Shuttle conspiracy thread, (not what the title suggests)

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

I noticed a thread on the Bad TV forum about a secret miltary shuttle and that reminded me of something I'd read about the Russian Buran shuttle that was supposedly destroyed when it's hanger collapsed. The theory was that the shuttle hadn't been destroyed after all; that the accident was faked and the the vehicle had been sold to the Chinese. If I were going to believe a shuttle conspiracy theory I might consider believing this one. Has anyone else heard of this? Anyone believe it might be true?

[Moose]

The theory was that the shuttle hadn't been destroyed after; that the accident was faked and the the vehicle had been sold to the Chinese.

Such a conspiracy theory depends on a number of frankly unlikely assumptions:

1) That the shuttle wasn't damaged enough to ground it permanently, if at all.

2) That the Russians didn't (and still don't) want to fly it.

3) That the Russians, for whatever reason, didn't want anybody to know they didn't want to fly it.

4) And yet, somehow the Chinese knew about it.

5) And that only the Chinese knew about it.

6) That the Chinese want to fly it (assuming they develop the lift capability needed to launch that shuttle).

7) That the Russians don't care if the Chinese fly it.

8 ) But that the Russians care enough to keep the sale a secret.

9) Despite the fact that the Chinese flying it will blow the lid off the secret rather firmly.

Post 1990s Russia hasn't been shy about selling technology to... well... anybody who wants it, really. I don't see why Russia would hide the sale of something as relatively innocuous as a shuttle prototype, even assuming it had never been damaged.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Moose...that's why they're called conspiracy theories....thanks

[kucharek]

Buran is just one part of a big system. Without an Energija booster, it's useless.

[sts60]

Moose...that's why they're called conspiracy theories....thanks

Heh, that's why they're incorrectly called "conspiracy theories"... Substitute "fantasy" or "hunch" or "guess" for "theory", which as the erudite BABB regular knows means that there's some work and rigor behind an idea. "Theory" is an undeserved compliment for such notions.

[Nicolas]

By the way, as far as I know (little info available) there are still multiple Burans (some of them spaceworthy designs) left at Baikonour. Not all of them were in the collapsed hangar.

Second thing: the Burans were sold to Kazachstan by Russia as payment for the use of Baikonour. So unless this fact is a conspircay thing as well, Russia can't sell the Burans to anyone nowadays, as they don't own them anymore.

[Moose]

Moose...that's why they're called conspiracy theories....thanks

Heh, that's why they're incorrectly called "conspiracy theories"... Substitute "fantasy" or "hunch" or "guess" for "theory", which as the erudite BABB regular knows means that there's some work and rigor behind an idea. "Theory" is an undeserved compliment for such notions.

Well said. I think I prefer "conspiracy fantasy". Seems to cover the subtle nuances of the concept most aptly.

I move we consider the term coined for general BABB use.

[kucharek]

One Buran surfaced last year in Bahrein - the same Buran that was on exhibit in Sydney during the Olympics. A technic museum near Karlsruhe claims that they have bought it, but there seems to be some legal struggles as current ownership is unclear.

Harald

[Nicolas]

One Buran surfaced last year in Bahrein - the same Buran that was on exhibit in Sydney during the Olympics. A technic museum near Karlsruhe claims that they have bought it, but there seems to be some legal struggles as current ownership is unclear.

Harald

That Buran is the atmospheric gliding design (with engines for sustained flight), a bit like the Shuttle Enterprise (correct, right? ).
There is also a Buran in a theme park near Moscow (correct, right? ) but as far as I know, that is an incomplete craft. I don't know if it was meant as spaceworthy design. And again, there is no conclusive info on just how many spaceworthy built Burans there are at Baikonour, where they are standing, how far they were finished, whether they were damaged etc. Also on the Energia stack there is little info. there are pics of Energia boosters, central rocket, and Buran being stored together, and pics which seemed to show different Buran orbiters at baikonour. But as these pics usually lack context, it is hard to tell just what is or was available at baikonour without some clear info.

[ngc3314]

One Buran surfaced last year in Bahrein - the same Buran that was on exhibit in Sydney during the Olympics. A technic museum near Karlsruhe claims that they have bought it, but there seems to be some legal struggles as current ownership is unclear.

Harald

That Buran is the atmospheric gliding design (with engines for sustained flight), a bit like the Shuttle Enterprise (correct, right? ).
There is also a Buran in a theme park near Moscow (correct, right? ) but as far as I know, that is an incomplete craft. I don't know if it was meant as spaceworthy design. And again, there is no conclusive info on just how many spaceworthy built Burans there are at Baikonour, where they are standing, how far they were finished, whether they were damaged etc. Also on the Energia stack there is little info. there are pics of Energia boosters, central rocket, and Buran being stored together, and pics which seemed to show different Buran orbiters at baikonour. But as these pics usually lack context, it is hard to tell just what is or was available at baikonour without some clear info.

The BA (no, not that BA, Buran Analog) did use jet engines for atmospheric flight, especially setting up landings. There was no exact equivalent of this in the US Shuttle development; NASA used wind tunnels and piloted landings from the back of the 747 (ALTs = Approach and Landing Tests). The Soviet designers seem to have had had rather less confidence that they understood the aerodynamics of the airframe design, which seems odd given how similar it was to the shuttle orbiter. They lobbed several subscale versions (the BORs, one as large as 1/2 scale, I think) into suborbital trajectories to test the entry properties. One of these flew south into the Indian Ocean, requiring the modified Il-4 telemetry aircraft to enter rather tricky airspace over Afghanistan.

I have the impression that the single Buran flight was pushed by the program as a way to have something to show for all their work, seeing the handwriting on the wall about the economics of continuing development all the way to a vehicle with workable life-support systems. It would have been either fly the unfinished vehicle to demonstrate its capabilities (plus the never-before-shown ability to fly an automated aerodynamic landing for a spaceplane), or watch it all wither on the vine and never have the world know for sure what they'd accomplished. (But even a brief history of spaceplanes and their political entaglements is a whole article to itself; one that I hope the Griffith Observer will end up publishing...)

[Nicolas]

I knew about the American shuttle orbiter Enterprise not having jet engines, I just wasn't sure whether it was "Enterprise" and not another name ops: . thanks for the info! =D>

I'd like to have some reliable source telling us what is left of all the Buran/Energia hardware at baikonour, just to know.

[AGN Fuel]

One Buran surfaced last year in Bahrein - the same Buran that was on exhibit in Sydney during the Olympics. A technic museum near Karlsruhe claims that they have bought it, but there seems to be some legal struggles as current ownership is unclear.

Harald

As a point of interest, the observatory where I work was offered that Buran as an loaned exhibit on the proviso that all costs associated with moving it were to be met by us. Apparently there had been some sort of foul up (read: liquidation) with the company that had the job of freighting it back to Russia and no-one else wanted to bear the costs.

Given our observatory is many miles in the country through winding narrow roads and given we didn't have a couple of Chinooks handy, we had to pass on the offer. (One of our directors went down to look it over and from what I understood was less than impressed with the state of it).

[Nicolas]

One Buran surfaced last year in Bahrein - the same Buran that was on exhibit in Sydney during the Olympics. A technic museum near Karlsruhe claims that they have bought it, but there seems to be some legal struggles as current ownership is unclear.

Harald

As a point of interest, the observatory where I work was offered that Buran as an loaned exhibit on the proviso that all costs associated with moving it were to be met by us. Apparently there had been some sort of foul up (read: liquidation) with the company that had the job of freighting it back to Russia and no-one else wanted to bear the costs.

Given our observatory is many miles in the country through winding narrow roads and given we didn't have a couple of Chinooks handy, we had to pass on the offer. (One of our directors went down to look it over and from what I understood was less than impressed with the state of it).

When that one arrived in Australia it was in rather good condition. The company that put it there never did anything other than putting some foil over parts to protect it. It stood outside for years. The Buran just rotted away.

[kucharek]

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

[Nicolas]

Buran had ejection seats 8). That mihgt be a bit more practical than having to crawl through the hatch with your parachute?

[Skeelton]

And again, there is no conclusive info on just how many spaceworthy built Burans there are at Baikonour, where they are standing, how far they were finished, whether they were damaged etc.

Delurked and registered just to answer you. Hope you appreciate!

Major information source on Buran program is www.buran.ru
Five orbital planers were ordered to build. Two "first" generation planes designated 1.01, 1.02 and three "second" generation planes designated 2.01, 2.02, 2.03.

1.01
First space plane. Delivered to Baikonur in december 1985. First and sole orbital flight in Nov 15, 1988. Property of Kazakhstan. In Dec 05, 2002 destroyed (together with significant amount of other remaining Energya hardware) by crashed building roof in Baikonur.

1.02
Finished by 95-97% in 1993 (program closed). Property of Kazakhstan. Now located in Baikonur.

2.01
Finished by 30-50%. Until 2004 stored in factory. Sold to some German museum in late 2004.

2.02 and 2.03
Some parts was manufactured but destroyed in factory after program closure.

Other (non-space) items:

BTS-02 GLI
Wooden mockup. Scale 1:1. Presumably naturally decayed and destroyed.

OK-M
Mockup for static tests. Later used for cosmonaut training. Now located in theme park, Moscow.

OK-GLI (BTS-002)
Glider for atmospheric tests.
1999-2001 temporaly located in Australian museum.
2004 reapeared in Bahrain in mystereous cirmcumstances.
Sold to German (Karlsruhe) museum?

OK-ML1
Mockup for transport operations development. Located in Baikonur (as of 2003). Property of Kazakhstan?

OK-ML2
Mockup for pre-start operations development and launch site equipment testing. Located in Baikonur (as of 2003). Property of Kazkhstan?

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

[Nicolas]

=D> I do appreciate it! I saw the whereabouts of the Burans on the recently posted links, but getting things nice and personally served sure is nice 8) .

Of course that post was just some legpulling of mine to draw new members to the board 8-[ yeah right.

Considering the condition of the building the only finished Buran was kept in, I think that it was useless for spaceflight before it got destroyed by the roof collapse already. That "93-97%" orbiter will have had the same or worse decay over the years of less-than-optimal storgae. And as the Buran equipment was sold to Kazachstan, the "conspiracy theory" makes no sense at all. If Russia wanted to sell anything, they'd best have sold the construction details, so the buyer could [try to] build a new one. Of course the Energia Corp won't like their accompanying Energia booster design being sold behind their back.

Too bad they didn't proceed with the project, with a range of orbiters and matching Energia configurations. Such a modular concept might have been a good variant on the space shuttle concept. On the other hand, not having the Buran opens up possibilities to design completely new craft. Let's see what Clipper brings us. A modest project, but one with potential.

[ngc3314]

Buran had ejection seats 8). That mihgt be a bit more practical than having to crawl through the hatch with your parachute?

So did Columbia, until they started to fly crews larger than 2. (The other 5 might have felt odd about letting the pilots be the only ones to have them). Query - was the Buran design such that a sizable crew would have all had individual ejection seats? And did the one flown Buran, and the only one that I know to have actually used that name, have them installed despite lack of life support? That is, does the statement refer to any flown hardware? (Not being argumentative - these are things I don't happen to know and have some interest in...)

[Nicolas]

From what I know of the Buran design, is that it started out with 2 ejection seats, and later had four ejection seats. So that's not the entire crew (it could fly with a crew of 10; max for a US shuttle ever really flown was 8 ). I don't know whether they were installed for the unmanned flight.


JFYI: the largest multiple ejection was the successful use of all 4 ejection seats from a B1-B bomber which crashed off the coast of India some time ago.

I didn't know Columia had ejection seats. I know that the shuttle concept originally (well, in one of the versions) had a truly separate crew section, which could be separated from the rest of the dying craft during launch failures like would happen with an ordinary capsule and escape rocket.

