system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) (10/01/88)
In article <2204@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>, jck@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Kesler) writes: > > Did everybody see the picture of the Soviet shuttle on the news this > evening? The orbiter part looked almost exactly like our orbiter, > minus the main engines. Was that really a picture? It looked more like an artist drawing. The report also stated that the first launch would be unmanned. Does this mean the Soviets are going to use remote control to be it back? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Lesure / Arizona State University / Tempe, AZ "Between the world of men and make-believe, I can be found..." "False faces and meaningless chases, I travel alone..." "And where do you go when you come to the end of your dream?" UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!lesure Internet/CSNET/ARPA: lesure@asuvax.asu.edu
DOHC@TUCCVM.BITNET (Bob Roberds) (10/01/88)
OK, anybody know any facts/semi-facts about the USSR's shuttle? As I under-
stand it, it's a glider stapled to one BIG mother{expletive deleted}ing
rocket. What's the deal with the upcoming unmannded test flight?
And while we're at it: it is proven FACT that the "flame" we all thought
we saw on the Discovery's SRB wasn't evidence of a burn through? It would
seem so. Let us pray.henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/02/88)
In article <2204@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> jck@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Chuck Kesler) writes: >... it looked as big as ours, but I was under the impression >that theirs was quite a bit smaller... You're thinking of their "mini-shuttle" experiments, the purpose of which is still disputed. Their big shuttle is pretty much the same size as the US one, although the detail design is very different. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (10/02/88)
From article <1988Oct1.224801.11041@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > You're thinking of their "mini-shuttle" experiments, the purpose of which > is still disputed. Their big shuttle is pretty much the same size as the > US one, although the detail design is very different. [+ other postings in which Henry says that the two orbiters are different..] Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. From the pictures I've seen so far (CNN and NYT) I really can't decide whether it's a genuine Soviet orbiter or an airbrush touch-up of a US orbiter photo pasted onto the Energia photo. The rear is indeed different (no SSME's) but even the RCS pods look the same. This is more than similar engineering; it is reverse engineering to a large degree. I don't say that it ain't a great achievement, and I suspect they have learned from NASA's mistakes (not using solids, for one),but if this really is the Soviet orbiter, it's a copy of ours. Jonathan McDowell P.S. I hope the reverse flow explanation for the SRB plume is right; and I hope a lot of thermal studies have been done on its effect on the ET.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/88)
In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization >forces you to be THAT close in size and shape... >... This is more than similar engineering; it is reverse engineering >to a large degree. ...if this >really is the Soviet orbiter, it's a copy of ours. Art Bozlee and Charlie Vick -- probably the top non-CIA Soviet-space-program analysts in the West -- say "not so". Given that they probably know more about the Soviet space program than everyone in this newsgroup combined :-), I am inclined to believe them. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (10/04/88)
In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization >forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. Do not confuse the airframe contour with the overall system design. We went through years of computer modelling to come up with an optimized shape for a man-rated cargo craft that can launch and re-enter in one piece. Our orbiter is pretty but everything is there for a mission-related reason (except the flag and name <grin>). If the Soviet mission is the same, it's reasonable to expect a similar appearance. I'm not saying our experience didn't save the Soviets a bundle of headscratching, but this is essentially what a Shuttle is supposed to look like. For comparison, consider Orbiter designs over the life of the STS program from the planning stages onwars. Throughout all the wacky changes in booster design and configuration, the one thing that stayed looking essentially the same was the orbiter. > From the pictures I've seen >so far (CNN and NYT) I really can't decide whether it's a genuine Soviet >orbiter or an airbrush touch-up of a US orbiter photo pasted onto the >Energia photo. Then you haven't looked very closely. Theirs is *much* stubbier than ours, and the wing flanges don't extend nearly as far up the fuselage. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) (10/05/88)
