-225 Mriya carrier aircraft with 6 jet engines(!).
There is some info here

Also, a couple interesting Buran info sites:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm
http://k26.com/buran/Info/A_Quick_Look/a_quick_loo k.html

What's interesting to me is that the SRB thrust is about equal to the mass of the external tank and fuel, so the Shuttle's engines are lifting it and the payload, while the SRB's are lifting the fuel. The Russian's design is simpler and in some ways better.

On close examination, it turns out to be a downscaled version of Buran.
No it doesn't. There are plenty of good pictures of the Buran Orbiter, as well as the experimental and prototype vehicles that preceeded it, at the NPO Molniya web page.

They have a nice set of web pages there, BTW. Some are in English, but most are in Cyrillic. I particularly like the Buran/Shuttle comparison and the clicking diagram of the full Buran/Energia stack.

Growing up in the 70s, I had a poster almost exactly like this on my bedroom wall, 'cept it was of the Shuttle, but Buran.

On close examination, it turns out to be a downscaled version of Buran.
No it doesn't. There are plenty of good pictures of the Buran Orbiter, as well as the experimental and prototype vehicles that preceeded it, at the NPO Molniya web page.

They have a nice set of web pages there, BTW. Some are in English, but most are in Cyrillic. I particularly like the Buran/Shuttle comparison and the clicking diagram of the full Buran/Energia stack.

Growing up in the 70s, I had a poster almost exactly like this on my bedroom wall, 'cept it was of the Shuttle, but Buran.

On close examination, it turns out to be a downscaled version of Buran.
No it doesn't. There are plenty of good pictures of the Buran Orbiter, as well as the experimental and prototype vehicles that preceeded it, at the NPO Molniya web page.

They have a nice set of web pages there, BTW. Some are in English, but most are in Cyrillic. I particularly like the Buran/Shuttle comparison and the clicking diagram of the full Buran/Energia stack.

Growing up in the 70s, I had a poster almost exactly like this on my bedroom wall, 'cept it was of the Shuttle, but Buran.

On close examination, it turns out to be a downscaled version of Buran.
No it doesn't. There are plenty of good pictures of the Buran Orbiter, as well as the experimental and prototype vehicles that preceeded it, at the NPO Molniya web page.

They have a nice set of web pages there, BTW. Some are in English, but most are in Cyrillic. I particularly like the Buran/Shuttle comparison and the clicking diagram of the full Buran/Energia stack.

Growing up in the 70s, I had a poster almost exactly like this on my bedroom wall, 'cept it was of the Shuttle, but Buran.

I knew the former soviet union had space shuttles, but I had no idea they looked so much like those from the USA!

http://www.buran.ru/htm/mtkkmain.htm

WTF? Were they all made in Taiwan?? Are the russian shuttle parts interchanageable with the american shuttle parts? Do other countries have these as well??

All about Buran:
http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Spa ce/Space_Shuttle/Buran,_Russian_Space_Shuttle/

And a *real* one for sale! (Er, my Russian is a little rusty, but it says "For Sale" in English...)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/forsale.htm

And apparently, the program isn't dead, anymore:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia- space-general-01m.html

Some information found:

Taken from http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm has the main differences of Buran and Shuttle as follows:

The main differences between the space airplane the automatic landing of Buran from orbit onto airdrome;

The absence of the main rocket engine on the orbital airplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tons of payload against 30 tons for Space Shuttle;

The height lift-drag ratio of the space airplane is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle;

The space airplane Buran returned 20 tons of payloads against 15 tons for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an aerodrome;

The cutting lay-out pattern of thermal protection tiles of Buran is optimal and longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. The tile belts of the Buran fuselage and fin have an optimal position.

Also for another comparison between USA and Russia's space shuttle go to:

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/info.html

Another benefit of Buran being able to have unmanned space flights.

One of the big benefits of the Russian Space Shuttle is the thermal protection system, unfortunately I do not know enough about it to compare it with the USA Suttle. Last I heard the USA Shuttle they must check every ceramic tile under the underbody, which cost a bucket load of money (At least the Americans have it).. If someone could elaborate on this I would be very grateful.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/forsale.htm

I don't speak/read Russian, so anyone want to comment on this?

Here's a link to the russian space shuttle Buran in english. And for you dot.com millionaires it looks like you can buy one, in russian though. Real photos, not any of that CG crap. This one is especially sexy, can we say Brrrr, comrade?

This badboy's rocket, Energia, could lift 4 times the tonnage compared to the space shuttle's engine and booster, it even had an automatic landing program.

Here's a link to the russian space shuttle Buran in english. And for you dot.com millionaires it looks like you can buy one, in russian though. Real photos, not any of that CG crap. This one is especially sexy, can we say Brrrr, comrade?

This badboy's rocket, Energia, could lift 4 times the tonnage compared to the space shuttle's engine and booster, it even had an automatic landing program.