[kucharek]

From what I know of the Buran design, is that it started out with 2 ejection seats, and later had four ejection seats. So that's not the entire crew (it could fly with a crew of 10; max for a US shuttle ever really flown was 8 ). I don't know whether they were installed for the unmanned flight.


JFYI: the largest multiple ejection was the successful use of all 4 ejection seats from a B1-B bomber which crashed off the coast of India some time ago.

I didn't know Columia had ejection seats. I know that the shuttle concept originally (well, in one of the versions) had a truly separate crew section, which could be separated from the rest of the dying craft during launch failures like would happen with an ordinary capsule and escape rocket.

Columbia only had ejection seats during the tests. For the pilots. IIRC, for the first flights with passengers, the ejection seats were disabled and later removed. Would you want to sit in a plane where the pilots have a chance of escape but not the passengers? I'm sure, pilots too wouldn't like it.

[Nicolas]

Well, it is an X-plane.

But I don't think that argument would be accepted by the general public after a crash...

[AGN Fuel]

When that one arrived in Australia it was in rather good condition. The company that put it there never did anything other than putting some foil over parts to protect it. It stood outside for years. The Buran just rotted away.

That to me verges on criminal behaviour.

1999-2001 temporaly located in Australian museum.

For "museum", read "shoved out on a headland overlooking the harbour where it remained exposed to the elements for 2 years". ops:

BTW, welcome to the board Skeelton, and thank you - that was a very informative opening post!

[Nicolas]

When that one arrived in Australia it was in rather good condition. The company that put it there never did anything other than putting some foil over parts to protect it. It stood outside for years. The Buran just rotted away.

That to me verges on criminal behaviour.

1999-2001 temporaly located in Australian museum.

For "museum", read "shoved out on a headland overlooking the harbour where it remained exposed to the elements for 2 years". ops:

BTW, welcome to the board Skeelton, and thank you - that was a very informative opening post!

IN Australia, the Buran had a "shelter". Not that I've ever seen anything justifying that name. Whatever was being called, the shuttle wasn't in a closed or controlled environment. So it sustained all the temperature differences, see air etc with little to no cleaning. Parts of the shuttle looked more green than white after a while. There's a photodoc on its deterioration somewhere on the web. Thank you some corp for buyiong a nice piece of hardware and not spending any money to protect it .

On the most recent pictures I saw of the static testbed in Gorky park, that one looked in better (though far from optimal) shape. Visitors say it looks less like the real shuttle than the australian atmospheric model however.

Finally the testcrat in Baikonour has been standing outside in the Buran safging area ever since the project was cancelled. "there are plans for a permanent and controlled shelter". The thing is completely rotten away of course. What a pty that the most important Buran (the only complete and flown craft) thatwas the "best" protected one at the same time, was destroyed by its protection..

Edit to add:
[url=http://www.airleague.com.au/features/buran.html[/url] shows a light though decent shelter at australia. The pictures I saw of later times had the shuttle rotting away in the open air. Something in the back of my mind says that the corp went bankrupt and the shuttle was moved or something like that. I'll look it up.


The original Buran shelter in Australia.

Those pics of the shelter are from 2000. The company "lost interest" in the Buran. These are pics from 2002:
http://www.meniscus.net/buran/
This makes me so angry. OK it wasn't "the real thing" but if one would buy Enterprise, he should not let go of it befor it is sold to someone who can take care of it. The same goes for Buran. With the real Buran orbiter destroyed, no other orbiter completed, and the other testbed at Baikonour never taken care of anyway, a well preserved Australian Buran would have been the key witness of the project.

[AGN Fuel]

Thanks Nicolas,

http://www.meniscus.net/buran/images...s/IMG_3384.jpg

This photo is how I remember seeing it on the end of a pier overlooking the harbour. I only saw it from a ferry on the harbour, so I didn't see the deterioration close up.

The original shelter in your photo may have been in North Sydney - I seem to remember when it came out originally that it was on display in North Sydney and it must have been moved to the pier after the company went bust.

