Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the way-cooler-than-a-pillow-fort dept.
zootsuite writes "Space.com is reporting that a Russian space shuttle is on the auction block today. Minimum asking price: $6 million." Nothing says white trash like having
a multimilliondollar russian space shuttle rusting on your lawn! Better yet,
someone could buy it COD ;)
Only if you can get the thing up in the first place (doubtful), and then you have to figure out how to get it up AGAIN in two weeks. I'm guessing that the extra 4 million would go up in smoke (literally) trying to get that piece of Russian rust off the ground.
But as a side note, the current method of Russian transportation is still probably better than ours, at least much more cost effective. (Just finished my History of the Russian Space Program class not long ago...)
Re:X-Prize
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Only problem is that the Russian shuttle contains no engines. It relied completely on the boosters to get to space.
Re:X-Prize
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A few hitches in your plan:
1. The russian shuttle (I'm assuming this would be Buran, since I think they only made one) has been sitting for, what, twenty years with minimal protection from the elements.
2. I'm just assuming they aren't including the strap-on launch system (which is somewhat larger than the boosters and tank the US shuttle uses).
3. This shuttle was launched once, unmanned, into space. After that, they did an atmospheric test with it strapped to the back of a large cargo plane (the US does the same thing with their fleet of shuttles sometimes). Back in the 80's, in an artical called "Soviets In Space: Are They Ahead," NGS had photos of said cargo plane after it veered off a runway with Buran still attached. The shuttle has never left the hangar since.
Re:X-Prize
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And the American shuttle exploded eh asshole? Shut your fucking mouth you yankee piece of goat snot.
you want fries with that?
by
Sacker
·
· Score: 2, Funny
So does it come with cosmonauts or are they skimping and just throwing in a pack of chimps?
-- 12ft of rope, 4 bottles of vodka, 2 midgets, 3 cheerleaders, 1 crazy weekend
Re:you want fries with that?
by
Bob+McCown
·
· Score: 1
And the difference between those two things is... ?
Re:you want fries with that?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I thought that it was the US that sent up chimps! http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/Animal s.htm
Re:you want fries with that?
by
Gunsmithy
·
· Score: 1
What's the difference, comrade?
-- Kids these days. They don't know the difference between classic, and just plain old.
Re:you want fries with that?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
stupid 'joke' and you are nothing but a stupid bitch
Re:you want fries with that?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Cosmonauts have more space time than the chimps. With the US coming in 3d.
Delivery fees
by
Ars-Fartsica
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Getting this thing from Russia to your backyard is going to cost at least another million.
Re:Delivery fees
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well the least they could do is pay for the shipping.;-)
You strap it on the back of a Jumbo for a couple hundred thou, or at the very least chop it's wings off and rent the US Airforce' cargo fleet for a few hours...
Personally, if I had the money for a rusty Buran, and I was crazy enough to actually *BUY* it, I'd also be crazy enough, and rich enough, to strap a few rockets on it and get it delivered that way.
But yeah, I agree generally with the principle that COD into LEO might be nice way to pay for it, though.
-- ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets.
--
Re:Delivery fees
by
arivanov
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
er.... How to put it politely... er... get a clue...
Buran is too heavy for any US cargo jet.
Just to remind you US cargo jets suck rocks in the heavy bulk cargo business. For example the "problematic chinese incident" plane (you know which one) had to be carried to the US by a british company subcontracting to Antonov's construction bureau using an AN 124 Anthei. This was for a reason. The fuselage of the plane did not fit in any of the Galaxy series.
The only thing that can lift a Buran intact is a AN 224 Mria which has recently been brought back from being mothballed. Subcontractable through the same UK company (forgot the name, based in Scotland). It will be more expensive then several thousands because it is a special purpose flight.
A Jumbo cannot lift a Buran off. It is heavier then the US shuttles. Dunno exactly how much. But enough to exceed both take off weight and undercariage structural limits on Boeing 747.
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
uh can we get some links on these cargo planes or whatever your talking about?
Re:Delivery fees
by
bob_jordan
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If after paying for it, the Russians ask for a grid reference for your house, whatever you do, ask to confirm the exact method of delivery.
Bob.
Re:Delivery fees
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What would the US gov't do about taxing this hunk of junk if you tried to import from Russia? Where in the export laws does it classify antiquated space vehicle aka space junk? You might have to pay a hefty price if you could get it here after you pay for it.
Buran has a dry weight of 82 tons. The Boeing 747 can handle cargo loads in excess of 110 tons, and can take this weight from Moscow to New York without refueling. You might have to disassemble the Buran to get it inside the 747's hold, but you are wrong to say it is too heavy for a US cargo jet.
You could also handle this with an AN-124 (you wouldn't need a 224 or 225). The AN-124 is probably better suited for the project because it has an integrated cargo ramp and cargo handling equipment, so you would require less logistics support, and you might be able to get away with less disassembly. But if you had a cargo-trim 747 available, you could definitely get the job done.
I am fairly sure it was more then 100. Possibly it was not dry weight though.
747 in its cargo incarnation is not adapted to carry large single loads. It can carry a lot, it is very well suited to carry containers, but not a single large load. So I doubt you will be able to do this with it.
If you are right about the weight An124 is indeed possible but quite a bit of dissassembly will be required.
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Delivery fees
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here's some great pics of the Russian AN-124 - it's quite a monster.
Buran can fly itself. There are removable engine packs that can be fitted on the tail. These were used for ferrying and the flight tests. There is a photo on the manufacturer's web site.
You are right about the AN-124/224's though - those big buggers are massive, and I have only seen the smaller one from a distance.
an amusement park or a museum. This would be a great draw for anyone interested in getting people to come to their attraction.
One of these "Space Camps" maybe.
.
-- It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:It will be bought by
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hey, the NASA space camps rule. I went to one when I was a kid and they had the best all you could eat food I have ever had. and the activities were awsome. you even slept in dorms that looked like a space station module and got to use cool equipment like those air chairs to simulate spacewalking.
(I had to get int a space suit during our moc space flight and then do a space walk and crank up a new solor pannel manualy onthe fake hubble telescope because the electronin crank was not working.)
we also got to do tons of other stuff. that was the bes fun I ever had, I plan on sending my son there when he is old enough [If NASA is still around then:-( ]
Re:It will be bought by
by
Over_and_Done
·
· Score: 1
Nope. It will be bought by Larry Ellison. He hasn't picked up a new toy in a while.
Re:It will be bought by
by
AndyChrist
·
· Score: 2
How about the Chinese space agency? If they think for a second that it could really fly, they might be considering it.
Too late
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The Specter organization has already stolen it to shuttle the new master race to the cloaked space station. I think the Brits are trying to recover it.
I saw the shuttle in Sydney a few months ago: rusting in a parking lot surrounded by chain link fence. I'd bet it's the one for sale.
Russian Space Shuttle huh?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That looks an awful lot like the USA's space shuttle. Must be a coincidence that that just happens to be the best design for a space brick right?;-) Gotta love espionage.
And do what with it? I really don't beleive that the US govnmt would let that go to the private sector in this country, and we don't need the technology. I suppose that is a good deal for a space shuttle, but I don't see the point.
-- Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Re:and then what?
by
shaldannon
·
· Score: 2, Funny
More to the point, they got that tech from us...I seem to recall that they actually paid for the plans and went and constructed their own version based on those plans. Given that it is probably typical Russian space engineering, I think I'd rather buy a Kia.
The US government would have a damned hard time stopping someone from buying it. First of all, it's not a weapon. Secondly, the gov't has a harder time stopping rich people from doing whatever the hell they want. (They have no problems stomping all over the other 98% of the population)
But as for what they'd do with it, they could EXPLORE! There is a lot of interest in a commercial space program in the US (and elsewhere), and this might be the impetus needed to get things moving. If you can't or don't dare fly it, then tear it down and use the technology in the private sector to build a new and innovative SSTO vehicle! Use your bloody imagination.
--
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Second Space Tourist Won't be Given 'Ultimate Souv
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth.
The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency.
Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration.
He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth.
The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday.
Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
Kick in another million and they'll throw in some decaying nuclear war-heads.
LOL, if they can find them. I can see it now:
Russian Op> Hello, warhead distribution?
Caller> Yea, I sent in my free warhead certificate months ago, and still haven't received it.
Russian Op> Hmm, we shipped it out 2 months ago. Guess it got "lost" in the mail. That has been happening a lot lately. Anyways, let me get your address and we will send another one, plus a free one to make up for it.
Caller> 911 Kabul Drive.
Russin Op> Ok, we will get that right out to you. Don't forget to check our website at www.discountrussianwarheads.com
Excellent...WWW.DISCOUNTRUSSIANWARHEADS.COM is still available. I've never thought about cybersquatting on a domain before! Whaddya think, it's gotta be worth at least $2 million.
Tagline:
Nothing gets former Soviet Generals connected with the wild terrorist consumer base faster than WWW.DISCOUNTRUSSIANWARHEADS.COM !
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "WWW.DISCOUNTRUSSIANWARHEADS.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 10 May 2002 04:58:59 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY.COM,.NET,.ORG,.EDU domains and
Registrars.
L@@K - Russian Space Shuttle - No Reserve - [Buy It Now]
-- I Heart Sorting Networks
I wonder if they were influenced by the
by
i_am_pi
·
· Score: 2, Funny
UserFriendly where Erwin buys Mir from Russia, charged and delivered to Stef...
"Too late for refunds, the migs are on their way to shoot it down for you!"
Hmm.
Pi
Russia's Space Program.
by
suwalski
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In the last few years, Russia seems to be selling off/out much of it's space program. First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA), then MIR was decommisioned, then they started selling trips to space, and now they're selling the Buran. Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization. Again, the Russians have beat the US to space by opening it up to the (rich) public.
Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported? Was it using a similar way as the NASA shuttle with the AA 747, or more likely to have been by sea?
I've seens models of Buran in Russian space museums on the back of a "big plane", I guess whatever is the Russian equivalent of a 747. I'm not too good on identifying Russian plane types.
So I guess it was transported in the same way as a shuttle.
Last time they moved it on the back of AH Mriya, i guess that's what they can do this time, if the buyer appears.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Waffle+Iron
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA),
IIRC, they did do one successful unmanned orbital flight
of the Buran. I think the fact that they managed
to launch and land the thing on autopilot
on the first try was a pretty impressive feat.
The only stupid part was trying to replicate the
ill-conceived US shuttle in the first place.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Wire+Tap
·
· Score: 1
I'm no expert, but I am curious about why everyone says that the shuttle is a bad design? It is just too costly, or are there other engineering problems surrounding all the ill feelings towards the shuttle?
Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported?
Russia transported it on the back of a huge cargo jet. I don't remember the jet's designation, right now, but it is bigger than the U.S. Air Force's C-5 cargo jet. I think it held/holds a world record for its size.
I am not sure I would use the word "commercialization" in light of the fact that it had to have cost them hundreds of millions to build the thing - and they're basically giving it away.
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
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
T-Punkt
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it's the Antonov 225 "Mriya".
You find dozons of pages about it on the web.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Nehemiah+S.
·
· Score: 1
The russian space shuttles are carried by the AN-225 myria, one BIG airplane indeed (it has a payload of over twice hat of the C-5). It is a derivative of the AN-124 condor...
-- ... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be where the eye of his telescope has already been
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Neil+Watson
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's bad design but it's 30 years old. In 30 years the US should had created a new one to correct the mistakes of the past.
There are some interesting links here about orbital vehicles and other programs.
The biggest problem is people don't want to pay for it. Most people have no idea the kind of impact the space programs of the world have had on everyday life. Freeze dried foods, powdered drinks, plastics, computers, digital cameras, compsite materials, GPS, cell phones, long distance phone calls, satellite TV... The list goes on and on.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA
I've recently seen an interview with one of Buran constructors. He said the design was actually worse then Shuttle because another department wanted a powerfull rocket as a "side-effect" of Buran construction process. Thus the main engines are built into the rocket (Energia, energy in Russian) and it also has its own control system. All this is destroyed when Buran is detached from its "carrier" rocket in flight.
Shuttle to the contrary has the most costly parts (engines, control system) reusable lowering the overall flight cost.
Unfortunately I am completely ignorant in space engineering, so this optinion is presented "as is" without any warranty expressed or implied.:)
- A Russian/. reader.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
badvictor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As many have pointed out the space shuttle program was cancelled because it was inferior to the currently existing methods of transportation. The whole "selling off" trend that you percieve is simply the equivalent of digging in your garage and seeing what old crap you can sell before it becomes totally worthless. MIR has outlived its original planned mission many times over -- it was time for it to go.
I think the Russian space program is simply streamlining -- getting rid of the old, useless things, and finding new streams of revenue, i.e. space tourism. Hardly the demise.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Buran is a clear ripoff of the american space shuttle, and it doesn't even have it's own propulsion. How do you figure that Buran has a better design? Is it the same with their super sonic airliner they designed with the (involuntary) "help" from the french and the brits who were building the Concorde?:-D
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA"
How do you figure? The Buran seems to be inherently more expensive to operate than the STS. With the STS, all engines (both the STS main engines and the SRBs) are recoverable and resuable, and all you have to do is refuel the SRBs and make a new external tank. With the Buran, you have to build a new Engeria booster for every launch, and the Buran had no engines of its own.
"Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported?"
From this article, it looks like they mostly used the An-225.
In his memoirs, the physicist Richard Feynman spent a fair amount of time discussing the issues with the space shuttle based on the analysis he performed for the government after the Challenger accident. If my memory serves me right, one of the biggest problems he found was that design decisions were often made on the basis of the availability of existing parts. Thus, maximum reliablity/efficiency/etc was sometimes sacrificed in order to cut down on development costs. The result was that you had a mixture of parts manufactured by a number of companies all trying to work together. Needless to say, this has caused a variety of problems over the years.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
BitMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"The only stupid part was trying to replicate the ill-conceived US shuttle in the first place."
I wouldn't expect a/.'er to know jack shit about the Buran. Although the "Orbiter" is similar in design, the Russian solid-LH/LO2 combo booster design was developed before NASA designed the shuttle! Have you even seen the Buran? It does not have any "liquid LH/LO2 engines" on the Orbiter because the engines are on the "tank" itself. I.e. It isn't just an "external fuel tank" like the US Shuttle!
As such, NASA copied the Soviet design when it came to the solid-LH/LO2 booster design. In fact, I'll argue it was stupid for NASA to put the main liquid fuel engines on the Orbiter! Hence the return to an "Orbiter" without engines on the new, proposed designs from LockMart, Orbital-Northrop and Boeing. The US Shuttle is more complex than it needs to be IMHO.
-- -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Jack+Porter
·
· Score: 1
Here is pic of Buran strapped to the back of the An-225.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
T-Punkt
·
· Score: 1
The big question is, what is cheaper: Maintain and repair the engines after every launch or make new through-away engines which only have to last a few seconds of thrust.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Skuld-Chan
·
· Score: 2
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.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Skuld-Chan
·
· Score: 2
You know they said the same thing about the company I used to work for before they layed most of us off:).
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Waffle+Iron
·
· Score: 2
You shouldn't assume what people know jack shit about.
I am already aware most of your details about the
Buran. You're focusing on technicalities of
the propulsion system, which are not the
most unique aspects of the shuttle.
Here is an excerpt from astronautix
(link broken this instant; here's the Google cache)
describing of the decision process
the Buran designers went through regarding
the orbiter itself:
The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better. This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior solution just because it was original.
Therefore a straight aerodynamic copy of the US space shuttle, was selected as the orbiter configuration on 11 June 1976. MiG was selected as subcontractor to build the orbiter.
This leaves little doubt about where
the idea of a lumbering delta-winged orbiter vehicle
strapped to the side of a huge gas tank originated.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 2
Putting the engines on the big tank means throwing away more work whenever you jettison the big tank (every mission). Putting the engines on the part that comes back and lands at the end of the mission means not having to rebuild them from scratch for every launch, which was sort of the whole point of the shuttle - stop throwing the whole vehicle away each time you have a launch.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Yeah, and its cut the cost so much that they've saved money hand over fist.
Oops gotta watch the sarcasm.
The Russians can price an entire rocket for less than the cost of the external tank. Partly it's because their engineers are astonishingly cheap. The other part is because their hardware has been designed to actually be cheap to produce.
Arguably NASA designs equipment to be more expensive. For example the SRBs are made in parts because otherwise they couldn't be made in certain districts...
--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Sentry21
·
· Score: 2
I wouldn't expect a/.'er to know jack shit about the Buran.
You're a slashdotter, and you seem to know what's going on (to some extent). You're not the smartest person on slashdot just because you know some details, so you won't get anywhere acting like you are. Seriously, thanks for the clarification, but lose the attitude.
--Dan
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Totally besides your discussion, but nice photo on that link!
Interestingly enough, it was possible to fit jet engines directly to Buran. Buran could take off and land under its own steam and this was used for ferrying as well as the manned landng tests. At least one of the photos of Buran shows these fitted.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
scharkalvin
·
· Score: 1
The reason that the russian space shuttle was canceled was that the booster rocket used to get it into space was unreliable and too costly to use. Without a booster, the shuttle is kinda useless eh?
We had the same problem with the Nova rocket. Never heard of the Nova? It was a larger version of the Saturn V that would have had 7 F1 engines (instead of the SV's 5) and would have produced over 10 million lbs of takeoff thrust. Enough to send 3 men to land on the moon (instead of only 2). When the Nova was cancelled Nasa had to re-invent the lunar landing program.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
rapidweather
·
· Score: 1
If we did not have the cold war expenses, I wonder how much more space exploration would have been possible. What if the USSR and USA cooperated on early space ventures, moon, etc. rather than competed with one another? Throughout modern Russian aviation history, they have seemed to need the competition factor, and also the war factor, to get things done. So have we. Trying to pay for wars and space exploration at the same time has been difficult to afford, on both sides. The Russians are apparently getting out of several areas of space exploration, and it is fortunate that they are a part of the ISS project. So much talent that does not need to go to waste.
Instead of going to the effort of making a twin-tailed plane, why didn't they just give the An-225 pilots control over the Buran's tailfin?
-- Their they're doing there hair.
Second Space Tourist Won't be Given 'Ultimate Souv
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth.
The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency.
Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration.
He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth.
The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday.
Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
1 1988Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.
Re:I'd make a really nice ...
by
Datasage
·
· Score: 1
I'd have to agree with that... just remove all the old electronics and put in standard computer parts, i'd say you got a very cool case... If you need to move it, just start up the engines
-- In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Re:of course he'll want one
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 2
He'd be better off buying a DC-8.
Russian technology unsafe?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was reading an article in Science Weekly about the overall safety of (former) Russian technology, in respect to human welfare and ergonmics even. Remember, there is no OSA in Russia {even tho it kinda rhymes lol!} The article was in last month's issue. It went on to say that the Russian tolerances for things like radiation and flying metals are below the lowest in the world. The article also went on to say "vulva cunt fuck shit piss ass cock poopie blow job on a stick, with a healty side of nigger sauce. Malda, you're a faggot." The by-line was Bruce Perens. Thank you, and goodnight.
"And though there are certainly people in the Southern California area who might be able to afford their own spaceplane -- Tom Cruise has been suggested in particular -- auction organizers are not really expecting it to sell."
Tom Cruise...why Tom Cruise?
Perhaps this reporter took his piloting abilities demonstrated in Top Gun a bit too seriously...
Then again, perhaps Mr. Cruise was merely cited as being a feasible candidate due to the simple fact that his illustrious Hollywood career has afforded him the wealth and fame to receive all of the best things in life...including his gorgeous girlfriend Penelope Cruz!
While the old adage that 'money can't buy you happiness' may be true, this is proof that it may be able to assist in the purchase of an opportunity to be one of the first to join the "Ten-Mile High Club" with a beautiful actress - if that isn't happiness, I don't know what is!
But then again, perhaps I am simply missing the point...
-- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Why Tom Cruise?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because of his sudden interest in space and space technology, which was brought to light when he narrated the recent Imax ISS Movie.
Re:Why Tom Cruise?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Probably Tom because he is one of those dianetics nuts, for whom the top level of the cult entails their knowledge that their founder was not only a wacko, but believed ET was coming for to carry him(them) home....wackos.
Fuel gantry and launch control sold separately
by
ch-chuck
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Wow, first they steal the US shuttle design, and now they're trying to sell it back! Those guys are learning the ways of capitalism pretty quick!
opportunity for Linux?
by
tps12
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Okay, I know this sounds like a stretch, and definitely not the stuff you normally hear on slashdot, but please hear me out.
I think this could be a perfect opportunity for Linux.
Remember the Slashdot PT Cruiser? Sure, it was stupid to those of us "in the know", but it drew a lot of readers to slashdot who have since become contributing and supporting members of the community.
What about a Linux Russian Space Shuttle, with Tux as captain! It could be paid for by Linux, and maintained by volunteers: Just Like Linux!
This is exactly what we need to raise Linux's profile, since we have failed to get companies to provide Linux with any decent games or applications, and printing is largely broken.
If we don't take this opportunity while we still can, then you know who will...and call me crazy, but I wouldn't feel safe flying to the moon on M$ Shuttle!
;)
--
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
We had probably better consider the ramifications. For instance, will this mean a mandatory return of Geeks in Space?
*shudder*
Re:opportunity for Linux?
by
sheean.nl
·
· Score: 1
but I wouldn't feel safe flying to the moon on M$ Shuttle!
ah, imagine a BSOD during take off...
--
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
russia's space program firesale
by
lingqi
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well... as a friend has pointed out to me -- this is a BARGAIN time for highly trained russian aerospace engineers; China is grabbing them by the bucketfull; and the US should too (we have currently no indication that the US is.
now, before anyone gets all patriotic / egotistic and claim that the US have smarter engineers anyway -- the russians have came up with a ton of stuff that the US tries to copy; their research in (other areas than aerospace, b/c i am late for work and do not have the time to sit down and think about this) ground effect aircraft / super-cavitation under-water crafts, etc, completely blows the us counterpart out of the water; besides that - russia makes huge rockets (N1), they never flew successfully, but dam* they are big and a pleasure to stare at... =)
So they're apparently trying to market it to Tom Cruise. Just what the CoS needs - a space shuttle. Hell, maybe they'll all get in it and fly off to find Xenu.:)
-- Those who will sacrifice Freedom and Security will get Windows...
It stands for Collect On Delivery. You can order a product without paying for it up front. You pay the mail man when he delivers it.
Re:...and COD being?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cash on Delivery. It's a fairly standard acronym for mail-order catalogs and such.
Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
NeuroManson
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Install a thumping sound system, some crushed velvet interior fabrics, a hydraulic lift system to make it jump, and of course the prerequisite chromed chain steering wheel, and you can be a gangsta in STYYYYLE!
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
can you imagine trying to park this thing??? Well at least, it will also be harder to shuttle-jack and/or steal the "thumping sound system"..
-- how does one change his/. id?
Re:Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
AlgUSF
·
· Score: 1
You forgot the most important thing, the stereo system.
Get about 30 kicker 15" subwoofers and power them with your own neuclear power plant (available from another russian agency). Then you would be ghetto fabulous!
--
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Re:Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
Garion911
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget the gold trim around every edge, black out the windows. Put a cheap honda engine in, hook it to the mondo exaust. Hang fuzzy dice from the tip in front. Don't think it'll need a fin though. Oh yeah.. Put meaningless russian letters all over it too.
-- Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
Re:Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Astro-pimpin'"
Re:Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
jpmkm
·
· Score: 1
Install a thumping sound system
What do you call this?
Re:...and COD being?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
uh, since we're talking about shipping, it prolly means
It used to be somewhat common for the sender to ship something prior to any payment having been received, and have the delivery person collect payment at the time of delivery. This isn't very common any more since most people pay with credit cards ahead of time. I imagine that the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) aren't keen on getting involved in these financial transactions. But I bet that you can still get the USPS to ship COD.
MM --
-- By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
-- --
Knowing too much can get you killed,
but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Russia has the right idea
by
GuyMannDude
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization.
I don't agree that this trend represents any demise of their program. Rather the Russians are just doing whatever they can to get the funding they need. During the cold war, the space race was largely propaganda for both the US and USSR. The space agencies in both countries got the funding they wanted because politicians were eager to "show off" to the rest of the world. After the end of the cold war, politicians decided that science wasn't worth funding anymore. The Russian science program, eager to continue their work, simply looked for non-state-sponsered funding sources. They feel no shame in accepting an ad from Pizza Hut on the side of their rocket or selling defunct machinery. Most Russians probably think it's funny. In the meantime, the American space program still longs for the good ol' days when they were considered a source of national pride. For them, they simply cannot bear the thought of begging the public for money. They would rather get by with less but "maintain their pride". In the meantime, lots of important scientific work goes undone because of their refusal to swallow their pride and ask for money from the private sector.
I think the Russians have the right idea. It's time for NASA to realize that the glory days are over and they have to find new funding sources to continue their work.
Re:Russia has the right idea
by
abolith
·
· Score: 1
Mod this one up!
-- if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Re:Russia has the right idea
by
sheean.nl
·
· Score: 1
I think the Russians have the right idea. It's time for NASA to realize that the glory days are over and they have to find new funding sources to continue their work.
like creating an new McDonald's(TM) module for the ISS? French fries in space... mmmmm...
--
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
Re:Russia has the right idea
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
I'm not sure how anyone can compare Pearl Harbor, in which a couple thousand military soldiers died, to burning hundreds of thousands of women and children alive and murdering hundreds of thousands more with radiation. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better.
Pearl Harbor was dirty, to be sure. But Hiroshima is far more comparable to Hitler's extermination of millions of Jews than it is to Pearl Harbor.
Those were women and children, *remember* that.
If Hiroshima is a justifiable response to Pearl Harbour, then you can also that a justifiable response to the US bombing, say, Iraq, would be for Iraq to drop a nuke on *YOUR* wife and children.
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
It was "test driven", one unmanned flight, for only two orbits.
The one on auction has never flown in space.Please RTFA:
Admitting he wouldn't know one space shuttle from another, Whyte said all he knows is that the Buran to be auctioned has never flown in space. But he does have a lot confidence in his source for the hardware.
After the first flight of Buran, funding for the project was cut. Although the project wasn't officially canceled until 1993, much of the work was halted long before that date. There were two other Buran shuttles under construction. The second orbiter, "Ptichka" ("Little Bird" in Russian) was originally scheduled for completion in 1990. The third Buran was due in 1992. Neither was finished. In November 1995, the partially completed shuttles were dismantled at their production site. The manufacturing plant is scheduled to be converted for production of buses, syringes, and diapers.
Apparently, only one was constructed to completion. The other two, including Ptichka, were never completed and later dismantled.
Before you spout off and tell me to RTFA, please check facts first.
The guy says it has never flown in space. I think he knows what he's talking about better than you - if it has flown in space he can expect a higher bid, so why should he lie?
The guy is in contact with the builders of the Buran which is to be auctioned:
One of Whyte's principal investors is closely associated with Alexander Bashilov, Director General of NPO Molniya JSC in Moscow, who Whyte said has been given authority by the Russian government to sell one of the Russian shuttles.
I guess the NPO Molniya does know better
what they have built
where it is now and
what of it is on sale.
than NASA does.
And BTW
The page from NASA you seem to bet your life on is dated 1997
The page doesn not say that Ptichka has not been completed by now
Do you really think that that site only contains 100% correct informations?!?!?
That thread is over for me now. If you can't admit that you're wrong that's OK for me. But please don't say Willie Whyte is a liar because of that five year old little yellow web page hosted at some NASA site.
Re:Nope:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They built more than one Buran. Nobody is sure how many were built but only one of the Burans flew. READ THE F'ING ARTICLE!
Am I the only one that remembers the late-1998 ShuttleGNU / LinShuttle project/joke? I can find very few references to it anymore, and the original page is long gone, unfortunately. The basic premise was that a Russian shuttle was up for auction, and a project was being started to write all of the software necessary to control it -- it would be the first open-source space mission. At least, that was the story.:)
So, hey, who wants to start the GnuShuttle project on SourceForge?:)
-- I love the impossible; it gives me something to do!
Private space travel?
by
theolein
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While the idea of some Hollywood start having one of these is ridiculous, the idea of selling one to a private enterprise company would be a huge boost for breaking the monopoly that governments hold on space travel. I'm sure that in the US it should not be too difficult for a space industries startup to gather $6 million from investors. The problem of course would be infrastructure (boosters, fuel, launchpads, tracking stations) but it would be a lot further down the road than current efforts are.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly automatically).
The ability for smaller firms to get into space would surely be paid back in terms of travel, industry etc.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly
automatically).
Say what? Buran flew once, repeat, once. Based on that, how exactly are you making the leap to say that it's "very reliable compared to the space shuttle"? One flight tells you precisely nothing about how the hardware ages over time, what the likely failures will be, what the cost of ongoing maintenence is, and a whole lot more.
Besides which, they're only selling the hardware here. If you want to do anything with it, you'd need to buy all the engineers from the program that made it, and all of their records, software, special equipment, and more. You think experimental space craft come with nice easy-to-read owners' manuals? It would be vastly, tremendously, hugely more expensive to get Buran back into flight condition than to start from scratch and build something capable of using existing US infrastructure.
Re:Private space travel?
by
meringuoid
·
· Score: 1
A Buran orbiter would be nice, but you'd need an Energiya rocket to get the thing to orbit. Energiya was discontinued in the early nineties along with Buran itself, and there's no other rocket in the world powerful enough to get that thing up. Maybe the U.S. Magnum rocket could do it, if it ever gets built...
Incidentally, anyone know which is the most powerful rocket still in service? I think it's Russia's Proton, but might be the U.S Titan or Europe's Ariane V...
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Stolen? NOT!
by
Fenris2001
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OK, for those of you who think this is just a rip-off of NASA's Shuttle: It's not
Most importantly:
The American shuttle design was studied intensively by Russian rocket scientists, but important aspects of it were rejected based on Soviet engineering analysis and technology.
Space hardware is notoriously NOT modular - a design that works on American solid-fuel boosters doesn't work on Russian liquid-fuel boosters. Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
I've recently read somewhere about a suggestion for "space-taxes" on sci-fi books which would go to NASA's budget. If that doesn't say something about NASA's financial status I don't what does.
Re:Shatner's not interested
by
/dev/trash
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Ich bin ein Berliner
Funny Babel fish translates that as:I am a citizen of Berlin
Re:Yeah, God'Dammit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you don't like it, build your own website, and post stories as often as you like.
Finally something for Bill to buy.
by
neo
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What should M$ do with all their extra "on hand" cash? They should buy a space shuttle! Imagine the profits to be had by knocking down other peoples satalites!! Screw the anti-trust trial, they can't touch you in space. Make whatever you want and just beam in down to retailers.
Should we be disturbed that one of their shuttles appeared at an event that didn't exist?
"Of those, one Buran was turned into a space-themed restaurant at Gorky Park in Moscow and another was given a fresh coat of paint before going on display for more than a year in Sydney, Australia during the time of the 2001 Summer Olympic Games."
Last I checked, those were the 2000 Summer Olympic Games.
Apparently the U.S. Shuttle can do one thing Buran can't: keep flying. Buran was a very expensive mistake by the Russians. From what I've heard their own engineers fought mightily against the program, but the powers that be insisted on keeping up with the Joneses in Houston.
If I remember correctly, they cancelled a follow-on to Mir to help fund Buran. Imagine where they'd be if they'd listened to their own people and done the reverse.
-- You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
For just $99999.99 * a month...
by
MountainLogic
·
· Score: 1
For just $99999.99 * a month you too can have your own space suit.
* $99.99 per month for 1000 years, shipping and handling extra (just 6M USD).
Just wait till i fill it up with petrol !
by
sh0rtie
·
· Score: 2
my garage is so gonna worship me when i pull up in this and say to the attendant "fill it up"
Hope it isn't the one in Sydney
by
dpash
·
· Score: 1
If I won the Buran from Sydney, I would be very pissed off. It is in a terrible state, with people scratching their names in the heat shielding. It looks really shabby.
The museum around the shuttle is a very low budget affair. It cost about 15AUD to get in to see it. You then get to see a short video, and then walk in to the hanger.
The actual shuttle is much smaller that I thought it was going to be. There were several information stands around with very biased information on. They did explain that they used a ship to transport it to Sydney and then craned it onto the quayside.
Then you sat and watched a very pointless 3D video. I was very pissed off at that point, because I'll never get those minutes back and had no relevant information about the shuttle and there was no reason for making it a 3D movie.
The last bit was the chance to walk along a platform over the shuttle, allowing you the chance to look inside the shuttle. That was probably the best part of the whole experience. It was a shame that some people had damaged the heat shielding.
We walked very quickly through the gift shop muttering about how much of a rip off the whole thing was.
A movie studio should buy it!
by
Peter+Trepan
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The next time Hollywood comes out with an asteroid-hitting-Earth type drama, they can blow up an actual shuttle for $6 million, thus reducing their special effects budget by half.
Out of curiosity I searched Ebay for Russian Space junk and came up with 112 items including someone selling a piece of a Russian Satellite for $12,000. Although currently no Space Shuttles are listed.
Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
That's not clear - the decision not to completely automate the shuttle flight was political, not technical.
Feynman noted in his appendix to the Challenger investigation that the avionic software did everything except lower the landing gear and touchdown. Ostensibly, that one step was left to the astronauts for safety reasons but it probably had a lot to do with the astronauts not wanting to be, as Chuck Yeager put it, "spam in a can."
The original Mercury test flight involved shooting a chimpanzee into sub orbit to make sure the capsule didn't kill the astronaut on re-entry. That meant ground control ran the whole show from liftoff to touchdown. The Mercury 7 astronauts made it clear that they wouldn't fly if they didn't control at least some part of the flight.
As it stands now, the astronauts don't gain control until the last few seconds of a shuttle flight.
How much is $250 in rubles?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's all I'm willing to spend.
Nothing says white trash like having a multimilliondollar russian space shuttle rusting on your lawn!
You know that commercial where the guy living in a van by the highway is hacking into corporate websites and dives into the pool from the roof of the van/home? *That* is who I want to be - fully mobile with no rent payment. And a space shuttle in tow. That would be cool.
Some related info
by
germinatoras
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was looking for some info to compare the Buran and US space shuttles, but couldn't find anything easily. We know it's possible to transport US shuttles but I'm not sure about the Buran.
There may be
some information available about the Buran's size and weight but I can't find it.
Funny except from that page:
Q. So the two countries with shuttle fleets are the U.S. and Kahzakstan?
People that want to buy this may find this information usefull.
The Buran ("Snow Storm" in Russian) Space Shuttle Program began back in 1976, construction began on 1980. It is stated that the Buran is much more powerfull than its rival, the american Space Shuttle, it caries more cargo, it has more space, and it goes way farther. The flight test was done in 1988, November 15th if Im not wrong, the flight was unmanned but was impressive, it was able to land the Buran under 35mph crosswind within only 3 feet from the runway centerline. Its heatshields are much more efficiently posicioned and built from materials far more efficient.
The spinoff justification for space
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most people have no idea the kind of impact the space programs of the world have had on everyday life. Freeze dried foods, powdered drinks, plastics, computers, digital cameras, compsite materials, GPS, cell phones, long distance phone calls, satellite TV... The list goes on and on.
You're not making a distinction between direct and indirect spinoffs, though. GPS and satellite-based communication are not a side-effect of investment in space, they were one of the prime justifications for it. Freeze dried food and pens that write upside down, on the other hand, were a side effect.
I'm a unwavering supporter of space exploration and exploitation in general, but I don't think you can legitimately justify the space program or its cost based on its side effects. The side effects can be considered a form of indirect and partial cost recovery, but to justify the cost of the program, you'd have to show that the return on investment in space is greater than investment in some other area would be.
For example, instead of investing in a government agency with a monopoly on space, an equivalent investment in high-tech R&D grants to private industry might have yielded far greater technical innovation. Projects like that would also have been less likely to waste money in inefficient ways, as in the case of the space shuttle.
The spinoff argument can also come back to bite you, since it can be used to justify any large government program that involves research, such as a missile defense "shield".
Space exploration can quite easily be justified based on its direct impact, so I don't think it's necessary to introduce red herrings into the equation. The excessive cost of the space shuttle is a real issue which arises from questionably decisions by NASA in the past, which they became stuck with for political reasons.
Re:The spinoff justification for space
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 2
I would say the value spinoffs far exceed the cost of the space program. It trickles down and out to every where, from the machine that spins te aluminium to high tech plastics. If it was private, all "spinoffs" would be patented, controlled, and there would never be the oportnity for anybody to advance it. SPin off technolgy would never go beyond one or to step from its original concept. Now if the stipulation from the government was that all IP they purchased became property of the people, that would change things.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Well, there are many who believe that the engines on the U.S. space shuttle are not necessary, and therefore just add failure points. If this is functionally true (I'm not yet completely convinced one way or the other, but you weren't asking for my reasoning) then the Russian design is better. Besides, since the idea is the same but the design is radically different, it's tough to label the Buran a ripoff, just on the basis that they look the same on the outside. Also, the proposals for U.S. space shuttle 2.0 do include several "glide plane on a separate engine" ideas that would fit your definition of ripoffs of the Buran. The space race has always been this way, mostly because the designs are all going to be fairly similar until there's a paradigm change in the methods of propelling an object into orbit (which, notably, some of the shuttle 2.0 designs suggest, such as launching a regular plane, refueling in the air, and then firing the boosters to finish the jump).
According to World Facts and Figures, Russia currently has the 84th highest per capita GDP in the world, tying with Oman and the Seychelles at $7,700 per year. By contrast, the U.S. is #2 at $36,200 (Luxembourg, at #1, isn't far ahead at $36,400). The U.S. has 278 million people, compared to Russia's 145.5 million. In other words, Russia is trying to maintain a viable space program when it has about one-tenth the total annual GDP of the U.S. I think the fact that they've managed to do so in spite of their economic problems demonstrates that they actually have a great deal of pride, and are willing to do what it takes to keep the program moving along. The fact is that the Russians are probably not going to be in any financial shape to launch space shuttles for quite some time, if ever. On the other hand, the Soyuz is a solid, reliable design, and there's really no need for the Russians to drop it in favor of an alternative that still needs a lot of work and would be far more expensive to operate.
Getcha space shuttles, Getcha space shuttles - 2 for a pound, genuine russian, we got war-heads we got satellites, half price... 'ello young lady what can i getcha? you want a space station - sorry all gone, how about a nuclear war head, nice girl like you ill give you 2, a shuttle and a submarine only a fiver? genuine uranium powered reactor only one previous accident.. yeah it was a collision. Come on sir weapons grade plutonium for 50p a kilo? your practically stealing it sir - day light robbery that is. morning officer, im not selling anything fishy just genuine russian here, all imported, no american junk honest. comon comon impress your friends genuine russian migs - squad for a pound, nuclear capable, only 500 thousend miles...
-- This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Terrorist attack on the Buran??
by
andrewski
·
· Score: 1
Damn, I remember when those dudes had to defeat the terrorists on the Buran to save the astronauts.
Oh, wait! That was ME!!
Or, no, uhh, I guess I played Rainbow Six : Eagle Watch for far too many hours.
At the end of the day, the only testing that really counts is whether it works when you use it for real.
Any other metric is at best a proxy for the real thing. The space shuttle is currently slightly better than 99% reliable. Before Challenger the accident estimates were anywhere upto a million to one. Afterwards, sane people dropped it to between 50:1 and 200:1 or so.
The Buran had a measured 100% reliability, but since it has only been flown once, the true reliability is unknown.
p.s. great link; a truly great vehicle; I like it much more than the Shuttle design.
I was under the impression that there was some human control involved once the shuttle is in orbit, for operating the maneuvering jets to dock with space stations and hover "under" satellites for the robot arm. Also, I thought that while the landing proceedures may be automated, they are triggered at least by human hands on board. I don't think ground control could "take over" and force a landing.
And this was the big difference between the Russian space program and NASA. The Russians spent a lot of time perfecting remote control not because it was technically preferred, but because it was politically preferred. They didn't want cosmonauts to be pilots, they wanted them to be passengers, unable to, for example, defect and land wherever they want.
A side effect of this is that the Russians have a lot better understanding now of how to make unmanned space vehicles.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
given that it has jet engines, can this shuttle do a horizontal take-off? I'm sure it wouldn't be able to fly very far (unless you modify the cargo bay to hold massive fuel tanks) - but what's to stop someone from converting this into a useful airplane with a few hundred thou?
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
All you need to know about Buran
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who cares about the profits, It would be a blast to ram satilites just for the hell of it.
"Hey Jim- see that one over there? 15 points!"
I think I just came up with a theme for a cheezy arcade game.:)
-- Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Information on Buran (Was Re:Delivery fees)
by
Kaotiq
·
· Score: 1
For a comparison of the Shuttle & Buran you could do
worse than have a look at http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm Lots of interesting stuff there including a table comparing the two, from that table it looks like the Buran is Lighter than the Shuttle, so I guess the US Jets that suck rocks might just be acceptable in this case:-)
Anyway the astronautix website is a great resource its worth checking out.
I wonder How they got the Buran To Sydney for the display a few years back, the website there is closed
http://www.buran.com.au
which is a pity, it had some good info.
-- Be wary of strong drink, it can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.
