
Soviet shuttle "Buran" found in the trash - geuis
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.mk.ru/photo/social/1090-buran-prinesennyiy-v-zhertvu.html
======
philwelch
I doubt this is actually the Buran itself--there were a few Buran-class
shuttles built to varying points of completion, as well as multiple mockups
for aerodynamic tests and the like. _The_ Buran was left in Kazakhstan, and
it's unclear why they would haul an abandoned spacecraft all the way to the
outskirts of Moscow.

This is most likely the fourth, unnamed Buran-class shuttle "2.02" which
Wikipedia reports as "Partially dismantled, remains outside Tushino Machine
Building Plant, near Moscow." Here's a picture of it in winter, apparently in
a worse state of disrepair:
[http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/buran/2.02-2...](http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/buran/2.02-2.jpg)

More information: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_2.02>

~~~
geuis
Its good information to know there were extra ships being built. I don't think
its 2.02 though. These photos appear to be new, and the ship is in much better
condition than the one that appears in the photo you shared, also as you
noted. Unless for some reason these photos are actually much older than the
one you found on aerospaceweb.

~~~
philwelch
The condition of the shuttle is odd between the two photographs. Perhaps the
windows were boarded up? Still, the location is most consistent with 2.02--
there would be no reason to move any of the other shuttles from Kazakhstan to
Moscow.

------
Avshalom
Only tangentially related but the title reminded me of
[http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage...](http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOWTPE90K&CT=Search&DT=Image)
from a few years back. Photos taken of crashed rockets in Kazakstan,

I think
[http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage...](http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOWTPE90K&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&IID=2K7O3RJHMMHH&PN=1&CT=Search)
is particularly stunning

------
raquo
FWIW, the only flight that Buran performed was 100% automatic from launch to
landing, with no crew on board, in 1988. It could have been an awesome
machine.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Buran was an imitation of the US Shuttle system, but the US Shuttle was
not something worth imitating. Reusable launch vehicles have some advantages,
but the Shuttles were not reusable in any reasonable sense. Had the Soviets
dumped the development budget from Buran into building and launching stations
with Energia while continuing to use Soyuz for crew ferrying and return they
could have done some truly amazing things. Instead they made fundamentally the
same mistake as the US, throwing away money on a horribly flawed system.

~~~
dandrews
As we all know by now, the launch system has its flaws (segmented solids and
loosely insulated liquid tanks). The economics of Shuttle was grotesquely
oversold, and satellites were limited to LEO because that was the service
ceiling for the platform. NASA never should have relied on Shuttle to do _all_
its lifting; the back-breaker for the US Air Force was the launch delay during
the Challenger investigation. Shouldn't have been using a man-rated vehicle to
tow satellites into orbit to begin with.

But the orbiter itself is a work of art, a dazzlingly complex system, finely
tuned to operate on the hairy edge of materials science and meticulously
maintained. For all its expense, it was done _right_ , and I rather wish there
was the money to do it again with 21st century tech.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Shuttle system was a triumph of technological marvel on top of
technological marvel that even today deserves respect. Nevertheless, it was
the wrong design for its mission, overcomplicated, expensive, and impractical.
That it did fly is a testament to engineering savvy and determination. But it
flew on the back of a standing army of aerospace engineers costing billions of
dollars a year and upwards of half a billion dollars a flight. That aspect is
not something to be proud of. The opportunity cost due to the Shuttle system
in terms of things we could have done with the same money and resources is
nothing short of breathtaking, and must be counted as a significant tragedy in
the annals of manned spaceflight.

Consider that every single Shuttle flight (all 100 or so of them) ranks up
there with a Saturn V launch in terms of expense, engineering, complexity, and
hardware. Imagine where we would be today if instead of 100 Shuttle flights we
had had 100 Saturn V launches.

The Shuttle design turned out to be deeply flawed in ways that prevented it
from ever achieving a high flight rate (the only way to dramatically lower
costs with a reusable vehicle) and was at best only quasi-reusable. Worse yet,
it was burdened with requirements from the military which ended up not being
used and took a heavy toll on the system's capabilities, robustness, and
efficiency.

It's telling that of the many new clean-sheet designs for manned space
vehicles the particular characteristics of the Shuttle are absent.

The Shuttle performed its primary mission of keeping the prestige of the US
through the maintenance of an impressive looking manned spaceflight program.
But in terms of advancing manned space exploration the Shuttle was a failure.
And all of this is independent of the safety problems of the Shuttle system.

My heart still stirs when I see a Shuttle launch, but my head cannot help but
see the terrible flaws of the program.

------
russell
This is the kind of thing that Jacques Littlefield (RIP) could have rescued.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Littlefield> I once visited his place.
Believe me, 200 tanks, vehicles, and a SCUD missile on its launcher is a sight
to behold. (Scud missiles were apparently hammered into shape with ball-peen
hammers.)

------
pan69
If you look at the photos the craft looks like a solid piece of steal. The
amazing effort, energy and engineering effort it took to get that into space.
It's simply astonishing. Same applause to the Space Shuttle of course.

------
geuis
I also find it interesting that its listed as destroyed on the wikipedia
article, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)>

~~~
Aqua_Geek
As many commenters on Slashdot have noted, this is most likely Shuttle 2.02 of
the Buran program (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program>) and was never
actually fully assembled.

------
bond
What a waste...

------
superk
Um... I don't really think that's the "trash" ... there aren't any garbage
trucks large enough to cart that away.

