This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buran programme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A sentence or two perhaps should be added discussing if the Buran's design was stolen from the American Space Shuttle. I have seen multiple sources that both confirm or deny that the Buran was based on "stolen" American designs. I do not know which sources to trust on this matter. However it is my personal belief that espionage did play a significant role in the construction of the Buran.
That is certainly overstating the differences. Nevertheless, sticking to the facts, I do not believe there has ever been anything published concluding the Buran was based on stolen shuttle designs. Gingermint ( talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The exact location of Buran 1.02 is not known today. A second series of orbiters began construction but was never completed, and at least one of the three was dismantled. There's a Buran in Moscow, in Gorky Park. The local lore is that it's the one that orbited the Earth. -- apoivre 15:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
the museum Auto & Technikmuseum Sinsheim has acquired one. not sure which thou... Thejakester 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a few date-stamped pictures up at English Russia of an unspecified Buran; does anyone know which it is? -- Eric3K ( talk) 22:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe 11F35 K4? It said it was dismantled next to a factory. Cjwon348 ( talk) 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Heavily disassembled (stolen-out) Buran-type space shuttle on 9.1.2005 was still on sale on Polish auctioning site:
http://www.dzafel.s3.pl/aukcje/auction.php?aukcja=38082265
The seller claims it's not a joke and if no one buys it (it's 2 millions złoty = 500 000 USD) it will be sold just as scrapmetal, and the ceramic thermal slabs will be available separately to buy there. The price doesn't include customs or transport :->
I was actually chopped up into peaces. There are sites here and there where you can buy some. I have actually seen a window in a museum! 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Removed from article:
This doesn't belong here, it belongs at Baikonur Cosmodrome (and is actually already there). - Plutor 13:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also removed this aside:
It's about Mir, and really belongs there. No reason to go into the history of Skylab on the Buran article. - Plutor 13:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One Shuttle was found in Bahrain: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/23/shuttle.shtml Is seems to be the 002 (is that the 1.02? notations are confusing here)
-- 195.158.142.141 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Bahrain shuttle is NOT 1.02 (or '002') - It has been mistakenly identified. It's one of the test prototypes - specifically, it's the only one of the eight test models fitted with jet engines to allow it to take off for flight tests.
I don't know much about this topic, but seeing as just after this article appeared on Slashdot the edit "15:13, 24 Sep 2004" appeared and changed "a capability common to the U.S. shuttle system" into "a capability not available in the U.S. shuttle system." Which of these are actually true? Haakon 15:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think some talk about Buran's automated landing procedures is warrented. The Shuttle also has an automated landing system and continues to this day. As a matter of fact, it looks like the Colombia pilot tried to take control of the shuttle a couple of seconds before Colombia broke up. So, was Buran's automated landing developed before the Shuttle's? Was it more automated?
The Spruce Goose is larger in every size dimension except one. MTOW or being in-service does not relate to it being the 'largest.' See also [1]. - Joseph (Talk) 18:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The Spruce Goose *is* not anything. It does not exist. AN-225 is the largest aircraft in existence. Besides, who said that wingspan defines how large an aircraft is? MTOW does very much relate to it being the largest. -- Liss 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph was originally lifted verbatim from [2], and in any case is unsubstantiated. Judging by this picture (context: [3]) the tile layout is certainly not strictly optimal with respect to thermodynamics. The fluid flow, which anyway would vary with flight regime and attitude, would not exhibit such a zig-zagging discontinuity. It was undoubtedly a compromise among thermal protection, durability, manufacturability, maintainability, and cost (as would have been the U.S. design). — Fleminra 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article is unclear whether Buran describes the whole class including Shuttle 2.01 which has an orphan article of its own. Both articles make 2.01 appear outside the 'Buran' class which I think applies to all five Soviet shuttles up to 2.03. In fact - worse - the Buran article contains a panel at the top where 'Buran' only appears to be a single craft. Am I right? If so, could an expert please correct the misleading articles? Shuttle 2.01 doesn't even mention the classname Buran! Benet Allen 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to reform this article (perhaps coupled with modest changes in the articles for the other orbiters) so that there is one article for the program, and a separate one for the Buran orbiter. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a link in the now-"Current status" section (was: Aftermath) to an image showing the aftermath of the collapse of the hanger holding the Buran ( http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2169/burandamaged7jm.jpg), which I've removed as it provides no information about its source. Mike Peel 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Completed the table with extra information on most of the ships that are part of the Buran program. If possible, I'll expand this table on to separe articles. For now, there's a OK-GLI page that duplicates some text from this page. -- Ricnun 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have a near-orphaned article, Shuttle Baikal, which probably wants to be linked to from this article - but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? -- Mike Peel 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This article disagees within itself about whether Ptichka is finished and unused, or unfinished. The Space Flight Burans box lists it as completed and unused, but the rest of the article lists it as incomplete. - LeoO3 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
i don't know which one it is, but it is clearly visible at these coordinates in google earth:
55°43'43.37"N 37°35'48.22"E
86.61.83.114 11:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:StarToysCover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read articles and had a professor in college state that the Buran design was a design that was originally rejected by NASA because it was to dangerous. The design was fed to the Soviets through a joint CIA/FBI counter espionage effort. The KGB was carrying out Direcorate X at thise point. The US had been notified by the French of the project and started leaking corrupted information. The problem with all of this is i can't find sources and i am not going to reference my college notes. Anyone have any information on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.107.161 ( talk • contribs)
The section "Key differences from the NASA Space Shuttle" reads more like "Why Buran is better than the NASA Space Shuttle". Presumably there are things that could be added to make this a little more NPOV. -- Nucleusboy 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Astronautix has a good page on the dimensions of the two vehicles, they all seem to be within a meter of each other.-- Craigboy ( talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Since we've had some back and forth, let's bring the issue of whether or not to keep the "Buran in science fiction" section to a discussion.
Personally, I think the section should go, as it is basically trivia, and therefore cruft, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just remain with the appropriate wiki 'citation needed' tag to indicate citation needed? I'm a new visitor to this page but reverted its deletion thinking (inaccurately?) that it was deleted by a vandal. But it seems like the section's been there awhile so it seems that a 'citation needed' indication would be at least an option for it. It doesn't read like "hype" as the original person noted when deleting it. I defer to the wikigods, of course, for they know more than I. - Ageekgal 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Energia#Vulkan-Hercules claims that "the largest ... configuration could have launched up to 175 tonnes into orbit", but here in Buran_program#Key_differences_from_the_NASA_Space_Shuttle, it's claimed that that the "heaviest configuration (never built) would have been able to launch 200 tons into orbit." Can anyone offer insight into the disparity? Thanks! -- Rob* 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ok-ks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ok-ml-2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:OK-ML-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-consti-reacteur.php the two top jet engines as seen on OK-GLI are integral part of the orbiter design too. The additional engine pods on the sides of OK-GLI are additions allowing for autonomous take off that required addtional engine power compared to only horizontal flight during landing. The first orbiters had them unfinished, like some other systems, as well as weight considerations at the early Energia version. However it seems like the engine bay still existed and were just covered allowing a potential retrofit. The rationale behind jet engines being the needed range for emergency landing as the spreading of Burans planned landing strips are stategical inferior to the Shuttle system, especially in the pacific/atlantic section of the flight path. Shuttle had jet engine considerations during design too, however because of needed main engines in the orbiter and weight considerations jet engines were dropped early from the design. I aded this in the comparisation section. -- 89.60.194.214 ( talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a merge tag on the Buran hangar collapse and didn't see a discussion. The hangar collapse article is small and can and should placed in the program article. Most likely in the cancellation section. I will take care of it. Thoughts? or has this been discussed already?-- NortyNort ( talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, all done.-- NortyNort ( talk) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Did the Buran possess a true fully-automatic landing capability? That is to say, computers controlled the entire flight back to earth, or was it remotely controlled, with a human operator piloting it from the ground? Axeman ( talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. Soviet officials were concerned about a perceived military threat posed by the US Space Shuttle. In their opinion, the Shuttle's 30-ton payload-to-orbit capacity and, more significantly, its 15-ton payload return capacity, were a clear indication that one of its main objectives would be to place massive experimental laser weapons into orbit that could destroy enemy missiles from a distance of several thousands of kilometers.
Can anyone explain this to me? Should I infer that the Soviet officials wished to build their own 'massive experimental laser weapons'? Is this why they build Buran? If not, in what sense was Buran a 'response' to the Shuttle program? If the Soviets didn't plan on building their own 'massive laser weapons' then Buran would neither hinder the US program, nor aid the Soviets.
I don't have the access to the given source, Energiya-Buran : The Soviet Space Shuttle but it sounds a bit fishy to me. Is there a second source for this claim? If no-one has any comment I'm inclined to delete it in due course. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My addition of the sentence "Unfortunately for the Buran program, Levchenko died of a brain tumour the following year." has now been twice removed. The explanation given for the removal was that it wasn't clear the relevance. I have now added why this is relevant for the Buran program; this is backed up in the reference. Mlm42 ( talk) 05:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The current text reads:
Soviet officials were also concerned that the US Space Shuttle could make a sudden dive into the atmosphere to drop bombs on Moscow, despite the fact that such a scenario was not supported by physics
Sourced to
Years after a sceptical Pentagon had given up on the shuttle, even as a delivery truck for spy satellites, the Russian officials continued whispering to journalists that the US orbiter had a secret capability - to make an undetected "dive" into the Earth's atmosphere and suddenly glide over Moscow dropping nuclear bombs.
Never mind that such a scenario was not supported by physics or by common sense.
from Buran - the Soviet 'space shuttle' by Anatoly Zak. This is opinion from Zak, not reportage. The BBC is a source for news, it is not an engineering or physics journal. I will remove this claim shortly. - Crosbie 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 05:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Buran programme → Energiya-Buran programme – This programme was always called Energiya-Buran programme, look to Russian wiki or for example here: National Space Society (NSS) or: here in pdf Jirka.h23 ( talk) 14:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"At the time of its cancellation, 20 billion rubles (roughly 71,534,000 USD)[citation needed] had been spent on the Buran program." - Seventy-one million dollars seems extraordinarily low for a programme of this magnitude. The reference gives a total cost of 20 billion rubles, so that half of the equation is probably correct, although it's pretty clear that the writer meant 20bn to 1993; my hunch is that the person who included the above simply plugged 20,000,000,000 into xe.com and came up with a dollar figure circa 2007 (say), without taking into account the possibility that the ruble's value had dropped significantly since the early 1970s. The USD figure is completely misleading. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
They're reported to be nearly complete and abandoned in some large building at Baikonur. Source 1 (in estonian, news). Source 2 (in russian, several good pictures). Does this mean that there was actually 7 shuttles? Are these 2 actually some test mock-ups that were misidentified? Is this a hoax? GMRE ( talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Buran programme. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Buran programme. 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:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Illustration of Buran at launch pad | |
Function | Crewed orbital launch and reentry |
---|---|
Manufacturer | RKK Energia |
Country of origin | Soviet Union/ Russia |
Size | |
Mass | 42,000 kg (93,000 lb) |
Capacity | |
Payload to LEO | 30,000 kg (66,000 lb) |
Launch history | |
Status | Decommissioned; programme halted in 1993; 1K1 destroyed in a 2002 hangar collapse, 1K2 in storage in Baikonur; 2K1 at Zukhovsky Airport; 2 other orbiters barely started when programme was cancelled. Test articles in various exhibitions. [1] |
Launch sites | Baikonur Cosmodrome |
Total launches | 1 ( 1K1) |
Success(es) | 1 |
Failure(s) | 0 |
First flight | 15 November 1988 [2] ( 1K1) |
Last flight | 15 November 1988 [2] ( 1K1) |
Type of passengers/cargo | N/A |
stage – Energia rocket | |
Powered by | 1 RD-170 (4 nozzles) |
Maximum thrust | 29,000 kN (6,500,000 lbf) sea level 32,000 kN (7,200,000 lbf) vacuum |
Specific impulse | 309 s at sea level 338 s in vacuum |
Propellant | RP-1/ LOX |
Core stage | |
Powered by | 4 RD-0120 |
Maximum thrust | 5,800 kN (1,300,000 lbf) sea level 7,500 kN (1,700,000 lbf) vacuum |
Specific impulse | 359 s at sea level 454 s in vacuum |
Burn time | 480–500 s |
Propellant | LH2/ LOX |
-- Aledownload ( talk) 13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
References
nasa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Comes 67.160.44.79 changing the lat/lon of a shuttle on display at Gromov Research Institute at the MAKS airshow in 2011. The original point is about 70 meters from the shuttle image out on the field between the runways on 5/8/2013 and 7/31/2012; the new location is 1033 meters from the shuttle in a grouping of fighter aircraft on an apron parking space. As a result I have reverted the location. That location does have the shuttle in it on 9/11/2016, so I'm adding an entry in the table for it. Good find, 67.160.44.79. SkoreKeep ( talk) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Comes 145.132.173.78, adding links to the story of a free-lance photographer sneaking into Baikonur and taking a couple of pics of the shuttles in the MJK building, and an Energia rocket in another building. Yeah they're pics of those shuttles, but there are far better ones, done with permission. It sounds more like self-advertisement, and it comes with spurious comments from someone who styles himself an expert on rockets, Russian/Khazakh relations, and a fuck it anything for the money attitude. Not appropriate for wikipedia nor this page, in my opinion. SkoreKeep ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that in Buran-related articles on Wiki, in several places hull designations and GRAU serial numbers merged into constructions like 1K2 being the reference to third orbiter (1.02, 3K), when [ in fact] it is designation for second flight of first orbiter (1K). Tried to fix this where is possible. And prefix OK- (Orbitalny Korabl, Orbital vehicle) seems to be overused, since all constructed shuttles share orbital vehicle design. I tried to left this only in designations of test articles, as [ sources] referred to them like that. Qydm ( talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The introduction makes these claims; up until late 2010, it had no source. Then, page 8 of the book The Rebirth of the Russian Space Program was claimed as a source, but looking at it online, there is no such mention at all on that page, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere in that book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmTz6Phf5WYC&pg=PA8 . I have my doubts, since, if you count Soyuz as one programme, it's gone on for over 50 years and made over 140 flights (if you count unmanned Progress resupply flights to space stations, over 1,000). Can anyone find a reliable (ie not based on this Wikipedia page) source for this? Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 15:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Comes Gleb Fadeev (no User or Talk pages) changing a picture comment from Baikonur site 110 to 250. Site 110 is (according to my notes) the Soyuz 7K-LOK and the single Buran/Energia launch site, used from June 26, 1971 to November 15, 1988. Site 250 was used only once for Energia and the Polyus anti-satellite system on May 15, 1987, and is now (or has been; I don't have a recent update) the site of the Baiterek ("Poplar tree") joint venture for a launcher for the 26-ton payload Angara rocket.
I am reverting this because there is no reference for the change. If Gleb has a reference (even a relatively weak one, as the picture is an artist's impression, not a photo) then I'll yield on this. SkoreKeep ( talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Buran 151.251.243.135 ( talk) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's a Buran (spacecraft) article that surprisingly has less information on the orbiter than this article. I've added a link to the Buran section and was thinking whether it makes sense to move technical details about Buran from this article to the dedicated one to prevent duplication. PaulT2022 ( talk) 03:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Since this is article based in Cold War politics and militarism between the US and Soviets wouldn’t make sense to change the version of English used from British English to American English as one most the the comparisons used reference the US Space Shuttle and two since the Buran was shrouded in Cold War espionage and good old fashioned militaristic fear of the Space Shuttle’s potential use to disrupt Soviet satellites for military purposes which didn’t end up happening but the Soviets didn’t know that at the time. Rabbipika ( talk) 21:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I moved the "List of Vehicles" from the Buran 1.01 spacecraft article to this one. 4throck ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buran programme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A sentence or two perhaps should be added discussing if the Buran's design was stolen from the American Space Shuttle. I have seen multiple sources that both confirm or deny that the Buran was based on "stolen" American designs. I do not know which sources to trust on this matter. However it is my personal belief that espionage did play a significant role in the construction of the Buran.
That is certainly overstating the differences. Nevertheless, sticking to the facts, I do not believe there has ever been anything published concluding the Buran was based on stolen shuttle designs. Gingermint ( talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The exact location of Buran 1.02 is not known today. A second series of orbiters began construction but was never completed, and at least one of the three was dismantled. There's a Buran in Moscow, in Gorky Park. The local lore is that it's the one that orbited the Earth. -- apoivre 15:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
the museum Auto & Technikmuseum Sinsheim has acquired one. not sure which thou... Thejakester 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a few date-stamped pictures up at English Russia of an unspecified Buran; does anyone know which it is? -- Eric3K ( talk) 22:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe 11F35 K4? It said it was dismantled next to a factory. Cjwon348 ( talk) 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Heavily disassembled (stolen-out) Buran-type space shuttle on 9.1.2005 was still on sale on Polish auctioning site:
http://www.dzafel.s3.pl/aukcje/auction.php?aukcja=38082265
The seller claims it's not a joke and if no one buys it (it's 2 millions złoty = 500 000 USD) it will be sold just as scrapmetal, and the ceramic thermal slabs will be available separately to buy there. The price doesn't include customs or transport :->
I was actually chopped up into peaces. There are sites here and there where you can buy some. I have actually seen a window in a museum! 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Removed from article:
This doesn't belong here, it belongs at Baikonur Cosmodrome (and is actually already there). - Plutor 13:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also removed this aside:
It's about Mir, and really belongs there. No reason to go into the history of Skylab on the Buran article. - Plutor 13:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One Shuttle was found in Bahrain: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/23/shuttle.shtml Is seems to be the 002 (is that the 1.02? notations are confusing here)
-- 195.158.142.141 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Bahrain shuttle is NOT 1.02 (or '002') - It has been mistakenly identified. It's one of the test prototypes - specifically, it's the only one of the eight test models fitted with jet engines to allow it to take off for flight tests.
I don't know much about this topic, but seeing as just after this article appeared on Slashdot the edit "15:13, 24 Sep 2004" appeared and changed "a capability common to the U.S. shuttle system" into "a capability not available in the U.S. shuttle system." Which of these are actually true? Haakon 15:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think some talk about Buran's automated landing procedures is warrented. The Shuttle also has an automated landing system and continues to this day. As a matter of fact, it looks like the Colombia pilot tried to take control of the shuttle a couple of seconds before Colombia broke up. So, was Buran's automated landing developed before the Shuttle's? Was it more automated?
The Spruce Goose is larger in every size dimension except one. MTOW or being in-service does not relate to it being the 'largest.' See also [1]. - Joseph (Talk) 18:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The Spruce Goose *is* not anything. It does not exist. AN-225 is the largest aircraft in existence. Besides, who said that wingspan defines how large an aircraft is? MTOW does very much relate to it being the largest. -- Liss 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph was originally lifted verbatim from [2], and in any case is unsubstantiated. Judging by this picture (context: [3]) the tile layout is certainly not strictly optimal with respect to thermodynamics. The fluid flow, which anyway would vary with flight regime and attitude, would not exhibit such a zig-zagging discontinuity. It was undoubtedly a compromise among thermal protection, durability, manufacturability, maintainability, and cost (as would have been the U.S. design). — Fleminra 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article is unclear whether Buran describes the whole class including Shuttle 2.01 which has an orphan article of its own. Both articles make 2.01 appear outside the 'Buran' class which I think applies to all five Soviet shuttles up to 2.03. In fact - worse - the Buran article contains a panel at the top where 'Buran' only appears to be a single craft. Am I right? If so, could an expert please correct the misleading articles? Shuttle 2.01 doesn't even mention the classname Buran! Benet Allen 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to reform this article (perhaps coupled with modest changes in the articles for the other orbiters) so that there is one article for the program, and a separate one for the Buran orbiter. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a link in the now-"Current status" section (was: Aftermath) to an image showing the aftermath of the collapse of the hanger holding the Buran ( http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2169/burandamaged7jm.jpg), which I've removed as it provides no information about its source. Mike Peel 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Completed the table with extra information on most of the ships that are part of the Buran program. If possible, I'll expand this table on to separe articles. For now, there's a OK-GLI page that duplicates some text from this page. -- Ricnun 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have a near-orphaned article, Shuttle Baikal, which probably wants to be linked to from this article - but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? -- Mike Peel 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This article disagees within itself about whether Ptichka is finished and unused, or unfinished. The Space Flight Burans box lists it as completed and unused, but the rest of the article lists it as incomplete. - LeoO3 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
i don't know which one it is, but it is clearly visible at these coordinates in google earth:
55°43'43.37"N 37°35'48.22"E
86.61.83.114 11:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:StarToysCover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read articles and had a professor in college state that the Buran design was a design that was originally rejected by NASA because it was to dangerous. The design was fed to the Soviets through a joint CIA/FBI counter espionage effort. The KGB was carrying out Direcorate X at thise point. The US had been notified by the French of the project and started leaking corrupted information. The problem with all of this is i can't find sources and i am not going to reference my college notes. Anyone have any information on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.107.161 ( talk • contribs)
The section "Key differences from the NASA Space Shuttle" reads more like "Why Buran is better than the NASA Space Shuttle". Presumably there are things that could be added to make this a little more NPOV. -- Nucleusboy 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Astronautix has a good page on the dimensions of the two vehicles, they all seem to be within a meter of each other.-- Craigboy ( talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Since we've had some back and forth, let's bring the issue of whether or not to keep the "Buran in science fiction" section to a discussion.
Personally, I think the section should go, as it is basically trivia, and therefore cruft, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just remain with the appropriate wiki 'citation needed' tag to indicate citation needed? I'm a new visitor to this page but reverted its deletion thinking (inaccurately?) that it was deleted by a vandal. But it seems like the section's been there awhile so it seems that a 'citation needed' indication would be at least an option for it. It doesn't read like "hype" as the original person noted when deleting it. I defer to the wikigods, of course, for they know more than I. - Ageekgal 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Energia#Vulkan-Hercules claims that "the largest ... configuration could have launched up to 175 tonnes into orbit", but here in Buran_program#Key_differences_from_the_NASA_Space_Shuttle, it's claimed that that the "heaviest configuration (never built) would have been able to launch 200 tons into orbit." Can anyone offer insight into the disparity? Thanks! -- Rob* 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ok-ks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ok-ml-2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:OK-ML-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-consti-reacteur.php the two top jet engines as seen on OK-GLI are integral part of the orbiter design too. The additional engine pods on the sides of OK-GLI are additions allowing for autonomous take off that required addtional engine power compared to only horizontal flight during landing. The first orbiters had them unfinished, like some other systems, as well as weight considerations at the early Energia version. However it seems like the engine bay still existed and were just covered allowing a potential retrofit. The rationale behind jet engines being the needed range for emergency landing as the spreading of Burans planned landing strips are stategical inferior to the Shuttle system, especially in the pacific/atlantic section of the flight path. Shuttle had jet engine considerations during design too, however because of needed main engines in the orbiter and weight considerations jet engines were dropped early from the design. I aded this in the comparisation section. -- 89.60.194.214 ( talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a merge tag on the Buran hangar collapse and didn't see a discussion. The hangar collapse article is small and can and should placed in the program article. Most likely in the cancellation section. I will take care of it. Thoughts? or has this been discussed already?-- NortyNort ( talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, all done.-- NortyNort ( talk) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Did the Buran possess a true fully-automatic landing capability? That is to say, computers controlled the entire flight back to earth, or was it remotely controlled, with a human operator piloting it from the ground? Axeman ( talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. Soviet officials were concerned about a perceived military threat posed by the US Space Shuttle. In their opinion, the Shuttle's 30-ton payload-to-orbit capacity and, more significantly, its 15-ton payload return capacity, were a clear indication that one of its main objectives would be to place massive experimental laser weapons into orbit that could destroy enemy missiles from a distance of several thousands of kilometers.
Can anyone explain this to me? Should I infer that the Soviet officials wished to build their own 'massive experimental laser weapons'? Is this why they build Buran? If not, in what sense was Buran a 'response' to the Shuttle program? If the Soviets didn't plan on building their own 'massive laser weapons' then Buran would neither hinder the US program, nor aid the Soviets.
I don't have the access to the given source, Energiya-Buran : The Soviet Space Shuttle but it sounds a bit fishy to me. Is there a second source for this claim? If no-one has any comment I'm inclined to delete it in due course. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My addition of the sentence "Unfortunately for the Buran program, Levchenko died of a brain tumour the following year." has now been twice removed. The explanation given for the removal was that it wasn't clear the relevance. I have now added why this is relevant for the Buran program; this is backed up in the reference. Mlm42 ( talk) 05:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The current text reads:
Soviet officials were also concerned that the US Space Shuttle could make a sudden dive into the atmosphere to drop bombs on Moscow, despite the fact that such a scenario was not supported by physics
Sourced to
Years after a sceptical Pentagon had given up on the shuttle, even as a delivery truck for spy satellites, the Russian officials continued whispering to journalists that the US orbiter had a secret capability - to make an undetected "dive" into the Earth's atmosphere and suddenly glide over Moscow dropping nuclear bombs.
Never mind that such a scenario was not supported by physics or by common sense.
from Buran - the Soviet 'space shuttle' by Anatoly Zak. This is opinion from Zak, not reportage. The BBC is a source for news, it is not an engineering or physics journal. I will remove this claim shortly. - Crosbie 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 05:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Buran programme → Energiya-Buran programme – This programme was always called Energiya-Buran programme, look to Russian wiki or for example here: National Space Society (NSS) or: here in pdf Jirka.h23 ( talk) 14:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"At the time of its cancellation, 20 billion rubles (roughly 71,534,000 USD)[citation needed] had been spent on the Buran program." - Seventy-one million dollars seems extraordinarily low for a programme of this magnitude. The reference gives a total cost of 20 billion rubles, so that half of the equation is probably correct, although it's pretty clear that the writer meant 20bn to 1993; my hunch is that the person who included the above simply plugged 20,000,000,000 into xe.com and came up with a dollar figure circa 2007 (say), without taking into account the possibility that the ruble's value had dropped significantly since the early 1970s. The USD figure is completely misleading. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
They're reported to be nearly complete and abandoned in some large building at Baikonur. Source 1 (in estonian, news). Source 2 (in russian, several good pictures). Does this mean that there was actually 7 shuttles? Are these 2 actually some test mock-ups that were misidentified? Is this a hoax? GMRE ( talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Buran programme. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Buran programme. 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:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Illustration of Buran at launch pad | |
Function | Crewed orbital launch and reentry |
---|---|
Manufacturer | RKK Energia |
Country of origin | Soviet Union/ Russia |
Size | |
Mass | 42,000 kg (93,000 lb) |
Capacity | |
Payload to LEO | 30,000 kg (66,000 lb) |
Launch history | |
Status | Decommissioned; programme halted in 1993; 1K1 destroyed in a 2002 hangar collapse, 1K2 in storage in Baikonur; 2K1 at Zukhovsky Airport; 2 other orbiters barely started when programme was cancelled. Test articles in various exhibitions. [1] |
Launch sites | Baikonur Cosmodrome |
Total launches | 1 ( 1K1) |
Success(es) | 1 |
Failure(s) | 0 |
First flight | 15 November 1988 [2] ( 1K1) |
Last flight | 15 November 1988 [2] ( 1K1) |
Type of passengers/cargo | N/A |
stage – Energia rocket | |
Powered by | 1 RD-170 (4 nozzles) |
Maximum thrust | 29,000 kN (6,500,000 lbf) sea level 32,000 kN (7,200,000 lbf) vacuum |
Specific impulse | 309 s at sea level 338 s in vacuum |
Propellant | RP-1/ LOX |
Core stage | |
Powered by | 4 RD-0120 |
Maximum thrust | 5,800 kN (1,300,000 lbf) sea level 7,500 kN (1,700,000 lbf) vacuum |
Specific impulse | 359 s at sea level 454 s in vacuum |
Burn time | 480–500 s |
Propellant | LH2/ LOX |
-- Aledownload ( talk) 13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
References
nasa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Comes 67.160.44.79 changing the lat/lon of a shuttle on display at Gromov Research Institute at the MAKS airshow in 2011. The original point is about 70 meters from the shuttle image out on the field between the runways on 5/8/2013 and 7/31/2012; the new location is 1033 meters from the shuttle in a grouping of fighter aircraft on an apron parking space. As a result I have reverted the location. That location does have the shuttle in it on 9/11/2016, so I'm adding an entry in the table for it. Good find, 67.160.44.79. SkoreKeep ( talk) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Buran programme. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Comes 145.132.173.78, adding links to the story of a free-lance photographer sneaking into Baikonur and taking a couple of pics of the shuttles in the MJK building, and an Energia rocket in another building. Yeah they're pics of those shuttles, but there are far better ones, done with permission. It sounds more like self-advertisement, and it comes with spurious comments from someone who styles himself an expert on rockets, Russian/Khazakh relations, and a fuck it anything for the money attitude. Not appropriate for wikipedia nor this page, in my opinion. SkoreKeep ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that in Buran-related articles on Wiki, in several places hull designations and GRAU serial numbers merged into constructions like 1K2 being the reference to third orbiter (1.02, 3K), when [ in fact] it is designation for second flight of first orbiter (1K). Tried to fix this where is possible. And prefix OK- (Orbitalny Korabl, Orbital vehicle) seems to be overused, since all constructed shuttles share orbital vehicle design. I tried to left this only in designations of test articles, as [ sources] referred to them like that. Qydm ( talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The introduction makes these claims; up until late 2010, it had no source. Then, page 8 of the book The Rebirth of the Russian Space Program was claimed as a source, but looking at it online, there is no such mention at all on that page, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere in that book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmTz6Phf5WYC&pg=PA8 . I have my doubts, since, if you count Soyuz as one programme, it's gone on for over 50 years and made over 140 flights (if you count unmanned Progress resupply flights to space stations, over 1,000). Can anyone find a reliable (ie not based on this Wikipedia page) source for this? Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 15:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Comes Gleb Fadeev (no User or Talk pages) changing a picture comment from Baikonur site 110 to 250. Site 110 is (according to my notes) the Soyuz 7K-LOK and the single Buran/Energia launch site, used from June 26, 1971 to November 15, 1988. Site 250 was used only once for Energia and the Polyus anti-satellite system on May 15, 1987, and is now (or has been; I don't have a recent update) the site of the Baiterek ("Poplar tree") joint venture for a launcher for the 26-ton payload Angara rocket.
I am reverting this because there is no reference for the change. If Gleb has a reference (even a relatively weak one, as the picture is an artist's impression, not a photo) then I'll yield on this. SkoreKeep ( talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Buran 151.251.243.135 ( talk) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's a Buran (spacecraft) article that surprisingly has less information on the orbiter than this article. I've added a link to the Buran section and was thinking whether it makes sense to move technical details about Buran from this article to the dedicated one to prevent duplication. PaulT2022 ( talk) 03:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Since this is article based in Cold War politics and militarism between the US and Soviets wouldn’t make sense to change the version of English used from British English to American English as one most the the comparisons used reference the US Space Shuttle and two since the Buran was shrouded in Cold War espionage and good old fashioned militaristic fear of the Space Shuttle’s potential use to disrupt Soviet satellites for military purposes which didn’t end up happening but the Soviets didn’t know that at the time. Rabbipika ( talk) 21:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I moved the "List of Vehicles" from the Buran 1.01 spacecraft article to this one. 4throck ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)