In article <6798@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > For comparison, consider Orbiter designs over the life of the STS > program from the planning stages onwars. Throughout all the wacky > changes in booster design and configuration, the one thing that stayed > looking essentially the same was the orbiter. Since you told another poster "Then you haven't looked very closely", I will say the same words apply here. See the models on display at the National Air and Space Museum. Or the articles in Popular Science from the time the design was being worked out. At one point, Nasa's preferred design had small, stubby, almost straight wings to minimize their weight. The Air Force was pushing flattened delta-shaped blended wing/body to get a reentry cross-range of 1500 miles. The final design was a compromise: Nasa got its boxy fuselage, and USAF got large wings. What I wonder is why, with Energia to launch payloads, the SU shuttle needs to be the size (as well as shape) of the US shuttle. Why not a Dyna-Soar-sized vehicle to go up on a Proton? Actually, if I recall my AW&ST right, the Soviets are developing two shuttles, and the little one is a lifting body comparable to Dyna-Soar or Hermes. Just what is the mission of the big shuttle? -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/06/88)
Since the Soviet orbiter contains no main engines, I wonder why they didn't stick it axially on top of the central Energia, like a 2nd stage with wings? Maybe this would create greater bending moments or other structural loads on the "stack," but I always thought our (and now their) side-mounting scheme looked ungainly and not very aerodynamic. Any comments? BTW, the latest Newsweek shows a color detail of the Soviet photo, and looking very carefully under the orbiter's butt you can see one nozzle of the Energia's central cluster. Newsweek also said that the simulator building for training shuttle crews has just begun construction. Perhaps this is why the death of the original pilot is holding things up. However, you can also see some unfinished-looking girders (painted white like the rest of the oriber's rear) extending from the butt. Maybe these are part of the pad supports, or maybe this is where the turbojet engines will be attached. Perhaps the shuttle is months away from launch, but they took advantage of the hiatus to do a dry-run of putting the "stack" on the pad, just as we did at Vandenburg (hope we get to use that pad).
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/06/88)
In article <4933@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >What I wonder is why, with Energia to launch payloads, the SU shuttle >needs to be the size (as well as shape) of the US shuttle. Why not >a Dyna-Soar-sized vehicle to go up on a Proton? Actually, if I recall >my AW&ST right, the Soviets are developing two shuttles, and the little >one is a lifting body comparable to Dyna-Soar or Hermes. Just what is >the mission of the big shuttle? Returning major payloads from orbit. That's the one thing that the Soviets can't do with their existing hardware. The purpose of the little Soviet shuttle is very unclear. It's been said to be everything from a maneuvering warhead prototype to an experimental vehicle for hypersonic technology work. Proton is not man-rated, by the way. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rogers@wlf.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers; FAST) (10/06/88)
Regarding why the soviets, with Energia, would want a Shuttle: they need it, not to *launch* large payloads, but to *retrieve* them.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/07/88)
In article <7054@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >Since the Soviet orbiter contains no main engines, I wonder >why they didn't stick it axially on top of the central Energia, >like a 2nd stage with wings? ... Putting a winged body on top of a tall thin booster can create some nasty bending loads. Not impossible, but tricky. It also has some practical disadvantages like needing a higher tower. It's the sort of situation where one would want to study the tradeoffs carefully, I'd think. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) (10/07/88)
In article <1988Oct5.232401.15176@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Proton is not man-rated, by the way. Is there anything fundamentally un-man-ratable about it? Or is it just that there has been no mission which requires the bother of getting it man-rated? -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (10/07/88)
In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: (about the Soviet Space Shuttlsky) > Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization > forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. Oh? Go line up a Mazda RX-7, a Toyota Celica, and a Porsche 944. Are they all copying each other, or just doing what the wind tunnel told them to do? -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "How do you make the boat go when there's no wind?" -- Me --
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/07/88)
In article <4938@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >> Proton is not man-rated, by the way. > >Is there anything fundamentally un-man-ratable about it? Or is it just >that there has been no mission which requires the bother of getting >it man-rated? It's not entirely clear. Proton does, reportedly, give its payloads a fairly rough ride. There are people who claim that the Soyuz 1 disaster occurred because Soyuz 1 went up on a Proton. (For those who forget, Soyuz 1 had control problems after reentry, and possibly before, and its pilot (Komarov) was killed when the parachute straps tangled.) I'd guess that it's a combination of both: problems with Proton, lack of real need. Proton may be sort of a hacked-together booster in any case. Its upper stages look a bit big for its first stage, and there is speculation that the second and third stages were originally meant to be third and fourth stages for the "G" superbooster. The suggestion is that when the G was abandoned (after three launch attempts all ended in explosions), Proton was cobbled together in an attempt to salvage something from the project. Proton's first stage *is* kind of a weird design. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (10/09/88)
In article <216@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >(about the Soviet Space Shuttlsky) >> Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization >> forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. > >Oh? Go line up a Mazda RX-7, a Toyota Celica, and a Porsche 944. Are >they all copying each other, or just doing what the wind tunnel told >them to do? They are all copying each other. (Marketing forces are much greater than aerodynamic forces.) -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/10/88)
In article <216@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > (about the Soviet Space Shuttlsky) > > Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization > > forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. > Oh? Go line up a Mazda RX-7, a Toyota Celica, and a Porsche 944. Are > they all copying each other, or just doing what the wind tunnel told > them to do? I haven't had that good a look at the new Celica/Supra, but anyone who lines up an RX-7 and a 944 and tries to tell me the former isn't a copy of the latter *has* to be a Mazda PR flack. Try sticking a Corvette, a Nissan 300ZX, and a Trans-AM in the lineup. Or switch to mid-engined cars and line up a Fiero, MR-2, and Lotus Esprit. But, back to the shuttle... I suspect that the similarities are based on more than just PR. This is an awfully expensive PR move otherwise. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (10/12/88)
In article <1988Oct7.165349.20174@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Proton does, reportedly, give its payloads a fairly rough ride. Do you know whether "rough ride" means high-G or vibration? It would seem to me that an all-liquid rocket should be pretty smooth. >Proton's first stage *is* kind of a weird design. I have gotten used to it. Compared to Saturn V, yes, but with SL-4, Titan-III, Delta, Shuttle, and Ariane-IV floating around, it doesn't look all that much out of the ordinary. Or is there something beyond the cluster-look that you have in mind? -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
heiland@whuts.UUCP (HEILAND) (10/12/88)
The other day I attended a talk by James Oberg, who works in the
Space Shuttle program in Houston, and is a recognized authority on
Soviet space technology. After finishing up his talk on the history
of Soviet space flights, he had a few things to say about the shuttle
(plus a picture of the inside of one of their simulators).
First off, he said that the shuttle is using four liquid rockets in
addition to the Energia (sp?) booster. There are no jet engines on the
space shuttle; they were only on the test version. Since there are no
main engines on the shuttle, the orbital manuevering thrusters have been
moved directly behind the vehicle. Mr. Oberg expressed concern that if
the Soviets used our design, the different stress factors resulting from
this change (i.e. having the shuttle "pulled" up) could cause problems.
I think he also said that it appears as if the shuttle does use tiles.
Disclaimer: The statements here are as I think I heard them, and any
errors are strictly my fault.
David J. Heiland
AT&T Bell Labs
Whippany, NJ att!whuts!heilandjay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) (10/14/88)
In article <4885@whuts.UUCP> heiland@whuts.UUCP (HEILAND) writes: >The other day I attended a talk by James Oberg... >a recognized authority on >Soviet space technology. >There are no jet engines on the >space shuttle; they were only on the test version. Oh, great, someone who really has the facts finally posts after I went and looked up the erroneous back issue of Aviation Week! March 28, 1988 Soviet Union Developing Range of Manned, Unmanned Launchers (text with drawings of the Soviet shuttle in various modes, and a comparison drawing of NASA's shuttle stack) [...] Soviet shuttle is shown directly above in its ground test configuration with four jet engines that permit runway takeoffs. The two engines at the base of the vertical fin will be retained for space missions to provide a powered landing approach and perhaps a go-around capability. [...] The Soviet shuttle orbiter was initially carried and drop-tested from a TU-16 bomber. It later was equipped with jet engines, which allowed approach and landing tests to be conducted after a runway takeoff from the Tyuratam launch site. The external tank section for the Soviet shuttle has also been transported by air on the Bison bomber.... I noticed that the photo of the shuttle in the October 10 issue did not mention the jet engines, so I suppose they were deleted at some point and this may have been in an AvWeek article I missed. -- "I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/15/88)
In article <4945@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >>Proton does, reportedly, give its payloads a fairly rough ride. >Do you know whether "rough ride" means high-G or vibration? ... Vibration. >It would seem to me that an all-liquid rocket should be pretty smooth. I don't think the solid-vs-liquid difference has much effect on things like combustion-chamber vibration. Certainly liquids make their own contributions like pogo effect (which is rumored to be a particular problem on Proton). Okay, since somebody is sure to ask what pogo effect is... Consider a momentary slight rise of pressure in combustion chamber. This produces back pressure in the fuel lines coming in, which will tend to slow fuel flow a bit. Slower fuel flow means less coming into combustion chamber, which will tend to reduce chamber pressure. This reduces back pressure, which increases fuel flow, which raises chamber pressure again. Now, if the natural frequency of this oscillation happens to match the resonant frequency of the structure, it can become quite strong. All the more likely because a rocket's structural resonances sweep over a range of frequencies as the tanks empty. A familiar problem in new rockets. The fix is to add some damping somewhere. For the Saturn V first stage, von Braun's engineers added small air cavities (well, helium-gas-filled cavities) in the valves in the fuel lines; turned out the cavities were already there because of the valve design, and all they needed to do was fill them with helium. This added enough "spring" in the fuel lines to considerably reduce the changes in fuel flow caused by fluctuations in chamber pressure. (NB in the above, "fuel" is used generically to include "oxidizer" too.) >>Proton's first stage *is* kind of a weird design. >... is there something beyond the cluster-look that you have in mind? It goes deeper than that. The things that look like strap-ons are not; each of them contains one fuel tank and (at the bottom) one engine. The central core contains a single oxidizer tank, and no engines. [I just might have fuel and oxidizer reversed here.] It's all one, oddly-shaped, piece, not a central stage with strap-ons. Bizarre. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (10/17/88)
From article <1988Oct14.170639.1828@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): >>>Proton's first stage *is* kind of a weird design. > It's all one, oddly-shaped, piece, not a central stage with strap-ons. Bizarre. Ever seen the Saturn 1B first stage?? Not all that different in concept. Jonathan McDowell
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/18/88)
In article <1988Oct14.170639.1828@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > It goes deeper than that. The things that look like strap-ons are not; > each of them contains one fuel tank and (at the bottom) one engine. The > central core contains a single oxidizer tank, and no engines. [I just > might have fuel and oxidizer reversed here.] It's all one, oddly-shaped, > piece, not a central stage with strap-ons. Bizarre. If the engines are liquid hydrogen, then from our own ET I'd expect the side tanks to be LOX and the larger central tank to be LH, since the LH needs so much more volume. BTW, a guy I used to work for told us stories of using the world's first FFT analyzer (special-purpose computer) on rocket accelerometer data to diagnose and pinpoint Pogo effects in one of NASA's early rockets, probably the Mercury booster. Pogo was a big problem; apparently it still is. Those helium cavities in the Satrun fuel lines sound like the same principle as the air chamber on top of old steam fire-engine pumps. Similar gadgets can be installed in plumbing to reduce water hammer. Talk about recycled technology ;-). -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/19/88)
Seems to me that all the big Russian launchers have been built as a bundle of 4 or 5 rockets tapered into a central core. Whether that shape has anything to do with the tanking, or whether it's just a more streamlined version of our Saturn 1st stage (where we had a solid cylindrical tank setup over the motors), I don't know. American esthetics have always favored a straight cylinder, with short conical joints to narrower upper stages. The Soviets have used a form-follows-function approach. BTW, if those bundled Red rockets really did have separate tanks, does that buy anything in reliability or weight? Any advantage in each engine sucking on a separate tank? I can see some structural advantages in the RUssian design. Also simplicity if each section was really a stock small booster, and they were just bolted together. -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/21/88)
In article <7246@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >[funny design of Proton first stage] >If the engines are liquid hydrogen, then from our own ET I'd expect >the side tanks to be LOX and the larger central tank to be LH... The first stage is N2O4/UDMH, I think. I know it's not hydrogen; Energia has the first big Soviet hydrogen engines. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/25/88)
In article <1988Oct20.180651.25023@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > The first stage is N2O4/UDMH, I think. I know it's not hydrogen; Energia > has the first big Soviet hydrogen engines. OK, but what about Energia, the Shuttle booster? What's in the central tank, and the strap-on side tanks? Might the central tank contain both LOX and LH2 like ours to feed all the strap-ons, and the strap-on "tanks" are parachutes? -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/26/88)
In article <7353@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >OK, but what about Energia, the Shuttle booster? What's in the central >tank, and the strap-on side tanks? >Might the central tank contain both LOX and LH2 like ours to feed >all the strap-ons, and the strap-on "tanks" are parachutes? Doesn't seem so. According to the Soviets, the core is LOX/LH2 and the strap-ons are LOX/kerosene. There have been reports that the strap-ons are slight variants of one of the new smaller Soviet launchers. They definitely seem to be fairly independent rocket stages, not parts of the main stage the way Proton's pods are. -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
hunnic@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Jeff Hunnicutt) (11/15/88)
i understand from abc worldl news that the soviets are launching thier shuttle tonight(no time was given)does anyone know anything about it ?m perhaps cnn will carry it live ?info anyone ?
sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) (11/15/88)
SOVIET SHUTTLE LAUNCHES AND LANDS!!!!!
Well it happened. I saw footage on CNN last night of the
Soviet Shuttle blasting off and footage this morning of it landing.
I was stunned that they pulled it off. I was very impressed with
the smooth landing.
If everything went okay, can you say "The United States has fallen
farther behind."? I knew you could. :-(
Bren Bailey
reyn@trsvax.UUCP (11/16/88)
The Soviet Shuttleski flew this morning ( November 15 ). It successfully completed two orbits, and then landed "colse to the launch site." I swear, that bird may look alot like the American shuttle on the pad, but when it lands, the only way you can tell the difference is by the tundra in the foreground insted of a dry lake bed. That, and the chase plane looks a whole lot more like an F-15 than a T-38. Has anyone come across detailed information as to just how close the two are in terms of payload size, pressurized area, etc?
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/16/88)
In article <704@sas.UUCP> sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) writes: > > Well it happened. I saw footage on CNN last night of the >Soviet Shuttle blasting off and footage this morning of it landing. >I was stunned that they pulled it off. I was very impressed with >the smooth landing. > If everything went okay, can you say "The United States has fallen >farther behind."? I knew you could. :-( Hardly. It shows that the Soviets are almost a decade behind in this area at least. I applaud the fact that they are catching up though (as well as the fact that they are ahead in other areas.) -- a thousand years from now it won't matter who was first, as long as _somebody_ explores the Universe. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ __ _ _ _ David Messer - Lynx Data Systems / ) / ' ) ) ) dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- / / __. , __o __/ / / / _ _ _ _ __ ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia! /__/_(_/|_\\/ <__(_/_ / ' (_</_/_)_/_)_</_/ (_ viper!dave
sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) (11/17/88)
I wrote: > Well it happened. I saw footage on CNN last night of the >Soviet Shuttle blasting off and footage this morning of it landing. >I was stunned that they pulled it off. I was very impressed with >the smooth landing. > If everything went okay, can you say "The United States has fallen >farther behind."? I knew you could. :-( ------------------- >> Hardly. It shows that the Soviets are almost a decade behind >> in this area at least. >> David Messer - Lynx Data Systems How can you say this? Yes we made developed and flew the shuttle first, but now that they have one which can be put into space carrying heavier payloads than ours, along with their space station and thousands of man hours in space, you should be able to see that the United States has fallen behind. It is great that we have our shuttle back, but without a national goal, such as landing on the moon in the 60's, the space program will continue to have a lack of direction and not get the public support to spend the billions of dollars required for future projects, such as the space station. Bren Bailey
brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk (Bevis King) (11/18/88)
In Message: <1600@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org(David Messer) says: > >Hardly. It shows that the Soviets are almost a decade behind >in this area at least. > >I applaud the fact that they are catching up though The Soviets Behind?... boy, have you got a shock coming! Just think for one moment before speaking... how much quicker could NASA have had THEIR shuttle back in business if they had been able to: 1. Fly the US shuttle craft unmanned 2. Test the US launcher without a shuttle craft attached Furthermore, take a look at the plans for Shuttle-C... why is it even a valid idea? Simply because the US shuttle is a seriously flawed design. There is no point in linking a heavy-lift rocket (or whatever) exclusively to a manned spacecraft, even in a predominately manned space programme. Take a detailed look at the shuttle craft available or planned: Shuttle Craft Lift Assistance Independantly Usable ------------- --------------- -------------------- US Shuttle Solid Boosters/External Tanks No USSR Shuttle Energia Heavy-Lift Rocket Yes ESA Hermes Arianne 5 (?) Rocket Yes BAe Hotol None Required - To me, the most inexplicable part of the grounding of the NASA shuttle is that they did not use the chance to improve the computer systems to allow unmanned testing of the craft. Surely, in a country such as the States, where the space programme is so throttled by the emotional whims of the public, that it can be grounded for achieving