Talk:Buran (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Image:Buran landing.jpg
frame|This image depicts a LII's MiG-25PU 2-seat trainer escorting the Buran at touchdown.

Interesting thing: the fore cockpit is taken by Sergey XXX (under another name), camera operator (now working for "Wings of Russia" studio), the aircraft was under control of Magomet Tolboev.

There is a 7.5M AVI with russian comments

An intersting moment was the turnover of the MiG to compensate a miss of ground guidance - it was performed by stalling the MiG in a spin for 1/2 roll (just because the MiG-25 was not too maneurable at all and even worse at the topmost altitude). --jno 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a great photo, but I don't think the copyright tag is accurate. --Guinnog 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not my photo, I've just added this comment which can be of interest for historicans and funs. --jno 10:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Designation
Isn't 1K1 the flight and the orbiter 1.01? User:Tom walker 16:11 GMT 17 July 2006
 * In general, 1K1 is a GRAU index for the entier type (or class) of identical units, while 1.01 is a unit... --jno 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Back-up landing strip in Czechoslovakia?
Several Czech sites claim that back-up landind strip for Buran was made at airfield Hradčany in military area Ralsko, that was used by the Soviet army in the 1980s. Can anybody verify that? JanSuchy 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thermal Management
I heard in a training class on creative thinking that the BURAN shuttle had an interesting thermal management strategy to protect itself from the intense heat of reentry. Whereas the US Shuttle system used expensive carbon composite panels, which were fragile and led to the destruction of the Columbia craft, the BURAN used a simpler solution. Apparently the underside was covered with cork, when the shuttle reentered a great deal of heat was generated, but with little oxygen that high up the cork didn't burn but carbonised, this carbon layer then acted as a thermal barrier to protect the craft. When it landed the carbonised cork was to be chipped away and a new layer added for the next use. I haven't been able to find any sources for this but would like to find out if its true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.246.132.26 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * In short - NO. Buran used the same expensive and complex TPS as Space Shuttle; the belly is some sort of carbon composite, not cork. I know that the Soviet TPS was different in some details (like extra thermal protection in some places, also computer-designed tile placing), but, in general, is similar to American Space Shuttle. Most sources for this is in Russian, like www.buran.ru and www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru DFighter100 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable First?
"Another prototype was acquired by the German Sinsheim Auto & Technik Museum in 2004, and is currently in transit, to the museum, where it will become the world's first genuine space shuttle to be exhibited to the general public." - is this claim verifiable? As above, there is no record of the Buran being used in a man-rated space mission, and secondly, what constitutes a "genuine space shuttle"? If that means "reusable man-rated space vehicle", then surely the accolade goes to Spaceship One at the Smithsonian? It's certainly not the first used space vehicle, man-rated or otherwise, to be exhibited. Or have they been conned by a used-capsule salesman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevedix (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even without SpaceShipOne, the Udvar-Hazy Center, part of the Smithsonian Air&Space Museum, has the American space shuttle Enterprise on display.--66.75.48.94 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Enterprise never went to space eigher, however it was technically capable for space flight (heat shield). Speyer aquired OK-GLI/0.02 which was a flight/glide test mock-up. It's actually not realy listed as an orbiter, hence not spaceworthy. Buran (OK-1k1) was spaceworthy (how surprising ;-) ) and actually in space (unmanned), even if her life support never got completed. But I think the article highly exagerates the role of OK-GLI. However compared to Enterprise it flew with it's own engine power.--89.60.193.143 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Buran or not Buran
I removed the Future Home section as it belongs to OK-GLI not to Buran. Actually this sutt is already in OK-GLI so it seems obsolete. I add a copy here in case some missing details should be moved to OK-GLI.--89.60.194.214 (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Future home

 * Section source: Speyer

OK-GLI was loaded onto a ship on the 4 March, 2008. During the transfer from the storage barge to the ship there was a failure of the aft spreader and the tail of the shuttle dropped from deck height into the hold. Fortunately, no-one was hurt and both the ship and shuttle seemed to suffer only minor damage. The shuttle was then transported to the Dutch port of Rotterdam. There it was transferred to a barge for further transport to Germany by means of river transit. On 7 April 2008, the orbiter was transported by barge along the river Rhine to the museum in Speyer, near Mannheim.

Buran 2.01
Here are some sources on the Buran 2.01: --AtonX (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-modele-201.php completed to 30-50% by 1993,
 * moved to a car park in October 2004,
 * http://englishrussia.com/?p=2006#more-2006 still rotting there in July 2007.

Proposed merge
The proposed merge of Buran (spacecraft) and Buran program wouldn't be enough; it would also be necessary to merge Ptichka (spacecraft), Shuttle 2.01, Shuttle 2.02, Shuttle 2.03, OK-GLI, BOR-5 and probably BOR-4; then Buran program could be deleted. I'm personally not opposed to the idea; they could probably be better combined into a single, concise "Buran program" article. I'd think it'd need to be well cited though, so editors would have a leg to stand on when trying to maintain the article by removing the trivia and rumors that would bloat the article over time; unfortunately, reliably sourced info on the Soviet space program is hard to come by. Without a bit of "discipline" the article would soon become a disorganized inconsistent mess.

So it would be a lot of work, and I'm not volunteering to do it. I would encourage anyone interested in doing the work to discuss it here, or just do it. But without any (visible) movement on the idea, the merge templates on top of the articles serve little purpose; I'm removing them. jhf (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerial View
On Google earth, a distinctly shuttle shaped object can be clearly seen at Baikonur Cosmodrome at 45.91944°N, 63.31°W (the facility has evidently been very heavily photographed from orbit, and structures such as the N-1 flame pits and and R-7 pad 1 show up quite well). Does anyone know if this is a Buran, and if so, does it merit mention on the page, perhaps under trivia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.221.53 (talk • contribs).


 * That is very interesting information, maybe there is shown Shuttle Ptichka or one of Mock-ups, but regrettably can not be mentioned because of WP:NOR. Feel free to found this information somewhere outside wiki, then can be added. --Jklamo 14:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Photos of OK-M here, http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-modele-m-exterieur.php (More photos under the OK-M submenu in the margin on the left of the page.) (Weirpwoer (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC))


 * It's a full-scale model built for testing launch pad equipment, recently moved to museum.

Real cockpit is planned to be created inside. http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=2104

Nice Buran pictures on dutch wiki
see dutch (nederlands) wiki for nice buran pictures

There's some good info there too, here's the link. --Craigboy (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Russian military" to "Soviet military" etc.
Please do not use "Russian" as a synonym for "Soviet" because it refers to the time when Russian Federation was a part of the Soviet Union. In the 80th the "Soviet military" could not be "Russian military" (consisted not only of ethnic Russians), just as "Soviet territory" was not only "Russian territory"(territory of Russian Federation within the Soviet Union) and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.99.254.253 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And you are absolutely correct, too. Good work!  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed image of structural test vehicle OK-TVA
Removed this image: If someone needs it for the OK-TVA article, it can be found here. Tony Mach (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lunched from???
Were did it lunch from, I cant find it any were??Chris H 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If not mistaken, Buran went to McDonald's for lunch. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the Buran probably lifted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, where it landed. I'm guessing this is where the Buran lifted off, 'cause the American shuttles lift off and land at the same place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, launched! Well, after it got back from lunch, it launched from Baikonur.  It also landed at Baikonur.  However, they don't have to launch and land at the same facility.  The American Space Shuttle doesn't necessarily do this for every mission.  The most recent Atlantis mission launched at Kennedy, but landed at Edwards.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the first several shuttle landings were all 2-3 time zones away from the launch sites. Originally, all launches were in Florida (at Kennedy), but the first landings were at Edwards (California); the second site to be used was White Sands (New Mexico).  Kennedy landings came third.71.109.145.205 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lunched from Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 110, built for the N1 moon rocket and reused for Buran/Energia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.88.130 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To be precise, 110/37 (L) was used, and 110/38 (R) was the alternate. Both were used for other Soyuz launches, and 38 was used for N1 launches.