I can't believe the images of the vandalism. Actually, sadly on reflection, I can.

[Nicolas]

You know, the Concorde preproduction model -not the prototype- (outside exhibit at Orly airport museum) has been sprayed with graffiti multiple times.

That plane usually stands outside, but if needed it is maintained (not in flying condition, but anyway). And of course there are the real Concordes, which are very well preserved in museums now. (2 in Paris, inside a hangar a.o.) The prototypes are well preserved as well.

[Skeelton]

Considering the condition of the building the only finished Buran was kept in, I think that it was useless for spaceflight before it got destroyed by the roof collapse already.

Actually, first Buran condition after flight is great mystery. Many rumors circulate. Also rumors circulate first planer was expendable test item not supposed to fly second time. Initial plan was de-assemble planer to parts for post-flight check.

And as the Buran equipment was sold to Kazachstan, the "conspiracy theory" makes no sense at all.

Not actually "sold". Property division process after Soviet Union breakup was somewhat... misty . AFAIK, Russia allowed Kazakhstan to keep spaceplanes instead of paying cash for Baikonur leasing.

If Russia wanted to sell anything, they'd best have sold the construction details, so the buyer could [try to] build a new one. Of course the Energia Corp won't like their accompanying Energia booster design being sold behind their back.

After Soviet Union breakup Energia and Buran manufacturing was no longer possible. Mostly because Russia decided to concentrate manufacturing of all "strategic" equipment (including all parts) in own territory. Now, new booster (and spaceplane) design from scratch would be much more practical.

[Nicolas]

And as the Buran equipment was sold to Kazachstan, the "conspiracy theory" makes no sense at all.

Not actually "sold". Property division process after Soviet Union breakup was somewhat... misty . AFAIK, Russia allowed Kazakhstan to keep spaceplanes instead of paying cash for Baikonur leasing.

AS far as I know, Russia used to pay Kazachtsan for Baikonour lease, but some years ago they gave the Buran equipment (already at Baikonour) instead of some payments. But the info I found isn't completely clear whether that settlement was done in recent years or on the collapse of the soviet union.

As with all older aerospace equipment, designing a new one is in most cases more practical than rebuilding an old design indeed, as all dedicated equipment, materials etc are gone.

Edit to add: the 95/97% completed Buran Orbiter 1.02 (with life support system) is located at Baikonour. (it is not the plane standing outside). It is probably "somewhere" in storage -or even outside. Older pictures show already many tiles missing.

About BUran 1.01 being damaged on reentry: I find no real source for this; only bulletin boards and a vague Wikipedia note.

[Skeelton]

When that one arrived in Australia it was in rather good condition. The company that put it there never did anything other than putting some foil over parts to protect it. It stood outside for years. The Buran just rotted away.

That to me verges on criminal behaviour.

1999-2001 temporaly located in Australian museum.

For "museum", read "shoved out on a headland overlooking the harbour where it remained exposed to the elements for 2 years". ops:

Anyway, dumping planer in Bahrain like scrap, outside any shelter and unguarded is quite more shocking.
By some russian guys, planer was shiped to Australia with some cockpit equipment, now gone. Presumably "dissapeared" in way from Australia to Bahrain or in Bahrain itself...

BTW, welcome to the board Skeelton, and thank you - that was a very informative opening post!

Thanks

[Nicolas]

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/2-01-02.jpg

OMG this might very well be Buran #2

(I'm looking up further references to the pic)

OK don't panic, if my Spanish serves me well, this is the 35/40% completed orbiter 3 before it was scrapped.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/2-01.htm
Here's a site with pics of the 35% completed orbiter before it was scrapped.

[Skeelton]

About BUran 1.01 being damaged on reentry: I find no real source for this; only bulletin boards.

Actually bulletin boards, informal interviews are often only source about many pieces of Russian/Soviet space program. That is because two reasons: many old-fasioned state-owned corporations care little or none about PR and much space program related information still are formally secret.