a 96% launch success rate; an unmanned testing ability is more important than ever. If you examine the rocket types in use, there are few with a success rate as high as 96%. I wonder when the American public will become mature enough to accept the risks of space flight without the incredible histrionics we have seen over the last few years. To be part of the dream, one must learn to take the risks. The Russians have known this for years... don't imagine that the cosmonauts don't know when accidents happen, they understand that to be part of the greatest adventure yet, they must take the risks. The Americans don't seem to really believe that yet. Regards, Bevis. Bevis King, Systems Programmer | Email: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk Dept of Computing, Imperial College | UUCP : ..!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!brwk 180 Queens Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK. | Voice: +44 1 589 5111 x 5085 "Never argue with a computer" ... Avon (Blake's 7)
doug@hokulea.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) (09/12/89)
Wonder what the possibility of the Soviets using their shuttle down the line to retrieve one of our spy satellites for it's technology. I would hope our satellites have some sort of self-distruct mechanism on it to deter such action. *=================================================* * Douglas Myhre <doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu> * * Hawaii Institute of Geophysics * * Research Computing Facility * * 2525 Correa Rd. * * Honolulu, HI 96822 * *=================================================*
watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) (09/12/89)
In article <4821@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >Wonder what the possibility of the Soviets using their shuttle down the >line to retrieve one of our spy satellites for it's technology. I would >hope our satellites have some sort of self-distruct mechanism on it to >deter such action. Maybe we could endow our spy satellites with the ability to become "parasitic" once it is swallowed by their space shuttle. Gee, I wish the CIA or NSA would hire me to read sci-fi and think up fun senerios like this (and paying me lots of money). Are you guys listening? :-) John S. Watson, Civil Servant from Hell ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center UUCP: ...!ames!watson Any opinions expressed herein are, like, solely the responsibility of the, like, author and do not, like, represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government.
kthompso@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM (Ken Thompson) (09/12/89)
Say Doug, What would keep us from firing a maneuvering engine from near or inside a pirate space vehicle. -- Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com
c162-de@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (David Navas) (09/13/89)
In article <388@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM> kthompso@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM (Ken Thompson) writes: > What would keep us from firing a maneuvering engine from >near or inside a pirate space vehicle. Well, transmissions from the ground may be blocked by simply enclosing the pirated craft inside of a Gaussian Surface. And I can't imagine that those maneuvering engines have much gusto associated with them. Why should they? David Navas c162-de@zooey.Berkeley.Edu
dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) (09/13/89)
In article <17095@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c162-de@zooey.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David Navas) writes: >Well, transmissions from the ground may be blocked by simply enclosing the >pirated craft inside of a Gaussian Surface. And I can't imagine that those >maneuvering engines have much gusto associated with them. Why should they? You don't need much gusto to cause trouble for a satellite retriever. Douglas Krause One yuppy can ruin your whole day. --------------------------------------------------------------------- University of California, Irvine Internet: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/13/89)
In article <388@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM> kthompso@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM (Ken Thompson) writes: > What would keep us from firing a maneuvering engine from >near or inside a pirate space vehicle. Before retrieval, you could make life difficult for the retriever by firing your thrusters -- but not forever. An unmanned Buran with a big fuel load might well outlast a KH's ability to play hide and seek. If not, you can always send another one up later -- the KH can't refuel. More crucially though, if you can attach ANYTHING to the KH you can break its ground control link, and that's all she wrote. That's why I presume there's some self destruct mechanism built in, which could be heard via omni at high gain from the ground if there were ever evidence that Something Funny was happening. One might as well mention that while a KH is taking evasive action it is probably unable to observe what's happening on the ground... :-) -- Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