Stop calling Buran a space shuttle
Buran is not a space shuttle, especially when using caps like Space Shuttle. Space Shuttle is an American vehicle. I think it is permissible to use phrases like "the Russian Space Shuttle" in a somewhat denigrating attempt to point out that Buran is a derivative of the Space Shuttle. But I find it improper to, say, sign a photo of Buran's landing as "Buran Space Shuttle landing bla-bla-bla". The Buran is not a Space Shuttle! I am going to edit this page to remove usage of "space shuttle" expression especially in capitalized form, unless it it used to show the similarity between the two orbiters. Mikus (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on capitalization - "Space Shuttle", capitalized, is a proper noun that should only refer to the US vehicle. However, whether "space shuttle", in lowercase, is a suitable generic term for this type of vehicle is something that we should discuss further.  Buran is the same basic concept as the US Space Shuttle, and shares a similar appearance, and so "space shuttle" seems a suitable generic term.  Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So if "Space Shuttle" is the "proper" name of the US spacecraft, then how come all the missions were called  STS-nnn  which supposedly means "Space Transportation System" ?  Isn't that actually the official american name ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed on using "space shuttle" in its lower-case form. "Space Shuttle" is the popular name for the US spaceplane (its technical name is Space Transportation System), but both systems are designed as reusable spacecraft, hence "space shuttles". Axeman (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We could call it something else. But we'd have to remove any photographs or diagrams. Clearly it's a space shuttle that was built in Russia without the trouble of gaining a licence. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite. There are some significant differences between the American and Soviet designs, though they are both "space shuttles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program#Comparison_to_NASA_Space_Shuttle Axeman (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They refined the design. But it's not like the huge differences between (say) Soyuz and Apollo. Reusable winged space vehicles from a common origin. --Pete (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there are some pretty significant differences, such as the the fact that the Space Shuttle contains the main engines of the STS, whereas the Buran Orbiter is merely a payload for the Energia rocket. Essentially, the Space Shuttle is both a rocket and a spacecraft, but Buran is not. There are other differences, as well, at the above link. Axeman (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The differences don't exclude a common starting point. The visible similarities in the 2 designs are awfully similar to have been totally coincidental. Given the Soviet's track record of espionage, it's highly doubtful there was not some "borrowing" involved. While the Soviets were totally capable of developing their own designs, they never had a problem using other designs as starting points either. The only complete copy they made was the Tu-4 copy of the B-29, and that caused enough design problems that they never did it that way again. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading the comments and looking up Russian space shuttle, the Energia Corporation defined the Buran shuttle is a "space shuttle", how can you not call it a space shuttle. It is not a copy of the US space shuttle either. The Russians had designed blue prints on their space shuttle dating back to 1959, the US stole the Russians idea and of their old design and went for it but besides that, both the US shuttles and Russian shuttles, they're both space shuttles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.55.233 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Copied from Columbia
It is worth mentioning that the Buran space shuttle was a re-engineered Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.63.121 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can cite an authority saying so. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cross-Article inconsistencies about Buran's destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_cosmodrome

