Must have been quite something to go where nobody had gone before, with no clear idea what the effect would be on the human body or if the return to Earth was survivable. The capsule was tiny and there wasn't much he could do if things went badly wrong.
Modded overrated huh? So someone doesn't think that taking that incredible risk, being the first human to experience weightlessness even though at the time the effects on humans were unknown, is overrated?
Are we still fighting the cold war or something? Oh wait, we actually are in the midst of communist panic again so maybe that's it...
Modded overrated huh? So someone doesn't think that taking that incredible risk, being the first human to experience weightlessness even though at the time the effects on humans were unknown, is overrated?
More to the point, there is a bond between those who have faced the same risks even if they are on opposite political sides due to geography, political systems, etc. even during the cold war.
This season of For All Mankind has more Soviet characters in it. They are portrayed in a very stereotypical way. Miserable, just doing their job like it's a coal mine or something with no interest in space or flight. Contrast with the Americans who are doing it for mankind, who were born to fly and explore.
They also portrayed the Buran as a knock-off of the Shuttle, when in fact it was quite different and the engineers were actually reluctant to have it look superficially so similar but in the end conceded
The Buran was a Shuttle knock-off.
And an improvement in some ways, and a step back in some ways.
Saying that it was a knock-off isn't an insult to what it ended up being.
But the fact is, the first orbiter they started making was rejected, and the next one was built using boatloads of data taken via espionage about the Shuttle program.
It's a CNN article [nbcnews.com], but it does closely follow the historical events.
The reason the engineers were loathe to make it look so similar, is because it was embarrassing to build something that obviously came from stolen documents.
The article notes that the KGB did obtain some design information on the Shuttle, but then makes the leap that Buran is a copy. It's not.
Buran looks similar on the outside because wind tunnel testing showed that was the best shape for a vehicle of that type. Internally Buran was completely different to the Shuttle, and the launch system was entirely different too. I'm sure they learned from the US programme and saved some time not pursuing ideas that the Americans had already tested and rejected, but the re
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape. But everything else - the engines, the avionics, the internal layout, the launch system, it's all different.
Buran has no main engines. Buran has a modular design where the number of boosters could be varied to suit the payload, or the boosters used for launching other stuff. The STS system needed the Shuttle, had only one configuration and the Shuttle computers did all guidance work, where as the Buran system had separate guidance sy
Back when those craft were designed nobody had fancy computer modeling. Anything with curved surfaces was difficult and very expensive and time consuming to design and test. Put simply, getting the outside "right" was in fact one of the hardest parts.
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape. But everything else - the engines, the avionics, the internal layout, the launch system, it's all different.
Sigh. More nonsense. You sir, are attempting to prop up some ingrained opinion you have with zero regard for the evidence.
It's very rare for 2 people, trying to solve the same problem, to come up with 2 identical designs.
The Soviets had a history of stealing western technology. It was cheaper than developing it themselves. Who can blame them?
Nobody here claimed that the Buran was a carbon copy, but to call it an original work is laughable.
It is a derived work, at the very best. To the more cynical, who
Concorde stole a lot of ideas from the Tu-144. The French actually caused one to crash while trying to get close up photographs of it in flight at the Paris airshow.
The Russians came up with a lot of the early ideas for space technology, like multi-stage rockets. In particular they had designs for a spaceplane in the mid 1960s, but it was not produced. Seems very likely that the CIA stole those designs and shared them with NASA. One plan for Buran was to revive that project, but as I recall the payload (spa
Concorde stole a lot of ideas from the Tu-144. The French actually caused one to crash while trying to get close up photographs of it in flight at the Paris airshow.
Sorry, chuck.
The STAC program started long before the Soviets started the Tu-144 program.
Further, both the Concorde and the Tu-144 are obvious direct descendants of the Bristol 223 and the Sud Super-Caravelle that later merged into the Concorde, a culmination of a decade of work.
The Soviets managed to miraculously bust out a nearly identical craft the same year they started the design.
You are engaging in some laughable misinformation, here.
The Russians came up with a lot of the early ideas for space technology, like multi-stage rockets.
And what the fuck is this?
Multi-stage rocketry was a natural deduction from the rocket equation, something that predated rockets by many decades.
"Russians" came up with it, in the same manner that Tsiolkovsky, a Russian, was the person who derived the rocket equation.
Not-Russians are the people who actually turned those into Rockets. Both the first liquid fueled rocket, and the first multi-stage rocket were American.
The only "stealing" that could have happened there was the "stealing" of the published r
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape.
No, it's the same shape because this was demanded by the interested parties, as well as its parameters. Many other shapes were considered for designs that didn't make it.
Buran has a modular design where the number of boosters could be varied to suit the payload
Buran didn't have any modular design. Buran doesn't have any number of boosters, since it doesn't have any boosters. How could it have boosters when it doesn't even have main engines? You're literally contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences!