jmd@ursa.UUCP (Josh Diamond) (09/15/89)
In article <31711@ames.arc.nasa.gov> watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) writes: >In article <4821@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >>Wonder what the possibility of the Soviets using their shuttle down the >>line to retrieve one of our spy satellites for it's technology. I would >>hope our satellites have some sort of self-distruct mechanism on it to >>deter such action. > >Maybe we could endow our spy satellites with the ability to become >"parasitic" once it is swallowed by their space shuttle. > >Gee, I wish the CIA or NSA would hire me to read sci-fi and think up fun >senerios like this (and paying me lots of money). Are you guys listening? :-) Have you ever seen the movie _Three_Days_of_the_Condor_? Later... Josh Diamond AKA Spidey!!! -- /\ \ / /\ Josh Diamond {philabs.phillips.com, sun.com}!gotham!ursa!jmd //\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!! ...!{sun, pwcmrd, philabs, pyrnj}!gotham!ursa!jmd //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \ Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michaelangelo
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (09/18/89)
In article <1863@ursa.UUCP> jmd@ursa.UUCP (Josh Diamond) writes: >In article <31711@ames.arc.nasa.gov> watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) writes: >>Gee, I wish the CIA or NSA would hire me to read sci-fi and think up fun >>senerios like this (and paying me lots of money). Are you guys listening? :-) >Have you ever seen the movie _Three_Days_of_the_Condor_? The book is "SIX Days of the Condor." (A Reader's Digest Movie?) -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
Terry.S.@fidonet.ieee.org (Terry S.) (12/30/90)
Whatever happened to the new Soviet Shuttle? There was alot of coverage around it when it went up, then it seemed to have disappeared off the face of the planet! Did it have too many problems or what? -- Terry S. - Internet: Terry.S.@fidonet.ieee.org
gwh@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (12/31/90)
In article <1860.277D4ABB@fidonet.ieee.org> Terry.S.@fidonet.ieee.org (Terry S.) writes: > Whatever happened to the new Soviet Shuttle? > There was alot of coverage around it when it went up, > then it seemed to have disappeared off the face of the planet! > Did it have too many problems or what? The Soviet 'Buran' orbiter was the first testbed, roughly equivalent to the 'Enterprise' Shuttle. It didn't have an installed life support system etc. when it flew. They have a second, fully equipped orbiter that's expected online in (1992?). Buran isn't ever going to be refitted; it's apparently not worth it for them. == George William Herbert == **There are only two truly infinite things,** == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == * the universe and stupidity. And I am * =======Anywhere, My Price======= * unsure about the universe. -A.Einstein * == gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == ********************************************* == ucbvax!ocf!gwh == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (12/31/90)
In article <1860.277D4ABB@fidonet.ieee.org> Terry.S.@fidonet.ieee.org writes: > Whatever happened to the new Soviet Shuttle? The first Buran flew a mission during the summer of 1988. It was a remote-controlled flight, there were no human crew aboard. In fact, I have heard that Buran's crew cabin and life-support systems were not completed. It was strictly a test flight. Rumor has it that one of the leading edge wing heat shields (some type of carbon-fiber or graphite material) failed during the flight and allowed heat to damage the wing interior and structure. The next Buran mission is scheduled for the summer of 1991. Buran is set to dock with the Mir space station. There is an article in the current issue of "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics" (I cannot recall which) with more details. According to an article in "Final Frontier", Buran has been on somewhat low priority because the Soviets feel that there is no real mission for a shuttle at the present. With the family of boosters that the Soviets currently have, the only type of mission that would require a Buran is a mission that returns cargo from space. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================