That article, about the Cosmodrome that houses Buran, says it has been "restored" and is on display with interactive exhibits. This article says the building housing Buran collapsed and it was "destroyed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.77.142 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It (OK-1K1) was destroyed. A number of other test articles have been refurbished and are on display, one in preparation in Moscow, one in Germany, one in Moscow at air shows, one at Baikonur and another two preserved there. The Gorky Park shuttle is refurbished and on display at the Moscow Exhibition Center. Of those, two are mostly completed flight articles.  See the table in the article. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed Baikonur page. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Where's the real Buran shuttle now?
I've read in Malaysian newspapers, and their saying that the Buran will be displayed in the Malaysian International Aerospace Exhibition on the 5th of June to the 7th of August. Is this true? Is the Buran the original Buran?
 * I think not, it will be likely OK-GLI. --Jklamo 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming that by the "real" one, you merely mean the one that flew into space, then it is destroyed, as the article states. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state that it was actual flight hardware. 7/9/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.169.86.178 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be some info here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7738489.stm --Hfodf (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was -GL1, but much happened after leaving Sydney and reaching the destination - namely, the titular owners bankrupted and then wound up in court over ownership. Meanwhile, Bahrain claimed it since it was on a Bahrain registered ship.  It languished in Manama harbor for 5 years before the original Russians managed to get their claim certified, and they immediately sold it to the Technikmuseum in Speyer, Germany.  Sorry, Malaysia. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Destruction section
According to the BBC the Buran was destroyed in 2002. Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1985631.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.31.136.131 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link/reference. Interestingly, the article doesn't specify which of the Burans was destroyed. From the article:
 * "the collapse of the giant hangar housing a version of the Buran space shuttle comes after"
 * "And now Buran's hanger, with a model of the ill-fated space shuttle inside it, has collapsed killing several workers. The result of neglect, it is being reported."
 * Another BBC article is also fairly indefinite - "One Buran spacecraft - reportedly the only one of the three built to have flown in space - was inside the building."
 * Googling in general, Space.com says "A full-scale test model of the Buran was trapped beneath debris after Sunday's collapse"
 * Spaceflight Now says "Also damaged or destroyed in the accident was one of the three mothballed Buran space shuttles."
 * Does anyone know of a reference which states that it was definitely the Shuttle Buran, and not a Shuttle Buran, that was destroyed? Mike Peel 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm rephrasing this until evidence is presented that this was THE shuttle Buran Pubuman 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to, the destroyed orbiter was in fact the 1.01, which was the vehicle that had flown.
 * — I've heard that the Buran which had flown into space was not properly cooled just after its landing and was subject to severe deformations which rendered it unusable for the next flight. The information made its way to me from Baikonur verbally, so I cannot cite a printed source. A rumor, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.204.21 (talk • contribs)
 * — I do not understand why is on this page photos of a shuttle with letters "Baikal" - it was the third model, model 1.01 had "Buran" written on an exterior. Not sure if this page should be taken seriously. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Baikal" was 1.01's original name. It was changed to Buran a few weeks before its launch, when it was realized that burns on the shuttle's body could change Baikal to several unfortunate references (kal, for instance, translates as crap).  After Buran flew, they realized the fears were unfounded; he burns were elsewhere. That story is from buran-energia.com. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * After reading this WP article, I find that it is difficult to parse "Buran" from the other Buran vehicles, one is left without a clear idea how many were made (there were 11 including mockups and unfinished versions). "Buran" is treated as a proper noun, but they called all of their vehicles "Buran", singling each of them out by an ID system (OK-TVI, OK-1.01, OK-1.02, etc).  In this WP article, showing "Buran" in italics implies a specific vehicle, such as "Space Shuttle - Discovery", when it in fact refers to many.  Just something to think about. Fjbfour 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Soviets were always leary of naming things with security consequences. They named only their industrial atomic tests, never (well, almost never) their military ones. They had a hell of a time naming their huge space complex; Baikonur is the name of a mining town a hundred miles away; the local railroad town is Tyurantam. They refused to name the new cities they created with security purposes.  It must have been maddening. Buran is indeed officially only the name of one spacecraft, but the use of Buran as a program name and as a generic name for the Soviet shuttle spacecraft is almost universal (see Buran programme, for instance). SkoreKeep (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Buran resurrection - have a look here http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/articleslideshow?articleId=USL0749777920080407&channelName=scienceNews#a=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.199.153 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How much correctly to use this source (reference 8): "Whitehouse, David (2002-05-13). "Russia's space dreams abandoned" bbc.co.uk (BBC). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1985631.stm. Retrieved 2007-11-14." I have read to become and I have seen in this article many gloating, spite. Check up a source neutrality 7prosecutor7 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Buran that was at Amusement Park in Moscow?
I know that, for a long time, there was a "Buran" attraction at an amusement park in Moscow (Gorkovo? Tsaritsino? not sure..). The one time that I was there, the attraction was closed. I remember thinking that the space shuttle displayed looked like a fake attraction rather than a real shuttle, although I believe it was the correct size. Looking at the pictures on this site, however, what I saw may have been the real shuttle. I'm tempted to say this was either in the summer of 2001 or 2002, though perhaps it was earlier, in 1999 or even 1997. Since the shuttle was destroyed in 2002, it must have been removed from the park before that point if it was indeed the real shuttle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.242.121 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, this was what I saw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OK_TVA_Gorky_Park.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.242.121 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gorky park shuttle was the OK-TVA structural test article. It never had tiles on it, for instance. They were painted on. That shuttle was moved in July 2014 to the Moscow Exhibition Centre. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Two surviving shuttles found?!
I dont know if these are the same shuttles or not, but from what i can gather in the photos, these two shuttles that these Urban Explorers have found appear to be Buran shuttles. Correct me if im wrong, but im not aware of any other shuttles that the Soviets had worked on. I was led to believe (as this article suggests) that the last example was destoryed some time around 1993 when the roof of the building housing the (last remaining) shuttle collapsed on the shuttle and destroyed it. So im interested to know what these shuttles are from if they are indeed not part of the Buran program itself. See http://www.unilad.co.uk/crazy/urban-explorer-finds-lonely-remains-of-soviet-shuttle-program/ --Nzoomed (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They are the two of the three shuttles/mockups remaining at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, given to Kazakhstan when the Russians withdrew. They are the second flight-ready shuttle OK-2K1 (the first was destroyed as you say) and a mockup named OK-MT. The third shuttle stood on an outdoor pad until 2007, then was refurbished and is on the grounds of the Baikonur space museum.  See the table in the article for data on all known Soviet shuttle remains.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth now, the test article stored in Bahrain was the OK-GLI atmospheric test article. It was displayed at the Sydney, Australia, Olympics, spent time stored there while various owners fought over it, was being shipped when it came ashore in Bahrain and was confiscated until the lawsuits were settled (eventually in the favor of the Russian builder), and was thence bought and shipped to the Speyer museum in Germany where it is today on display.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Buran (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215094534/https://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/buran.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What about the suspiciously shuttle copy like look of the buran?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * This discussion has nothing to do with improvements to the article, and article talk pages are not forums for general discussion about the article's subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

whats going on there? espionage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.246.7 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The systems are completely different. While Space Shuttle uses its own engines for thrust, Buran is lifted by the Energia rocket.--Dojarca 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

c'mon. Small details about thrust origin mask the fact that this spacecraft is such a ripoff. It should be said to the credit of the Soviets that they had the sense to scrap the programme before spending as much as NASA has to date.

How many Soviet defenders are out there to fight vociferously for this?

Unfortunately, the set of citeable articles discussing the copycat nature of Buran should be few in number, and they are probably all in violation of NPOV for inclusion in Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.119.242 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The dates of Enterprise flights vs Burans combined with the pictures clearly indicate that their design was inspired by ours, but I don't think NASA could sue the USSR for violation of copyright law. Jon (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Shuttle, like Concorde (which Tupolev built a version of, which went straight into the ground, in front of huge crowds at an air show) wasn't a truly "secret" design, so it was easy for the Soviets to copy, unlike say the Stealth Fighter. 82.153.230.138 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the Concordski flew before the Concorde and didn't have that many similarities with it. Arguing that it was a copy is much like arguing that the Tu-160 was a copy of the B1 when in fact the Tu-160 was a Concordski redesigned for military applications. Also ... the 'stealth fighter' or rather the F-117 was loosely based on an early 1960's aircraft design by a Soviet radar theorist which was rejected by Mig as 'not aerodynamic enough to fly'. Differing kinds of thrust also do indicated MASSIVE rifts in designs. Its often assumed that because 2 designs appear somewhat similar visually that they are copies. However often similar design conclusions are made OR the same design conclusions are used by both sides ... often from a third party from decades earlier meaning that the aircrafts look similar but operate in different ways.--122.107.233.189 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy or not, can one really claim that this was a "fully completed and operational space shuttle" as this article does? It appears to have been a primative test vehicle with no capability of supporting a human crew which would seem to be a requirement to be a space shuttle. You might be able to claim it was an aerodynamic prototype or a unmanned test vehicle for a space shuttle, but certainly neither "fully completed" or "operational".... jmdeur 13:56 4 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 (talk)

