Comments on: The Big Picture: Baikonur

By: Links and Video of the Week (2008/40) :: cimddwc

Links and Video of the Week (2008/40) :: cimddwc — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:18:08 +0000

[...] Phantastic photos from the Baikonur space center (via Bad Astronomy). [...]

By: mdmadph

mdmadph — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:02:59 +0000

You know, IANAL, but if your site doesn’t qualify for an education-based “Fair-Use” exemption under copyright law, I don’t know what does. Go ahead and post whatever picture you want — even if it is copyrighted, the worst they can do at first is just ask you to take it down.

By: Aleksandar

Aleksandar — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:51:49 +0000

Buran was a sad story. Engineers created a dozen better proposals, but the party leadership ordered a system as close to US space shuttle as possible, to prevent any rumors and PR stories about Soviet hardware being inferior coming from them adopting some other system.

But they still managed to do it much better by making Energia the launch vehicle and Buran just the payload. Zenith/Energia combos and derivations could have been used in configurations with payload capacities from 10 tons to 150 tons. Using similar hardware for all your launchers would have eventually cut down the price, and they had plans for first stage and boosters reusability.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:12:51 +0000

Larian,

A lot of the older tech stuff was way over-engineered in the days when sliderules and simple computers were the rule.

For instance, the 707s that my unit flies were designed in the 50s and built in the 60s. Heavy for their size, but they never break.

By: KVT

KVT — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:11:23 +0000

You know politics and people’s personal beliefs of Russia aside, you gotta admit that the Soviet program created a lot of firsts. Aside from the first satellite, animal, man, and woman in space there were plenty of other notable firsts. But more importantly, the Soviets pioneered long term space travel and the use of space as a place of research with the Salyut space stations (of which there were 6, I believe) and subsequently Mir (which served the USSR, Russia, and the US for 10 years). Meanwhile the Proton launch vehicle is one of the most reliable in the world today. And Soyuz and its sister craft, the robotic Progress, not only launched the more astronauts than any other craft but helped keep the ISS going while the shuttles were grounded after Discovery.

I guess I’m just saying that you gotta give the Russians credit for doing all of this without all the niceties that NASA has…like money : P

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:34:14 +0000

You’d think by now they would have cleared out all the old Buran stuff, particularly since they obviously aren’t bothering to take care of it or anything.

Maybe they’re just not as concerned as NASA with having a photogenic launch site.

By: justcorbly

justcorbly — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:43:18 +0000

GloomyGus:

It irks me when people blame “NASA’s blunders” for things like the upcoming Shuttle gap. It is not NASA’s fault that the Shuttle is retiring five years before Ares flies Blame Bush for that. He gave NASA additional tasking — return to the Moon and prepare for Mars — with no increase in budget. The money had to come from somewhere. If it wasn’t the Shuttle getting the chop, it might have the robotic planetary exploratin program. If you don’t want the gap, call Washington and tell them to send more money to NASA.

Shane:

I may be wrong, but I do not believe Russia has developed any fundamentally new vehicles or spacecraft since the fall of the USSR. They have continued to refine hardware inherited from the Soviets, often with NASA money and assistance, but the Soyuz vehicle and capsule seen in these photos could be seen 25 years ago.

The Buran:

If memory serves, one vehicle flew on one unpiloted one-orbit flight before the program was cancelled.