Kennedy, Berliners, and jelly doughnuts [OT]
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 1
This page describes the myth about Kennedy and his supposed gaffe. Kennedy, Bablefish, and all experts agree that his statement was absolutely correct, although it's true that the phrase "Berliner" also refers to a kind of jelly-filled pastry.
If it was an operational shuttle $6 mill would way too little to ask for it.
During the testing of buran several early prototypes were made. Some were just an empty shell and were used to test the rigidity of the structure. The one thats a coffee house in leningrad is one of those.
Others were actually used for flight testing, that is they could flyintheatmosphere,but still were not space capable. You can tell them apart because they have jet engines bolted on to them.
So yeah the space shutlle in question is certainly one of those models.
That would be even better! Would eat fuel but great for air shows if it was the Jet powered one!
Just think of that flying around under the Confederate Air Force banner! Sitting next to the B17 they fly around! Wow!:)
You shipment is on it way! :)
by
SWTP
·
· Score: 1
Hello Comrade!
Just wanted to let you know that your order have shipped and is on the way to your door:
item sku 76982694538275677-007 Quanity 1 Russian Buran space shuttle This item is in route and will be there in the next hour or so. Unless its shot out of the sky.
If you have any questions regarding this or any other order, please feel free to contact us at https://www.UsedSovietSpaceHardware.com.
You can check Norad for any tracking concerns you have on your shipment. Just ask for "Unknown Flying Object Division".
Thank you for your order!
PS: We are having a sale on tourist class trips to the international space station next month. Only 19 million US dollars.
Wait a minute!!! A greate Idea!
by
SWTP
·
· Score: 1
Hey! The US has four shuttles. Why dont they buy this one? Heck it does make sense. They have been trying to create a rescure boat to remove crew quickly from the station. The Russans were going to do it but dont have the cash. The US is muddling their way and nothing yet.
With out a device to transport more than three astronauts quickly back to earth they can only have three for a station design for seven people! This would be a way to do it!
That's a laugh: "They didn't want cosmonauts to be pilots, they wanted them to be passengers, unable to, for example, defect and land wherever they want." The people that were chosen to be cosmonauts were extremely highly regarded, extremely patriotic and paid well for what they were doing. They were idols of the former USSR, why would an idol run into a country where he/she would be another unknown construction worker or a cab driver? The reason to make Buran unmanned was simple - you do not need people to fly cargo back and forward to the space station and you do not need a pilot on the way back which makes economic sence. You can bring more cargo and people to your space station and fly the Buran home with no one on board.
Read up on the early soviet space program. Keeping all control at the ground and making the cosmonauts be essentially passengers was exactly how the "flight schools" for the cosmonauts were geared. This is pre-Buran days I'm talking about here. The fact that this put them ahead of the US in space flight by remote control was a side-effect of this decision, not the original reason for the decision.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! I can buy this to win the X-prize and still have $4 million left over when I win! Woohoo!
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
So does it come with cosmonauts or are they skimping and just throwing in a pack of chimps?
12ft of rope, 4 bottles of vodka, 2 midgets, 3 cheerleaders, 1 crazy weekend
Getting this thing from Russia to your backyard is going to cost at least another million.
an amusement park or a museum. This would be a great draw for anyone interested in getting people to come to their attraction.
One of these "Space Camps" maybe.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The Specter organization has already stolen it to shuttle the new master race to the cloaked space station. I think the Brits are trying to recover it.
Everyone: this is proof of what I say. CmdrTaco does not want this site bogged down with worthless noses.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I saw the shuttle in Sydney a few months ago: rusting in a parking lot surrounded by chain link fence. I'd bet it's the one for sale.
That looks an awful lot like the USA's space shuttle. Must be a coincidence that that just happens to be the best design for a space brick right? ;-) Gotta love espionage.
Better yet, someone could buy it
And do what with it? I really don't beleive that the US govnmt would let that go to the private sector in this country, and we don't need the technology. I suppose that is a good deal for a space shuttle, but I don't see the point.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth. The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over. Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency. Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated. Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration. He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth. The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday. Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
Kick in another million and they'll throw in some decaying nuclear war-heads.
Does that include the stereo?
I would really need to kick the tires a bit before I buy it.
I am a Karma Library.
But now back to listening to excellent European industrial music...
Useless anger
There's no answer
To be found
We will stagger
We will falter
Stained and blackened
On and on
Chained to the laws...
I think I saw this on ebay:
L@@K - Russian Space Shuttle - No Reserve - [Buy It Now]
I Heart Sorting Networks
UserFriendly where Erwin buys Mir from Russia, charged and delivered to Stef...
"Too late for refunds, the migs are on their way to shoot it down for you!"
Hmm.
Pi
In the last few years, Russia seems to be selling off/out much of it's space program. First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA), then MIR was decommisioned, then they started selling trips to space, and now they're selling the Buran. Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization. Again, the Russians have beat the US to space by opening it up to the (rich) public.
Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported? Was it using a similar way as the NASA shuttle with the AA 747, or more likely to have been by sea?
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth.
The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency.
Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration.
He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth.
The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday.
Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
1 1988 Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.
Priced to move at only $6 million! Buy yours now!
I am the evil aardvark!
... casemod! That'd fit perfectly!
Life sucks.
Do you think they would accept payment in Blue Jeans?
- Entropy Happens...
sorry
Does anybody know if NetBSD has been ported to this yet?
I don't think I have cinder blocks big enough to put it on. It was hard enough finding some for that Mercury capsule I caught in my crab trap.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
If you buy used Soviet space equipment you
could be helping terrorists.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Thanks and have a nice day smoking marijuana
grown in the good old United States of Amerika.
Woot
So that when Xenu returns to Teegeeack, he'll be far from those pesky H-bombs...
Xaotik Designs
I was reading an article in Science Weekly about the overall safety of (former) Russian technology, in respect to human welfare and ergonmics even. Remember, there is no OSA in Russia {even tho it kinda rhymes lol!} The article was in last month's issue. It went on to say that the Russian tolerances for things like radiation and flying metals are below the lowest in the world. The article also went on to say "vulva cunt fuck shit piss ass cock poopie blow job on a stick, with a healty side of nigger sauce. Malda, you're a faggot." The by-line was Bruce Perens. Thank you, and goodnight.
Per the article:
"And though there are certainly people in the Southern California area who might be able to afford their own spaceplane -- Tom Cruise has been suggested in particular -- auction organizers are not really expecting it to sell."
Tom Cruise...why Tom Cruise?
Perhaps this reporter took his piloting abilities demonstrated in Top Gun a bit too seriously...
Then again, perhaps Mr. Cruise was merely cited as being a feasible candidate due to the simple fact that his illustrious Hollywood career has afforded him the wealth and fame to receive all of the best things in life...including his gorgeous girlfriend Penelope Cruz!
While the old adage that 'money can't buy you happiness' may be true, this is proof that it may be able to assist in the purchase of an opportunity to be one of the first to join the "Ten-Mile High Club" with a beautiful actress - if that isn't happiness, I don't know what is!
But then again, perhaps I am simply missing the point...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
Wow, first they steal the US shuttle design, and now they're trying to sell it back! Those guys are learning the ways of capitalism pretty quick!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Cash on Delivery
Xaotik Designs
I think this could be a perfect opportunity for Linux.
Remember the Slashdot PT Cruiser? Sure, it was stupid to those of us "in the know", but it drew a lot of readers to slashdot who have since become contributing and supporting members of the community.
What about a Linux Russian Space Shuttle, with Tux as captain! It could be paid for by Linux, and maintained by volunteers: Just Like Linux!
This is exactly what we need to raise Linux's profile, since we have failed to get companies to provide Linux with any decent games or applications, and printing is largely broken.
If we don't take this opportunity while we still can, then you know who will...and call me crazy, but I wouldn't feel safe flying to the moon on M$ Shuttle!
;)
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Well... as a friend has pointed out to me -- this is a BARGAIN time for highly trained russian aerospace engineers; China is grabbing them by the bucketfull; and the US should too (we have currently no indication that the US is.
now, before anyone gets all patriotic / egotistic and claim that the US have smarter engineers anyway -- the russians have came up with a ton of stuff that the US tries to copy; their research in (other areas than aerospace, b/c i am late for work and do not have the time to sit down and think about this) ground effect aircraft / super-cavitation under-water crafts, etc, completely blows the us counterpart out of the water; besides that - russia makes huge rockets (N1), they never flew successfully, but dam* they are big and a pleasure to stare at... =)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
So they're apparently trying to market it to Tom Cruise. Just what the CoS needs - a space shuttle. Hell, maybe they'll all get in it and fly off to find Xenu. :)
Those who will sacrifice Freedom and Security will get Windows...
It stands for Collect On Delivery. You can order a product without paying for it up front. You pay the mail man when he delivers it.
Cash on Delivery. It's a fairly standard acronym for mail-order catalogs and such.
Install a thumping sound system, some crushed velvet interior fabrics, a hydraulic lift system to make it jump, and of course the prerequisite chromed chain steering wheel, and you can be a gangsta in STYYYYLE!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
uh, since we're talking about shipping, it prolly means
Cash On Delivery
OK, I'll bite.
COD is an acronym for Collect on Delivery.
It used to be somewhat common for the sender to ship something prior to any payment having been received, and have the delivery person collect payment at the time of delivery. This isn't very common any more since most people pay with credit cards ahead of time. I imagine that the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) aren't keen on getting involved in these financial transactions. But I bet that you can still get the USPS to ship COD.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
never flown.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization.
I don't agree that this trend represents any demise of their program. Rather the Russians are just doing whatever they can to get the funding they need. During the cold war, the space race was largely propaganda for both the US and USSR. The space agencies in both countries got the funding they wanted because politicians were eager to "show off" to the rest of the world. After the end of the cold war, politicians decided that science wasn't worth funding anymore. The Russian science program, eager to continue their work, simply looked for non-state-sponsered funding sources. They feel no shame in accepting an ad from Pizza Hut on the side of their rocket or selling defunct machinery. Most Russians probably think it's funny. In the meantime, the American space program still longs for the good ol' days when they were considered a source of national pride. For them, they simply cannot bear the thought of begging the public for money. They would rather get by with less but "maintain their pride". In the meantime, lots of important scientific work goes undone because of their refusal to swallow their pride and ask for money from the private sector.
I think the Russians have the right idea. It's time for NASA to realize that the glory days are over and they have to find new funding sources to continue their work.
GMD
watch this
Taken from the second link in my "ad":
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
It was "test driven", one unmanned flight, for only two orbits.
I am the evil aardvark!
thats an interesting sig you have there. Although I would not have expected an lds rm to be seeking an ec on /.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Sometimes I wonder if stupidity is a requirement to moderate on slashdot.
Wow, with the money Mark Shuttleworth spent for a 5-day space flight he could've bought 3 of these instead!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Me - "Mr Russian Space Capsule Salesman, can I get this model with 12 cup holders, the neon underlights and TV screens in the back of the headrests?"
Mr Russian - "Im sorry sir, those models arnt due out of service for another 3 years..."
Me - "Dam, I'll go with the tin foil wrapped powdered dinner machine then"
Mr Russian - "How would you like to pay? Visa, Mastercard or AK-47's"
Me - "Can I part-ex for this reportedly genuine ufo t-shirt?"
Better yet, someone could buy it COD ;)
Why would you buy fish for your space ship?
Slashdot is really starting to make no sense.
It's not every day that you see a vehicle of this caliber with a built-in vodka dispenser.
Am I the only one that remembers the late-1998 ShuttleGNU / LinShuttle project/joke? I can find very few references to it anymore, and the original page is long gone, unfortunately. The basic premise was that a Russian shuttle was up for auction, and a project was being started to write all of the software necessary to control it -- it would be the first open-source space mission. At least, that was the story. :)
:)
So, hey, who wants to start the GnuShuttle project on SourceForge?
-Waldo Jaquith
So it's ok to be racist?
Nothing too remarkable about 6 jet engines. The Original B-52 had 8. A B-36 had 4 jets, and 6 pusher props.
The auction
I love the impossible; it gives me something to do!
While the idea of some Hollywood start having one of these is ridiculous, the idea of selling one to a private enterprise company would be a huge boost for breaking the monopoly that governments hold on space travel. I'm sure that in the US it should not be too difficult for a space industries startup to gather $6 million from investors. The problem of course would be infrastructure (boosters, fuel, launchpads, tracking stations) but it would be a lot further down the road than current efforts are.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly automatically).
The ability for smaller firms to get into space would surely be paid back in terms of travel, industry etc.
Most importantly:Space hardware is notoriously NOT modular - a design that works on American solid-fuel boosters doesn't work on Russian liquid-fuel boosters. Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
---------------
Vpered na Mars!
ANOTHER one of these damned things?
I have two already.
Sheesh.
CNN also covered this(also based on the original AP story).
Now if you are these guys, you just fix it up and fly it home.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
female ec material isn't likely to be on /. ...but what the heck, I'm desparate ;)
What is your Slash Rating?
I've recently read somewhere about a suggestion for "space-taxes" on sci-fi books which would go to NASA's budget. If that doesn't say something about NASA's financial status I don't what does.
Bill Gates Has No Penis.
Put a bigblock Cheby in't, hydrolifters, gold 17's, chain steering wheel
this lowrider gonna beat ya MoFo ass !
What does God need with a starship?
If you don't like it, build your own website, and post stories as often as you like.
What should M$ do with all their extra "on hand" cash? They should buy a space shuttle! Imagine the profits to be had by knocking down other peoples satalites!! Screw the anti-trust trial, they can't touch you in space. Make whatever you want and just beam in down to retailers.
The building I'm working in is up for sale for $7.5 million. This is an office building in Flint, MI. Ever seen "Roger & Me?".
Should we be disturbed that one of their shuttles appeared at an event that didn't exist?
"Of those, one Buran was turned into a space-themed restaurant at Gorky Park in Moscow and another was given a fresh coat of paint before going on display for more than a year in Sydney, Australia during the time of the 2001 Summer Olympic Games."
Last I checked, those were the 2000 Summer Olympic Games.
Damn, wish I had $6M, I'd really love to turn it into an RV for a cross country trip.
If I remember correctly, they cancelled a follow-on to Mir to help fund Buran. Imagine where they'd be if they'd listened to their own people and done the reverse.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
For just $99999.99 * a month you too can have your own space suit.
* $99.99 per month for 1000 years, shipping and handling extra (just 6M USD).
my garage is so gonna worship me when i pull up in this and say to the attendant "fill it up"
If I won the Buran from Sydney, I would be very pissed off. It is in a terrible state, with people scratching their names in the heat shielding. It looks really shabby.
The museum around the shuttle is a very low budget affair. It cost about 15AUD to get in to see it. You then get to see a short video, and then walk in to the hanger.
The actual shuttle is much smaller that I thought it was going to be. There were several information stands around with very biased information on. They did explain that they used a ship to transport it to Sydney and then craned it onto the quayside.
Then you sat and watched a very pointless 3D video. I was very pissed off at that point, because I'll never get those minutes back and had no relevant information about the shuttle and there was no reason for making it a 3D movie.
The last bit was the chance to walk along a platform over the shuttle, allowing you the chance to look inside the shuttle. That was probably the best part of the whole experience. It was a shame that some people had damaged the heat shielding.
We walked very quickly through the gift shop muttering about how much of a rip off the whole thing was.
The next time Hollywood comes out with an asteroid-hitting-Earth type drama, they can blow up an actual shuttle for $6 million, thus reducing their special effects budget by half.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I saw one on an '88 Accord the other day that should do the trick. Wing-style on aluminum girders. Stuck up about a foot from the trunk lid.
Out of curiosity I searched Ebay for Russian Space junk and came up with 112 items including someone selling a piece of a Russian Satellite for $12,000. Although currently no Space Shuttles are listed.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
How much you wanna bet that the company in Russia that these guys are selling the shuttle for, is really a front for the Russian mob?
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Buran Type "R".
That's not clear - the decision not to completely automate the shuttle flight was political, not technical.
Feynman noted in his appendix to the Challenger investigation that the avionic software did everything except lower the landing gear and touchdown. Ostensibly, that one step was left to the astronauts for safety reasons but it probably had a lot to do with the astronauts not wanting to be, as Chuck Yeager put it, "spam in a can."
The original Mercury test flight involved shooting a chimpanzee into sub orbit to make sure the capsule didn't kill the astronaut on re-entry. That meant ground control ran the whole show from liftoff to touchdown. The Mercury 7 astronauts made it clear that they wouldn't fly if they didn't control at least some part of the flight.
As it stands now, the astronauts don't gain control until the last few seconds of a shuttle flight.
That's all I'm willing to spend.
Nothing says white trash like having a multimilliondollar russian space shuttle rusting on your lawn!