One of their engineers mentioned to one of our engineers that the Buran had multiple burn-throughs across its structure, and their team was surprised it made it back in one piece. Like the Space Shuttle (note that Space Shuttle is a proper noun and should be capitalized), it had heat-resistant tiles to protect it from the extreme temperatures of reentry. During my NASA orientation program, all of us newbie engineers were taken to every major component area at KSC. At the tile facility, the guy heading it up took a blow torch to a tile until it turned bright red - he held the tile in his bare hand. But his hand was completely behind the tile, and he showed us that if he moved something around the side (paper), it would feel the heat. Now, the tiles are perfectly fitted to each other, but that doesn’t mean air tight - or heat tight. Without something to stop it, super-heated air would filter around the tiles and burn the underlying structure. To prevent this, the Shuttle used something called a gap filler - essentially a heat resistant fabric version of caulking.
To our surprise, evidently the technology the Buran incorporated for this purpose was not adequate, and the Russian engineer said portions of the Russian shuttle’s structure resembled a checkerboard of burned metal. He said that the cost of developing a new technology, combined with the cost of refit (unflown craft) and repair (the one that flew) was a significant contributor to the decision to cancel the program.
No. It looks identical, because it was identical, and they determined the design they stole to be ideal, and kept it, even though it made what they had done obvious.
Saying that "internally, it was different..." is meaningless. Of course it was different. They had their own design requirements.
Saying that "it's launch system was entirely different..." is even more meaningless, because it needed to use Soviet rockets for liftoff.
So are you saying it is identical or not? You seem to be saying both.
Try to keep track of the context. The earlier was referring to the external design of the craft.
The later was referring to the internal design of the craft.
In case that was confusing, the context could be referenced in the highlighted portions.
No. It looks identical, because it was identical
Saying that "internally, it was different..." is meaningless.
So were you really looking for an answer to that question, or were you looking for an easy nit to pick?
I didn't say it was the same, I said it was a knockoff.
That's more apparent if you look at the 3 models that preceded the final Buran, with the first being a literal carbon copy of the Shuttle.
By my logic, those cars in that article- are knock offs.
The OS-120 was very much a knockoff of the Shuttle. Admittedly, the other competing alternatives like the MTKVP were not -- but those didn't ultimately make it. The OS-120 did, and then they adapted its design to the RLA/Energia LV concept.
Into the unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
Must have been quite something to go where nobody had gone before, with no clear idea what the effect would be on the human body or if the return to Earth was survivable. The capsule was tiny and there wasn't much he could do if things went badly wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Modded overrated huh? So someone doesn't think that taking that incredible risk, being the first human to experience weightlessness even though at the time the effects on humans were unknown, is overrated?
Are we still fighting the cold war or something? Oh wait, we actually are in the midst of communist panic again so maybe that's it...
Re: (Score:2)
Modded overrated huh? So someone doesn't think that taking that incredible risk, being the first human to experience weightlessness even though at the time the effects on humans were unknown, is overrated?
More to the point, there is a bond between those who have faced the same risks even if they are on opposite political sides due to geography, political systems, etc. even during the cold war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This season of For All Mankind has more Soviet characters in it. They are portrayed in a very stereotypical way. Miserable, just doing their job like it's a coal mine or something with no interest in space or flight. Contrast with the Americans who are doing it for mankind, who were born to fly and explore.
They also portrayed the Buran as a knock-off of the Shuttle, when in fact it was quite different and the engineers were actually reluctant to have it look superficially so similar but in the end conceded
Re:Into the unknown (Score:2)
And an improvement in some ways, and a step back in some ways.
Saying that it was a knock-off isn't an insult to what it ended up being.
But the fact is, the first orbiter they started making was rejected, and the next one was built using boatloads of data taken via espionage about the Shuttle program.
It's a CNN article [nbcnews.com], but it does closely follow the historical events.
The reason the engineers were loathe to make it look so similar, is because it was embarrassing to build something that obviously came from stolen documents.
Re: (Score:3)
The article notes that the KGB did obtain some design information on the Shuttle, but then makes the leap that Buran is a copy. It's not.
Buran looks similar on the outside because wind tunnel testing showed that was the best shape for a vehicle of that type. Internally Buran was completely different to the Shuttle, and the launch system was entirely different too. I'm sure they learned from the US programme and saved some time not pursuing ideas that the Americans had already tested and rejected, but the re
Re: (Score:3)
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape. But everything else - the engines, the avionics, the internal layout, the launch system, it's all different.
Buran has no main engines. Buran has a modular design where the number of boosters could be varied to suit the payload, or the boosters used for launching other stuff. The STS system needed the Shuttle, had only one configuration and the Shuttle computers did all guidance work, where as the Buran system had separate guidance sy
Re: Into the unknown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape. But everything else - the engines, the avionics, the internal layout, the launch system, it's all different.
Sigh. More nonsense. You sir, are attempting to prop up some ingrained opinion you have with zero regard for the evidence.
It's very rare for 2 people, trying to solve the same problem, to come up with 2 identical designs.
The Soviets had a history of stealing western technology. It was cheaper than developing it themselves. Who can blame them?
Nobody here claimed that the Buran was a carbon copy, but to call it an original work is laughable.
It is a derived work, at the very best. To the more cynical, who
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde stole a lot of ideas from the Tu-144. The French actually caused one to crash while trying to get close up photographs of it in flight at the Paris airshow.
The Russians came up with a lot of the early ideas for space technology, like multi-stage rockets. In particular they had designs for a spaceplane in the mid 1960s, but it was not produced. Seems very likely that the CIA stole those designs and shared them with NASA. One plan for Buran was to revive that project, but as I recall the payload (spa
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde stole a lot of ideas from the Tu-144. The French actually caused one to crash while trying to get close up photographs of it in flight at the Paris airshow.
Sorry, chuck.
The STAC program started long before the Soviets started the Tu-144 program.
Further, both the Concorde and the Tu-144 are obvious direct descendants of the Bristol 223 and the Sud Super-Caravelle that later merged into the Concorde, a culmination of a decade of work.
The Soviets managed to miraculously bust out a nearly identical craft the same year they started the design.
You are engaging in some laughable misinformation, here.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians came up with a lot of the early ideas for space technology, like multi-stage rockets.
And what the fuck is this?
Multi-stage rocketry was a natural deduction from the rocket equation, something that predated rockets by many decades.
"Russians" came up with it, in the same manner that Tsiolkovsky, a Russian, was the person who derived the rocket equation.
Not-Russians are the people who actually turned those into Rockets. Both the first liquid fueled rocket, and the first multi-stage rocket were American.
The only "stealing" that could have happened there was the "stealing" of the published r
Re: (Score:2)
Superficially it's the same shape because that's the most efficient shape.
No, it's the same shape because this was demanded by the interested parties, as well as its parameters. Many other shapes were considered for designs that didn't make it.
Buran has no main engines.
Buran HAD had main engines until they took them off. [bashny.net]
Buran has a modular design where the number of boosters could be varied to suit the payload
Buran didn't have any modular design. Buran doesn't have any number of boosters, since it doesn't have any boosters. How could it have boosters when it doesn't even have main engines? You're literally contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences!
Buran used liquid fuel, not solid.
Where did Shuttle's orbiter use sol
Re: (Score:2)
The heatsheild design was different and arguably better too
Press (X) to doubt: [quora.com]
One of their engineers mentioned to one of our engineers that the Buran had multiple burn-throughs across its structure, and their team was surprised it made it back in one piece. Like the Space Shuttle (note that Space Shuttle is a proper noun and should be capitalized), it had heat-resistant tiles to protect it from the extreme temperatures of reentry. During my NASA orientation program, all of us newbie engineers were taken to every major component area at KSC. At the tile facility, the guy heading it up took a blow torch to a tile until it turned bright red - he held the tile in his bare hand. But his hand was completely behind the tile, and he showed us that if he moved something around the side (paper), it would feel the heat. Now, the tiles are perfectly fitted to each other, but that doesn’t mean air tight - or heat tight. Without something to stop it, super-heated air would filter around the tiles and burn the underlying structure. To prevent this, the Shuttle used something called a gap filler - essentially a heat resistant fabric version of caulking.
To our surprise, evidently the technology the Buran incorporated for this purpose was not adequate, and the Russian engineer said portions of the Russian shuttle’s structure resembled a checkerboard of burned metal. He said that the cost of developing a new technology, combined with the cost of refit (unflown craft) and repair (the one that flew) was a significant contributor to the decision to cancel the program.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It looks identical, because it was identical, and they determined the design they stole to be ideal, and kept it, even though it made what they had done obvious.
Saying that "internally, it was different..." is meaningless. Of course it was different. They had their own design requirements.
Saying that "it's launch system was entirely different..." is even more meaningless, because it needed to use Soviet rockets for liftoff.
So are you saying it is identical or not? You seem to be saying both.
Re: (Score:2)
The later was referring to the internal design of the craft.
In case that was confusing, the context could be referenced in the highlighted portions.
No. It looks identical, because it was identical
Saying that "internally, it was different..." is meaningless.
So were you really looking for an answer to that question, or were you looking for an easy nit to pick?
Re: (Score:2)
I just disagree with your premise that "looking" the same "is the same".
By this logic these cars are identical. [drivemag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's more apparent if you look at the 3 models that preceded the final Buran, with the first being a literal carbon copy of the Shuttle.
By my logic, those cars in that article- are knock offs.
Re: (Score:2)
The facts are what they are, and there are too many people chiming in now for you to bury it.
Re: (Score:2)