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...)
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
Delivery fees
by
Ars-Fartsica
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Getting this thing from Russia to your backyard is going to cost at least another million.
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/
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.
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/
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
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.
No, you're thinking of that thing with the "Laser".
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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: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.
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*
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... =)
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!
-- --
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.
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?:)
-- Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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"
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.
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?
A. Pretty much.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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?
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
So that when Xenu returns to Teegeeack, he'll be far from those pesky H-bombs...
Xaotik Designs
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); }
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.
What is your Slash Rating?
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.
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!
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
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)
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
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 $6 million from investors. The problem of course would be infrastructure (boosters, fuel, launchpads, tracking stations) but it would be a lot further down the road than current efforts are.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly automatically).
The ability for smaller firms to get into space would surely be paid back in terms of travel, industry etc.
Most importantly:Space hardware is notoriously NOT modular - a design that works on American solid-fuel boosters doesn't work on Russian liquid-fuel boosters. Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
---------------
Vpered na Mars!
Now if you are these guys, you just fix it up and fly it home.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
female ec material isn't likely to be on /. ...but what the heck, I'm desparate ;)
What is your Slash Rating?
The US government would have a damned hard time stopping someone from buying it. First of all, it's not a weapon. Secondly, the gov't has a harder time stopping rich people from doing whatever the hell they want. (They have no problems stomping all over the other 98% of the population)
But as for what they'd do with it, they could EXPLORE! There is a lot of interest in a commercial space program in the US (and elsewhere), and this might be the impetus needed to get things moving. If you can't or don't dare fly it, then tear it down and use the technology in the private sector to build a new and innovative SSTO vehicle! Use your bloody imagination.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Put a bigblock Cheby in't, hydrolifters, gold 17's, chain steering wheel
this lowrider gonna beat ya MoFo ass !
What does God need with a starship?
What should M$ 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.
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
my garage is so gonna worship me when i pull up in this and say to the attendant "fill it up"
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.
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/
Tom and Cruz broke up.
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
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.
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
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/buran. htm
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.
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.
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.
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.