You know that commercial where the guy living in a van by the highway is hacking into corporate websites and dives into the pool from the roof of the van/home? *That* is who I want to be - fully mobile with no rent payment. And a space shuttle in tow. That would be cool.
I was looking for some info to compare the Buran and US space shuttles, but couldn't find anything easily. We know it's possible to transport US shuttles but I'm not sure about the Buran.
There may be some information available about the Buran's size and weight but I can't find it.
Funny except from that page:
Q. So the two countries with shuttle fleets are the U.S. and Kahzakstan?
A. Pretty much.
I'm very curious about this program. How far along are you? Has it been worth your time? How are the professors?
If you have a minute, drop me an e-mail at yummyspam@excite.com. Thanks.
People that want to buy this may find this information usefull.
The Buran ("Snow Storm" in Russian) Space Shuttle Program began back in 1976, construction began on 1980. It is stated that the Buran is much more powerfull than its rival, the american Space Shuttle, it caries more cargo, it has more space, and it goes way farther. The flight test was done in 1988, November 15th if Im not wrong, the flight was unmanned but was impressive, it was able to land the Buran under 35mph crosswind within only 3 feet from the runway centerline. Its heatshields are much more efficiently posicioned and built from materials far more efficient.
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
The actual auction page is
t io n5.asp?siteID=1&auctionID=5&CategoryID=20
http://auctions.radiowebnetwork.com/auction/auc
Netscape 4.x users need not apply (duh)
You're not making a distinction between direct and indirect spinoffs, though. GPS and satellite-based communication are not a side-effect of investment in space, they were one of the prime justifications for it. Freeze dried food and pens that write upside down, on the other hand, were a side effect.
I'm a unwavering supporter of space exploration and exploitation in general, but I don't think you can legitimately justify the space program or its cost based on its side effects. The side effects can be considered a form of indirect and partial cost recovery, but to justify the cost of the program, you'd have to show that the return on investment in space is greater than investment in some other area would be.
For example, instead of investing in a government agency with a monopoly on space, an equivalent investment in high-tech R&D grants to private industry might have yielded far greater technical innovation. Projects like that would also have been less likely to waste money in inefficient ways, as in the case of the space shuttle.
The spinoff argument can also come back to bite you, since it can be used to justify any large government program that involves research, such as a missile defense "shield".
Space exploration can quite easily be justified based on its direct impact, so I don't think it's necessary to introduce red herrings into the equation. The excessive cost of the space shuttle is a real issue which arises from questionably decisions by NASA in the past, which they became stuck with for political reasons.
Well, there are many who believe that the engines on the U.S. space shuttle are not necessary, and therefore just add failure points. If this is functionally true (I'm not yet completely convinced one way or the other, but you weren't asking for my reasoning) then the Russian design is better. Besides, since the idea is the same but the design is radically different, it's tough to label the Buran a ripoff, just on the basis that they look the same on the outside. Also, the proposals for U.S. space shuttle 2.0 do include several "glide plane on a separate engine" ideas that would fit your definition of ripoffs of the Buran. The space race has always been this way, mostly because the designs are all going to be fairly similar until there's a paradigm change in the methods of propelling an object into orbit (which, notably, some of the shuttle 2.0 designs suggest, such as launching a regular plane, refueling in the air, and then firing the boosters to finish the jump).
Virg
Nothing says white trash like having a multimilliondollar russian space shuttle rusting on your lawn!
don't you mean red trash?
Why is everything for sale?
First space tourists and now space shutles for sale.. have Russians completely lost their pride?
I already *GOT* one! It'sa very nice.
Getcha space shuttles, Getcha space shuttles - 2 for a pound, genuine russian, we got war-heads we got satellites, half price... 'ello young lady what can i getcha? you want a space station - sorry all gone, how about a nuclear war head, nice girl like you ill give you 2, a shuttle and a submarine only a fiver? genuine uranium powered reactor only one previous accident.. yeah it was a collision. Come on sir weapons grade plutonium for 50p a kilo? your practically stealing it sir - day light robbery that is. morning officer, im not selling anything fishy just genuine russian here, all imported, no american junk honest. comon comon impress your friends genuine russian migs - squad for a pound, nuclear capable, only 500 thousend miles...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Damn, I remember when those dudes had to defeat the terrorists on the Buran to save the astronauts.
Oh, wait! That was ME!!
Or, no, uhh, I guess I played Rainbow Six : Eagle Watch for far too many hours.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/buran. htm
I was under the impression that there was some human control involved once the shuttle is in orbit, for operating the maneuvering jets to dock with space stations and hover "under" satellites for the robot arm. Also, I thought that while the landing proceedures may be automated, they are triggered at least by human hands on board. I don't think ground control could "take over" and force a landing.
And this was the big difference between the Russian space program and NASA. The Russians spent a lot of time perfecting remote control not because it was technically preferred, but because it was politically preferred. They didn't want cosmonauts to be pilots, they wanted them to be passengers, unable to, for example, defect and land wherever they want.
A side effect of this is that the Russians have a lot better understanding now of how to make unmanned space vehicles.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
given that it has jet engines, can this shuttle do a horizontal take-off? I'm sure it wouldn't be able to fly very far (unless you modify the cargo bay to hold massive fuel tanks) - but what's to stop someone from converting this into a useful airplane with a few hundred thou?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.buran.ru/
Here.
Pi
Has anyone noticed that the KFWB.com Web site (where the auction is being conducted) locks out users with Konqueror/Communicator/Opera?
... Why is this restrictive IIS trash being pushed on Slashdot???
Real Nice Web Design
Imagine the profits
:)
Who cares about the profits, It would be a blast to ram satilites just for the hell of it.
"Hey Jim- see that one over there? 15 points!"
I think I just came up with a theme for a cheezy arcade game.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Anyway the astronautix website is a great resource its worth checking out.
I wonder How they got the Buran To Sydney for the display a few years back, the website there is closed http://www.buran.com.au which is a pity, it had some good info.
Be wary of strong drink, it can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.
This page describes the myth about Kennedy and his supposed gaffe. Kennedy, Bablefish, and all experts agree that his statement was absolutely correct, although it's true that the phrase "Berliner" also refers to a kind of jelly-filled pastry.
There is no way this is a real shuttle.
If it was an operational shuttle $6 mill would way too little to ask for it.
During the testing of buran several early prototypes were made. Some were just an empty shell and were used to test the rigidity of the structure. The one thats a coffee house in leningrad is one of those.
Others were actually used for flight testing, that is they could flyintheatmosphere,but still were not space capable. You can tell them apart because they have jet engines bolted on to them.
So yeah the space shutlle in question is certainly one of those models.
Hello Comrade!
Just wanted to let you know that your order have shipped and is on the way to your door:
item sku 76982694538275677-007 Quanity 1 Russian Buran space shuttle
This item is in route and will be there in the next hour or so. Unless its shot out of the sky.
If you have any questions regarding this or any other order, please feel free to contact us at
https://www.UsedSovietSpaceHardware.com.
You can check Norad for any tracking concerns you have on your shipment. Just ask for "Unknown Flying Object Division".
Thank you for your order!
PS: We are having a sale on tourist class trips to the international space station next month. Only 19 million US dollars.
Hey! The US has four shuttles. Why dont they buy this one? Heck it does make sense. They have been trying to create a rescure boat to remove crew quickly from the station. The Russans were going to do it but dont have the cash. The US is muddling their way and nothing yet.
With out a device to transport more than three astronauts quickly back to earth they can only have three for a station design for seven people! This would be a way to do it!
The poor UPS man! Ouch! Wonder if he would leave it by the front door?
Not unless you leave your money by the front door!
That's a laugh: "They didn't want cosmonauts to be pilots, they wanted them to be passengers, unable to, for example, defect and land wherever they want." The people that were chosen to be cosmonauts were extremely highly regarded, extremely patriotic and paid well for what they were doing. They were idols of the former USSR, why would an idol run into a country where he/she would be another unknown construction worker or a cab driver? The reason to make Buran unmanned was simple - you do not need people to fly cargo back and forward to the space station and you do not need a pilot on the way back which makes economic sence. You can bring more cargo and people to your space station and fly the Buran home with no one on board.
Cheers
You can't handle the truth.
Read up on the early soviet space program. Keeping all control at the ground and making the cosmonauts be essentially passengers was exactly how the "flight schools" for the cosmonauts were geared. This is pre-Buran days I'm talking about here. The fact that this put them ahead of the US in space flight by remote control was a side-effect of this decision, not the original reason for the decision.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.