The Russian space shuttle program was the largest and most expensive in Soviet space exploration history.

While the Buran and Shuttle look remarkably similar from a distance, and are only a few centimeters different in size, the launch vehicles are quite different.

In several ways, the Buran may have been a safer design than the shuttle. It did its first (and only) test flight autonomously, putting no astronauts at risk. It used only liquid fuel (no segmented solid boosters with their o-rings). And it provided an escape system for all of the astronauts on board. In contrast, the U.S. Space Shuttle, from STS-5 onward had no escape mechanism for the astronauts at the pad or during launch, a unique feature of that program.

That’s where this artifact comes in. The Zvezda K-36RB ejection seat controls were hand activated release levers located between the knees of each astronaut on Buran.

Hatches would oven overhead, and a solid rocket would propel the astronauts away, much like the escape system in Russian fighter jets. The escape system would work at the pad and through launch up through speeds of Mach 3, and then again on reentry were an emergency to occur. The computer controlled five different modes of ejection, to cover the different phases from pre-launch to landing.

The first flight was planned for 1994, with two ejection seats for — Igor Volk (commander) and Aleksandr Ivanchenko (flight engineer). The Soviet Union collapsed instead, and the program was cancelled in 1993.

The purpose of the vehicle was classified but in a recent interview, cosmonaut Oleg Kotov spoke openly:

“It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. A shuttle is particularly useful for this because it can change its orbit and trajectory – so an attack from it is almost impossible to protect against. But the need for such military applications ended.”

15 responses to “Buran Buran”

  1. Here is the setup, and modified for Buran:
    buransuitphoto strizhphoto

    and a test in a cockpit mockup on a rocket sled (to test high speed evacuation):
    Ejection Test from Buran

    A visual comparison and commentary by the Russian side
    Comparison

    Photos from the glory days:
    2029919427_54ee68e886
    2028222513_758d005409
    2027824727_94e8d6f079
    bbur5
    2029034906_d34b3c0cbc_o
    2029787563_7586e6eec9_o
    bbur9
    bbur3
    Buran Orbiter from Wikipedia
    2029409365_e3734747fb
    1366672915_0b79bd75ba
    I also have a flown tile from the one Buran flight.

    And here is a great collection of photos of the Burans in storage.

  2. Those handles look incredibly dangerous.
    They look like "oh sh*t" handles and I think that I would instinctively grab them at take off.

  3. 1 am happy this safety system was considered important
    2 great collection of photos
    3 that pic of the buran in the clouds atop the mriya shows a face 🙂
    4 at least we got the mriya out of it!

  4. Great idea is this "ejection seat" for all space shuttles.
    Just imaging the view of an ejection flight and feeling safer 🙂

  5. Considering MONOGRAM and Revell had 1:72 model kits out in 1978 it would have not been out of the question for the UN SOVIET DIPLOMATS in NYC to goto a HOBBY SHOP and to send a present to one of his party comrades in the Soviet space program so the KIDS can assemble it for play, da???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHrPwZKcYxQ

  6. 1) Insanely crazy that this was built and never pressed into service…cold war space race at peak extravagance.
    2) Amazing how the soviets played close follower (with a few nice mods) in this design – embrace and extend or catch-up scramble?
    3) Something truly incongruous about soviet locomotives pulling that huge space rig out of a hangar!
    4) Why did "the U.S. Space Shuttle, from STS-5 onward [have] no escape mechanism for the astronauts at the pad or during launch"? Cocky? Lazy? Budget?

  7. At least they recouped a few $$ selling souvenirs

  8. Yes, they are fine capitalists!

    [http://www.flickr.com/photos/63152855@N03] bike-R: Hilarious. I wonder how much inner detail that Revell kit had… since the copying went quite deep. I added some Shuttle comparisons in the mouse-over annotations here
    Diagram

  9. NYET!!!! the rumor was that the Russians used the REVELL model kits to reverse engineer the BURAN-ski by enlisting a SWEDISH aerospace firm to scale up the model kits and save time instead of wind tunnel and computer sims of the orbiter and other systems…………the Soviets r respons to WESTERN CLAIMS was aerodynamics was the same on both sides of the IRON CURTAIN ……..yeah, RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbove] – there was a reply to your question 4) on why no escape mechanism for the final Shuttle configurations:

    "Mark Johnson: Remember that the first four flights of the US Space Shuttle also had ejection seats. After that, they were removed, since (a) they could only save two of the crew and (b) their presence chewed up most of a ton of the payload-to-orbit capacity. At the time, NASA said that "since the shuttle is now a proven, operational system, they are no longer needed" – a statement which proved to be horribly misguided, as we all know too well."

    Also, when I met Richard Garriott, he told me why he paid millions to fly Soyuz to the ISS, and would do so again… but would not fly Shuttle even if it was free:

    “The Shuttle costs $300M per astronaut to reach space versus $50M for Soyuz. With each Shuttle flight there is a 1 in 70 chance you will lose the entire crew. Soyuz is 100x safer. With a 1 in 10,000 chance, it’s more dangerous than flying, but it’s acceptable. I would not fly on the Space Shuttle even it were free.”

    I also posted some thoughts on Shuttle safety here:

    The Last Shuttle Roll In
    Now that the program is behind us, let me share what Shana Dale, former Deputy Administrator of NASA, told me with apprehension before the final flights…

  11. Wow and thanks! Reminds me of various wise folks who have taught me: "never underestimate the fragility of complex human organizations and systems." All it takes a tiny bit of drift and you get all sorts of colorful, bizarre, heartbreaking manifestations of the non-ideal.

  12. As for the shuttle ejection seats they were a psychological asset to the first crew members, there was doubt of crew survivability during the solid rocket phase and the re-entry phases guiding a crippled orbiter to a controlled glide path……found the BARBER POLE CONCEPT another stop gap safety measure that really only boosted crew morale and wonder if it really could be implemented …………………………… heres a brief on the POLE and it’s use…SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0278.shtml

  13. Thanks for the info! Feeling safer with the ejection seats 🙂

  14. junvetson…………..NBC news and others have reported they are dismantling shuttle era components along with other relics, you have any pieces on order?????? Can you fit the Rotating Service Structure from the pad in your offices????? makes a neat WET BAR I;d say………… http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/brevard-county/Want-a-l...

  15. I recently heard that the ejection seats that the Shuttle had for STS 1 through 5 were removed because the lucky two up front refused to fly with an ejection option and decision when it was not available for all on board. STS-1 has a crew of 2, so the issue came up later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *