What a statement by this guy! “The Energia-Buran programme was started to get the capability to attack the United States, just like the shuttle was able to attack the USSR. We also wanted to take the Skylab space station from orbit. Buran was supposed to put it in its cargo bay and deliver it back to Earth for studies,” Tolboev said. First, the shuttle wasn't built to attack the USSR. Second, Skylab fell from Orbit in 1979 while the Buran only launched once on a test flight in 1988. Just a few years late to "steal" Skylab. Unbelievable statements! My favorite statement is the one he says that the Buran was far more advanced with technology that can fly itself. Ah, some news, the shuttle flies itself back through the atmosphere and then "real pilots" manually glide the shuttle to landing. The computers do the important de-orbit burn and entry and the landing is done by pilots.

My own opinion is not to take any notice of any political gain which may appear to be achieved by the launch of both the American and the Russian space shuttles. The most important aim to be gained by extremely expensive projects is "Do they achieve the ambitions for which they were designed" ?. Can a shuttle orbiter be launched into space, deliver a payload and return to Earth ? It is interesting to note a possible return to space by the Russian space shuttle and the heavy lift Energia rocket. This rumour has persisted for at least the past five years. After some extensive searches on the internet and the little information I remember about the launch of the Russian 'Buran' shuttle, it is my opinion the only spaceworthy Russian shuttle is the orbiter named 'Ptichka'. However, given 'Ptichka' has never flown into space, it is twenty years old and no doubt in need of considerable upgrading, I wonder whether the Russian shuttle orbiter could be used to fly to the International Space Station. If anyone wishes to comment then please do so.

The only uses Ptichka would be good for is mass people transport, and down cargo. The Energia could launch payloads on it's own, because - unlike the Space Shuttle - the main engines were on Energia. I recall a figure of 100 tons to orbit if launched without the orbiter, which itself could carry 30 tons. Whether it would be economical, however, depends on how much the cost is. The Russians might want to reactivate it to stay in the tourism game.

HOW MANY COPIES OF THE "BURAN" WERE CONSTRUCTED? One is in Gorky Park on display [Moscow] and another is believed in Argentina? [or elsewhere in South America]?

What's the point? Wouldn't it be better to build something brand new with todays technology? The Buran was based on the Shuttle, which itself was designed in the 1960's. Instead of spending billions to revive Buran, why not spend the same money on a space elevator?

Watch this SPACE as there are plans to indeed bring the Energia-Shuttle into service with a Russian and British collaboration..it'll be announced real soon and open a Brand new Chapter to SPACE Exploration for the peoples of Russia and Great Britain by them coming together for benefit of all....

"JAMES" - Intriguing, indeed. BTW - When Norm Augustine tele-conferenced -- FROM GERMANY(!) -- during the May 8th announcement of the Commission on Human Space Flight Review, did his trip include a review of "Buran" in a museum there, since 2008? HOW MANY COPIES of "Buran" were actually produced, then mothballed after FSU's singular unmanned orbital spaceflight? ANY WORD on added Augustine Commission memberships? [NASA web site no help - all tied up on delayed STS-125 landing today]. Likely IMO - Currently @ The Aerospace Corporation executive (El Segundo, CA) and former MOL astronaut E. C. "Pete" Aldridge, Jr. would be a likely Augustine Commission member --- they both served former Vice President Dan Quayle on some hurry-up space policy reports in waning days(!) -- literally -- of the G. H. W. Bush presidential administration. "Clock is ticking" yet precious little news from NASA on Commission members.

This talk of no more space shuttles doesn't make any sense. Wait and see there wiull be a new shuttle. There has to be. How will space exploration go on? And it will go on

I believe the former Soviet Union started building five space shuttle orbiters which were intended to fly into space. There were probably some mock ups of space shuttle orbiters which may have been used as a cheaper alternative for testing if the orbiter would fit to the launch pad and onto the top of its carrier aircraft. A damaged wooden and steel mock up of an orbiter gives far less cause for concern than damaging the real item. Exactly where the mock ups of the orbiter are is something of a mystery. Of the five orbiters intended to be spaceworthy, Buran flew only once into space but was seriously damaged in an accident in the early 2000's. After viewing a picture of Buran on the internet, it may be assumed Buran will never fly again. The other four orbiters are described as not being finished by the late 1980's. The second orbiter Ptichka was about 95% complete and may have a good chance of flying into space. The other three orbiters were not even nearly completed by the late 1980's so they would require a serious amount of money for them to be built to completion. It is speculated the fourth and fifth orbiters were dismantled. The whereabout of Ptichka and the other three unfinished orbiters is not clear. If Russia is able to co-operate with financial and technical help from other countries then it may be possible for the Energia and Russian shuttle to fly during the years the US shuttle is retired and its replacement is undergoing development. I can only speculate if work has been underway on Energia and the Russian shuttle orbiters for some years. Also, I can only guess whether Russia has been building a new fleet of space shuttles to replace the 'Buran' family of orbiters. The Russian and US space shuttles were designed with technology from the 1960's. As almost all aspects of materials processing and computer technology has advanced during the past forty years, it may be possible to design a new family of reusable spacecraft using technology from the 1990's and 2000's. However, I see two problems. It appears the lesson learned from reusable spacecraft is they tend to be very expensive in design, development and routine maintenance. The opinion I have from reading reports on the internet is most space faring countries are looking at cheaper alternatives of spacecraft which are not as reusable as the current US shuttle orbiters. The Russians still use the Soyuz rocket and there is not yet any indication from the European Space Agency about a manned reusable spacecraft. A second problem is the global recession is causing a serious shortfall in money available for research and development and the ability to finance the cost of wages. NASA is having its plans for manned spaceflight reviewed in the light of how much new technology NASA can expect to develop over the next ten years and the cost of research and development. The results of this review will be disclosed later this year.

Nothing would please me more than the revival of the Buran program, however I don't actually think it would be more economical than a new program starting from scratch. The thing is more than 20 years old, most of the contractors and companies that worked on it are out of buisness, the assembly lines that constructed the parts for them are either no longer in existence, or have been re-tooled. Many of the people who worked on the program have died of old age. Every ten years or so, NASA looks at the prospect of reviving Apollo for the same reasons - we know it works - but they always come to the same conclusion: you simply can not put equipment like this back in to production after a 20 or 40 year absence, too much real knowledge has been lost and too much industrial capacity has shifted. Oh, and the US Shuttle wasn't intended to attack the Soviet Union, nor was it capable of doing so - however it *was* designed with the intention to occasionally fly circum-polar missions allowing it to place spy satellites in orbit. This ability was never used, nor will it be now.

THANK YOU, Paula - any info is helpful. On June 1st - NASA has finally(!) announced composition of the [Norm] Augustine Commission on "Human Space Flight Review" - that board announcement nearly a month ago on May 8th. First public hearing on June 17th in Washington, DC. --- NOW THE INTERESTING PART: WHO shall they call for testimony? Uncertainties = Whether the August, 2009 deadline for their final report is fluid or solid. 'Film at Eleven"! ;-)

Space Shuttle plans included function of a space tug to prevent Skylab from de-orbiting, but program was late Skylab desintagrated over Westrn Australia in 1979, while first shuttle had been launched into orbit on 12 April 1981.

The author of the article is both stupid scientifically and / or buried deep in propaganda. The Buran test flight had to be automatic because the vehicle was incomplete and not "man-rated" yet. The U.S. and Russia will be using the venerable (old, but reliable) Soyuz to get humans to and from the Space Station after the Shuttle's retirement until the Ares rockets are ready. The U.S. shuttle never proved itself economically in terms of cost per pound of payload to orbit, so I highly doubt the Russians would revive the program. It's better that both countries go back to the "big, dumb rockets." I'm not sure what Russia plans for the next generation of space vehicles. Bringing back the Energia booster is like the U.S. reviving the Saturn V - it will never happen. Meanwhile, hypersonic research progresses, albeit slowly, perhaps someday leading to single-stage-to-orbit craft in the future, +/- space elevator technology.

The Buran test pilot makes some odd statements, but not really much odder than some statements by retired American test pilots and astronauts after several decades. I assumed his comment about Skylab referred to Salyut 7 or even Mir, since there were discussions about Buran retrieving such a module, and fears that the Americans would do so with their Shuttle. He was quoted s saying "Skylab" but that might have been an insertion or even a correction by the reporter, or just a slip of the tongue. But the Buran is as dead now as the Shuttle will be in just over a year, for all of the reasons cited by previous posters. Any suggestion that Buran could fly again now--much less that it can replace, and even exceed, the Shuttle--is just sad, wishful thinking.

Roscosmos does not have the money to redevelop the shuttle, this article maybe referrs to the Kliper (Клипер) or the joint ESA - RSA program for an updated Soyuz called teh CSTS or Crew Space Transportation System. But both of those are lacking funding because of the current economy and the ESA not giving a firm answer on how much they will help Roscosmos. Expendable Rockets are a much more reliable form of launching people into space, also the technology has advanced very much since the late 1970's early 80's As far as I can see and predict the Soyuz will continue to fly, and be updated regularly. I know that its soon to be upgraded to carry 4 people. Then Orion will be implemented by NASA and then Soyuz will have a lighter mission load.

Maybe part of the answer to this discussion lies in the Russian 'Prospective Piloted Transport System', the details of which are on the internet.

I must say it does amuse me; all the commentators saying how our technology has progressed! To give you an example the new J-2x rocket engine has a 26% performance increase over the final version of the original. It weighs in @ 225% more! THAT's progress?!? I Don't Think So! Ask any rocket engineer about the problem of increased weight and it's effect on performance of a rocket-powered vehicle. BTW, how many people here are aware that American space technology only advanced with an influx of "soviet" engine technology in the 1990's: check out the origins of the Atlas launcher engines!

The "Viktor" COMMENT herein [as of June 16th @ 00:34 hours] IS JUST NOT TECHNICALLY NOR HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, WHILE BEING MIRED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN A TECHNOLOGICAL 'TIME WARP' AT LEAST A DECADE OLD! Under a previous joint NASA - industry "paperless procurement" - NASA and Lockheed Skunk Works labored to bring forth the "X-33 Single Stage to Orbit / Recoverable Launch Vehicle (SSTO/RLV)! The program was 95% complete and ready for prototype test flights, when NASA Administrator Dan Goldin "pulled the plug" on funding. Goldin's unbelievably stupid, bureaucratic decision (arguably!) was reportedly due to "pressure form NASA Astronauts" who did not like "X-33" automated piloting system - far more advanced than 'Buran" some decades earlier. SO NASA returned to the drawing boards and brought forth a replacement - essentially "Apollo on streroids"! FAR stronger words come to mind, but are simply not suitable for this forum!!! See also comments elsewhere about blatant "mis-statements" and historically inaccurate testimony of the US Senator Bill Nelson of Florida before the Augustine Commission [NASA Human Space Flight Review] during first public hearings on Wednesday - June 17th, the first day of public hearings in Washington, DC! As a former astronaut from a state where spaceflight is a major industry, Senator Nelson apparently IS NOT AWARE of two prior [CY 2009] NASA contracts let to two different commercial space firms in this (U.S.) country so that NASA space transportation systems [to and from I.S.S.] are not solely reliant upon a Russian 'Soyuz' monopoly in the near term. US taxpayers deserve (1) a correction to the public record, then (2) a formal apology from that US Senator within 24 hours of his public mis-statement. HIS OWN STAFF DID NOT SERVE HIM nor their employers (US taxpayers) well in this case.

I agree with Viktor. A revival of Buran ain't going to happen. This story is pure flim-flam! Something you'd expect to see on April 1st.