The general size and aerodynamic shape of the Soviet orbiter was copied from the US shuttle, but I haven't seen documentation to show that any additional systems or layouts were copied. The Encyclopedia article states that the Soviet shuttle was heavily influenced by the US Shuttle, it should state that the shape of the Soviet orbiter was copied from the US version. Gkamfan (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good solution to me. Feel free to change it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aerodynamically, Buran was a straight copy. However, the fact the engines were located on the stack not the orbiter, the fact it had 4 liquid fueled boosters instead of 2 solids, made it a very distinct system. There are only so many shapes that can survive slamming into the atmosphere at 8km/s - so it shouldn't be surprising that manned spacecraft from different countries look similar. GrampaScience (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How many ways can you reinvent the wheel? Everything in the USSR, from cars to telephones to couches and overcoats, looked more or less similar to the same items in the U.S.  Does that mean everything that was made in the USSR was copied through espionage and stolen? --Ericdn (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A better analogy would be the shapes of airplanes produced by different countries. There is a great deal of variety among them because every engineering effort is a compromise between competing priorities and enormously dependent on the stylistic senses of the individuals involved. The similarity of the two shuttles' shapes is far too close to have been arrived at independently.70.22.98.161 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The text of the order given to NPO Molniya to build Buran might shed some light on the subject, if indeed it was ever written down. Was Molniya charged to build a spacecraft with "equivalent capabilities" to the US Shuttle, or something like that? It would have behooved the designers to copy the US Shuttle's configuration in that case; no one could blame them for delivering what was requested. Something like that would make an interesting addition to the article. Good luck finding it though! jhf (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that the Soviet engineers wanted a smaller and very different design from that of the us space shuttle, but that the leaders wanted to go for a design that looked very similar to the american one, for some reason. Maybe they didn't want a smaller space shuttle because it would look less spectacular. Size was important. However the Buran was far safer than the american shuttle system, due to the liquid fuel boosters, among other things. As has been pointed out already, the fact that the two shuttles look very similar is not nearly enough to say that one is a copy of the other. Looks can be decieving, as they are in this case. Source: http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/A_Comparison/a_comparison.html 83.108.109.129 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that Buran is a complete copy of the Shuttle. They are saying that the aerodynamic design and shape of the orbiter is an obvious copy of the shuttle orbiter. In fact, the source link you provided says the same thing: "At first glance, it would appear as if the U.S Shuttle and Buran-Energia are quite similar, and in many ways, they are. The Buran was, after all, based on the American space shuttle design. On a purely visual level the two shuttles look almost identical, their sizes are little more than centimetres apart." AmateurEditor (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aerodynamics is like powder formula - too much derivation from optimal composition and it won't work. 70.27.65.205 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The shuttle was far from aerodynamically optimal. It was an awkward design compromise between different and competing priorities (astronauts who have piloted it say it flies "like a brick"). The Soviets definitely made the right decision not to pursue that design further than they did. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an awkward design compromise between different and competing priorities. So was Buran. 70.27.65.205 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Now what do you think the odds are that two very different teams of people (with different technical capabilities and design philosophies), facing the many decisions required to accommodate those competing priorities, will each independently arrive at such a notably poor aerodynamic profile for the orbiter portion of their systems such that the two are "little more than centimetres apart", while those same two teams will also both face exactly the same scenario of competing priorities and differing capabilities/philosophies for every other part of their two systems and yet arrive at vastly different design solutions? Don't you think it is just a bit more likely that one of those two identical aerodynamic profiles is derived from the other, considering that the design is far from optimal and that one preceded the other by a significant amount of time and in a very public manner? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't make myself clear about the chemistry parallel - if someone discovers the most efficient rocket fuel formula the whole world is going to copy it as standard. And yet arrive at vastly different design solutions? Shuttle's design "was a compromise between different conflicting priorities" - your comment on why it had bad aerodynamics. But didn't Buran had the same tactical role? It was even planned to be retrofitted with external jet engines for flights in the atmosphere. 70.27.65.205 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Obviously the Space Shuttle is a copy of the Buran. The Americnas are well known for copying the aircraft of other nations, such as the Boeing 727 (Trident), Bell X-1 (Miles M.52). Just ask any Brit. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, if I was a Brit and Americans copied two of our designs, I'd be here accusing them with you. If anything, I'd be demanding credits for their national language! 70.27.65.205 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Another note
"Although the Soviet designers tried to come up with an alternative look, wind tunnel tests soon revealed that NASA had done its job well and the Shuttle was already the best shape for the job." -Spaceflight by Giles Sparrow. I'm adding this to the article. Also, just because the Shuttle is hard for the pilot to steer doesn't mean it's aerodynamically inefficient. Kbog (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is well documented that the Space Shuttle planform was optimized for the high crossrange needs of the US Air Force. If it had been designed by NASA without this requirement, the US shuttle would have looked very different.  This fact alone shoots a major hole in Sparrow's statement. (unsigned IP)
 * Where are your Reliable Sources for this well-documented statement?104.169.18.61 (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Aerodynamically, Buran was a straight copy." That is GrampaScience's quote.  This article needs a solid reference so that this info can be properly added to the article.  For now, I've added Reverse engineering to the See also section.  There is a VERY LONG history to the Soviets' copying of aerospace designs.  Buran/Shuttle is a big part of that history.--Concord hioz (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian Buran space shuttle to be used again
For those Russian Buran shuttle fans, well looks like the Russian government is planning on bringing back the Russian Buran space shuttle back to it's original use again. Buran will be used again to fly back into Space to the ISS as NASA soon will terminate its last 3 shuttle missions, Russia will decide when to bring Buran back for a test flight again. Since Russia built 13 Russian space shuttles, 3 of them are ready to fly yet the Energia Buran space launch ]ad has to be reconditioned after 18 years as the Russians plan to re-use and refinish the launch pad again. I am planning an update to the main Buran article so I am making this edit now until I add the facts to the main page. If anyone has any comments, please post it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk • contribs)


 * I find nothing to support that claim in reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is some sources here: Soviet Era Space Shuttle Could Bail Out NASA 2009 Soviet space shuttle could bail out NASA 2009

