Re: Waiting for controversy...?

in article ef6pa2$b5m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andre Lieven at
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/24/06 1:20 PM:

George Evans (georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:

in article ef4q2m$8uu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andre Lieven at
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/23/06 7:21 PM:

George Evans (georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:

in article mo89h2d4b4eocfj5j98fp62u0qedb4jodm@xxxxxxx, OM at
om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/22/06 8:00 PM:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:49:16 GMT, George Evans
<georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Did they decide to continue cranking out beer cans before or after they
tried to develop an exact replica of our shuttle?

...Actually, the plans were to continue using Soyuz in conjunction with
Buran. There were missions where all those wings and cargo space weren't
necessary.

It has always been amazing to me that a completely different awkward
conglomerate of *Soviet* political, military, and scientific interests
conspired to create an identical vehicle. :-)

Except that its not " identical ". Different fuels in the RCS, no main
engines at all, attached to a rocket stage, rather than a fuel tank, and no
solid fuelled boosters, while doubling the number of the liquid fuelled
boosters, and thats just for starters.

I bet the difference in the main engine placement was because they were
unable to solve the problem of transferring fuel from the tank through the
bottom of the shuttle and into the engines.

Well, first of all, do you have any facts/proof on this ? No, because such a
claim would require that the Soviets had designed TWO almost identical
boosters for their heavy lift jobs, with *incompatible* launch pad
requirements.

Because the Buran was designed to fly as one payload of several on the
Energiya booster, which had it's first stage engines been on the Buran, then
the booster would be UNABLE to launch *any other payloads*.

Do look up these issues before you make such ignorant claims, huh ?

So now you are saying that the Soviets designed the Energiya, which looks
like a shuttle stack without the shuttle, as a general purpose heavy lifter.
I suppose the four boosters were squeezed together at the sides in case
other payloads happened to have structures resembling *wings* on them also.
And here they are, going against common engineering sense, and putting
payloads on the sides of rockets, for which the shuttle has been repeatedly
criticized. The synchronization of the two designs is astounding.

Doesn't it make more sense to think that someone, or should I say some
committee in the Kremlin said, "They beat us to the moon, but it's not going
to happen this time. So get someone over there and find out what their
doing!!"

So it looks like they just opted to stick them on the ET. Buran is truncated
in the back in just the same way as our shuttle for the mounting of main
engines there.

No, it IS that they built a large heavy lift rocket ( Energiya ) that could
also heft a payload that is a Buran orbiter.

Or, conveniently, anything heavy with big wing-like things sticking out, non
of which has ever been seen.

Many modern jetliners look as alike as do STS and Buran, while being made by
different nations' airline builders, and while having very different
characteristics. Because they all operate in the same flight regimes, and
that also applies to similarly sized and shaped spacecraft. ( " similar "
not being a synonym for " identical ". )

Plus, note that the general appearance of the STS was pretty much fixed and
publically available before the mid 70s, and Buran didn't come out to fly
until the near end of the 80s.

They rolled out only a few years apart

1976, and 1988 aren't just " a few years apart ". They're over a decade apart.
Duh.

Buran's first flight test was in 1984 which I think is before 1988.

and the only two craft from different countries that share equal similarities
are the Russian and Chinese Soyuz's and that is an admitted copy.

That is utterly irrelevent to any other spacecraft.

Either offer some PROOF for your claim, or have the honour to withdraw it.

I don't need proof, I am making an educated guess.

George Evans

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Waiting for controversy...?
    ... fuelled boosters, while doubling the number of the liquid fuelled boosters, ... bottom of the shuttle and into the engines. ... Because the Buran was designed to fly as one payload of several on the ... Energiya booster, which had it's first stage engines been on the Buran, ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... we are flying the shuttle and the EELVs! ... except for the easy stuff, like the avionics and engines, for instance. ... are the space shuttle main engines - SSMEs. ... There are no physical barriers to SSTO flight. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Er, Uh, Kinda important
    ... >> you think happens if the engines shut down before the shuttle has reached ... > America's progress in space instead of the shuttle disasters. ... China IS going to go to the moon. ... is that the reason it hasn't happened is not the fault of NASA. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Secret 2-stage-to-orbit "Blackstar" Spaceplane.
    ... The wings and undercarriage are actually quite small for such a vehicle ... LOX/Keronsene engines have twice the thrust to weight ratio of LOX/LH ... The very hot exhaust of the turbo pump turbines is ... Shuttle Main Engines. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Hubble to be Repaired
    ... SSME's are fairly expensive engines to make. ... The SSME was pretty much created for the shuttle. ... engine design to fit a bleeding edge launch vehicle design. ... expensive to fly than disposables ... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading