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 bui
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
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.
This is nonsense. You make the leap that even though they had the design of the Shuttle, and produced something nearly identical to it, minus changes to suit them, it's not a copy. That's a far greater leap than concluding that it is a knock-off.
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 resulting orbiter was an original work.
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.
The fact that they made changes to optimize the design to fit their specifications does not alter th
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
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!
Buran used liquid fuel, not solid.
Where did Shuttle's orbiter use solid fuel?
Buran could do completely automatic flights, where as the Shuttle needed to be piloted.
Shuttle was fully computer controlled, with "astronaut-union-enforced" exception of the landing gear which needed a human hand to be lowered. They did that so that humans needed to be on board, but not to fly it, just to not have it crash into the runway.
The front landing gear is in a completely different place too.
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: (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 bui
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:0, Troll)
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.
This is nonsense. You make the leap that even though they had the design of the Shuttle, and produced something nearly identical to it, minus changes to suit them, it's not a copy. That's a far greater leap than concluding that it is a knock-off.
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 resulting orbiter was an original work.
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.
The fact that they made changes to optimize the design to fit their specifications does not alter th
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)
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 solid fuel?
Buran could do completely automatic flights, where as the Shuttle needed to be piloted.
Shuttle was fully computer controlled, with "astronaut-union-enforced" exception of the landing gear which needed a human hand to be lowered. They did that so that humans needed to be on board, but not to fly it, just to not have it crash into the runway.
The front landing gear is in a completely different place too.
Wow, that makes all the difference, then! /s