I got another source from Russia itself http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2008-11-15/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.102.234 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not particularly convincing at this point. There's been talk of resurrecting Buran for years from what I can tell.  Unless I see reporting on more concrete actions in this direction, I think we should take a pass on this.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur, as that article is from April, 2009, almost a year ago now, and we've seen nothing from reliable sources. There are plenty of falsehoods in that article, especially the part about the Buran program being terminated before they could use it to retreive Skylab. IIRC, Skylab crashed in 1979, while the Buran progtam was terminated in 1993! Not a reliable source at all. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know Russia Today News is an official international news media - if you view their website there so much updated information on there going on around the world and particularly Russia that I am believing the resource facts are good valid points to post here if the Russia gov't is bring Buran back. I peronally would like to see the Buran page updated with this news feed as NASA is very soon losing it's space shuttle program where the US president has got Congress to fund the Russians to drum up the Buran shuttle again in switch to get the Russian's to put pressure on Iran to lift their Russian nuclear power plant on hold in Iran since the US seems to be complaining about all the time. There is no doubt something going on in Russia and the Soviet Buran Space Shuttle by what I can tell. Good job by bringing this up by the way, if I hear of anything too I will post it here. You have my support to post these sources on Buran's page as we should update this information for our viewers guys.--64.69.155.2 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is starting to drift off into conspiracy theories now, and also contrary to reliable, published sources. It's not getting added.  End of story.  No amount of "you have my permission" comments will change that.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to say, something seemed fishy about that article, but I couldn't exactly put my finger on it. I'm going to agree with BilCat that this is a non-reliable source, and therefore can't be used.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that interesting because these are real sources ([(they are not Blogs)]) and I disagree as I think we need to edit the article with a possible Buran re-mission possiblity but also adding more sources including the ones above. Here is another source on NASA ready to fund Buran space shuttle program


 * and here as NASA is admitting it here the need for Russia space transport as Russia has admitted back in 2004 reloading the Buran Energia is much more affective than building another one and January 2010 Obama saying to use other counter parts for cargo transport, Russia. What Russian heavy cargo space rocket can work to forfill heavy loads and enough people to the International Space Station? The Russian shuttle. So I am adding the source is valid and should be edited in for new sources as needed.


 * At least half of those articles don't even mention Buran in them. And the others go into the same territory of what we've already discussed and determined to take a pass on.  Besides, even if the Buran program were to be reactivated, they certainly would not be using the subject of this article, which is a vehicle that was destroyed in a hangar collapse eight years ago. (Talk) 12:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I say add it in as nothing has been said with anything new on this topic for a while. If the person made 2 links with 2 stories of related information on the Buran flying again then it should be posted on here. I am not buying your comments SchuminWeb either as I don't understand your contributions on the Buran shuttle. The news is pretty thorough on the story and I like it myself too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk)


 * The problem is that the story is at least a year old, and probably more, but there have been no independent corraborative stories found since that time. This isn't a minor event, and one would expect to have heard more on this in the past 11 months. Smells like a hoax, or at least a trial balloon. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In all it can be used as an article link for the time being on the main page, my main idea was to write a small paragraph on the main page to enlighten the story with some good news on the Buran flying again. We cannot cast out the story and I sort of concur with 24.205.229.51 in that nothing has really been posted for sometime regarding anything on the Buran. Look if the Buran is going to fly again or whatever again, there is only a some story I will admit that and I don't think we should discredit it at all but leave it as open discussion and post the article link only. If Russia Today publishes a news video, it is international news just like CNN is. I will dig out some more sources on it to see if there is any light information to this story to add to the mix by writing to several space agencies. I would like to see the Buran fly again and only one Buran vehicle was destroyed in May 2002, not all of the Buran shuttles - there is still 12 of them left, 3 are in other hangers protected and 4 are half built. I have been to Cosmodrome Baikonur before but not all of the Russian shuttles are viewable to the public, the Russian space agency is very top secret but the Soyuz lauches are open to the public and very impressive, you can get closer to the launches then in Florida. When the Russian discussion on the new story came in January on the Russian 5th generation Sukhoi Pak-FA T50 jet that also was long talked about for 10 to 15 years but as no one was really believing the Russian's were going to built a better plane than the famous F-22 as it was talk many years of waiting and now it is officially announced information. The Buran shuttle come back should be in our minds until maybe till next year or 3 years till Energia and probably NASA make that announcement to fly Buran again, there is some if's on it still. Like the Russian's they like to kept their military information secret and I respect that. For now the Russia Today News link is just a slight info link of the bringing of the story and I will post more to come. I also want to mention that the NASA links I provided about were not to say the Buran info was in them but to admit that NASA is completely broke and seeking a space cargo transport, which maybe the Buran shuttle, maybe, ok.--71.95.140.176 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

-I second amend that argument if you have provided the source on a remaking movement on the Soviet Space shuttle with backup sources then I am all for it as you have two that are really good yet more will help your case. Just go ahead and see if you can get a little more data I will support to post it. Obviously it is something useful to editor where as those video clips have a hand full backup to use already, thanks. --64.69.155.2 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true the Indian government wants to partner with the Russian's & Chinese to go to Mar's but the Indians what a big part of the ISS. If money is going to the Russian's build Buran shuttles back in service then a lot of the money may come from India to get them back in service again. Regardless if the RT clip is 9 months old it does state the facts of the US having no space or any transport service to get there. Congress denied any funding NASA asked for but not a foreign shuttle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of bringing back Buran has absolutely no ground. The orbiters, the launch vehicles, the ground systems, the control systems have all been destroyed to one or another extent. Buran cannot be brought back into operation even if the Russians wanted. So much technology, knowledge, equipment and people is lost. This was a classic trolling, no wonder its author did not sign his comment. Everybody, relax. Mikus (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And seven years later, no Buran activity. The Russian Federation was occupied by more earthly matters in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, etc.104.169.18.61 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bourane 1.01 détruite.jpg

Using Space Shuttle data for Buran design
The last issue of "Novosti Kosmonavtiki" magazine (the magazine is closed now), December 2018, has an article on works on Buran after its flight, and some other program history. The article includes the following parts:

"At the conception, Buran was a complete copy of the Shuttle, but then during design it went more and more away from it, becoming itself, and eventually surpassed the American ancestor by almost all measures. And the spacecrafts of "additional series" were to be the best of them all - units 2.01, 2.02 and 2.03. In the very first variant, in the first half of 1975 our reusable space system wasn't similar to American shuttle. The core of the system was central rocket module of second stage with 3 main rocket engines, which carried on the side a winged orbital plane with no engines and two rocket boosters with a 4-chamber liquid engine on each. At creation "Integrated rocket space program", sent by NPO Energiya to the government in 1975, "pendulum swang" towards the Shuttle, and second version of the Soviet shuttle, named OS-120 (Orbitalnyi samolet - 120 tons) was already its complete analog. [...] However it was understood soon, that such an analog is too problematic for the Soviet Union... Designers' search lead to the next variant of our reusable space systems - it was project OK-92, made as a Technical note of January 9, 1976. [...] Until our days miraculously survived a unique document - overview blueprint of the Shuttle orbital stage, which was used as the base for designing our reusable orbital spaceship.[...]"

Briefly, there was both some data on Shuttle and decision to copy it, as well as necessity to complete what was missing and attempts to make better in all possible smaller places. Avmich (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What did it weigh
We should mention its mass. Important also as it was the payload of the 2nd Energia launch. - Rod57 (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I took the "technical specifications" section from the Buran Program page and copied it here. This has a weight, but there seems to be no citations at all.
 * There are mass citations here: http://www.buran.su/buranvssts-comparison.php http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html http://www.astronautix.com/b/buran.html but they seem to be inconsistant with the masses listed in the specifications I moved from the Buran Program page. So, I added the weight listed in these citations at the beginning of the section, referencing the citations.  Note that some of these list "total weight" of 105 tons, but the detailed breakdown shows that this includes payload.  I can't find a reference showing the actual weight as launched, so I do not know whether it had a dummy payload (i.e., launch weight 105 tons), or not (i.e., launch weight 62 tons)  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Buran unique reusability
Currently article states: "It remains the only Soviet reusable spacecraft to be launched into space." This is incorrect as there were multiple flights of the same VA TKS capsule, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA_spacecraft#Kosmos_929. I propose to remove this sentence. Avmich (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Another reason is that Buran wasn't necessarily reusable. The orbiter never flew a second time, so reusability was never proven. Deceptive leaks of US Shuttle information to Russia resulted in material being placed between tiles that prevented them from being reusable. Here is the story http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686550/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/how-soviet-space-shuttle-fizzled/#.XUqSvY5Ki1s

--Libertyguy (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment 13 April 2020
The issue with the article is whether its primary scope should be about an orbital vehicle flown in 1988 (à la ) or a class of orbital vehicles used and/or constructed by Soviet Union as part of the Buran programme (à la Space Shuttle). --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 08:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be about the vehicle, not the class. The class can be discussed at Buran programme or at separate articles like OK-GLI. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If it's not appropriate to talk about the program here, then it's certainly not appropriate to OK-GLI, which was the model outfitted with jet engines for flight and landing tests. There were, in fact, three flight models; the first, which actually flew, was destroyed in the hangar collapse; the second is in another hangar in Baikonur, property of Kazakhstan, and the third seen around the Zhukovsky International Airport, mainly at the huge air show there, it is said to be about 50% complete; two other flight models were never more than piles of procured parts.  There are a half-dozen test models of various kinds; they're listed in a table in Buran Programme.  The major ones are on display in Germany, in Baikonur, at the VDNKh in Moscow, and at the Sirius Science Center at Soshi. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Russian space shuttle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Russian space shuttle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)