jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) (11/16/88)
This is a resume of an article which appeared in the English newspaper The Guardian on Tuesday 15th November 1988. It was written by David Whitehouse but the article does not give any further information about him. Mr Whitehouse believes that the Soviet shuttle is a planned copy of the American shuttle and goes on to give his reasons. He starts with a brief history of the Soviet space program. One thing I found curious was claim about the demise of the Soviet moon project. "The superbooster designed to put a Russian on the Moon first didn't work. A damage-limitation exercise was started. They didn't want to go to the Moon they said. What they intended to do along was to build space stations. Curiously the West believed them." This is the first time I have heard that the Russian ever had serious plans to land a man on the moon. Is it true? On the design of "shuttleski" he says "In the early Seventies many in the USSR weren't convinced that the US shuttle would work. But they decided they dare not take the risk, so the USSR had to have one too." "The shuttle design effort was centered at Ramenskoye airfield, south-east of Moscow. It had the best wind tunnel and computing facilities in the country. It was also secure. Work was spread between almost all the major design teams, the Korolev team, the Glushko Bureau and the Moscow Aviation Institute. Just as NASA had done a few years before, they went over ever possible design and variation of the space shuttle and decided they could not build any of them." "They knew that their technology was inferior to that of the US but they had kept up making better use of the technology they had. Now there was the possibility that the gap between them would be just too great. There was only one possible course of action." "There is an office at Ramenskoye whose job it was to obtain all NASA documents, reports, evaluations and photographs of their shuttle. With such freely available, high quality data, the decision was made to use it to build a Soviet space shuttle that looked almost exactly like the US one. Billions of roubles, many years and much face would be saved." "But there were three major problems. The computers available in the USSR weren't up to the job of controlling the shuttle; they lacked the technology to make fused silica material used to protect the outside of the US shuttle from heat; and they couldn't build a re-usable rocket motor of the power and reliability of the three US shuttle main engines." "The answer to these problems was to abandon the idea of having re-usable rockets on the shuttle and place them on the booster that takes the shuttle into orbit. This has some design advantages but economy isn't one of them. The computer problem had to be tolerated in the hope that a major internal effort to improve the quality and reliability of Soviet computers would be adequate. The insulation problem was solved by obtaining data on how the US made the shuttle tiles - and eventually a sample." He then goes on to describe the Soviet shuttle as it is now, this is well known to readers of this newsgroup so I won't repeat it. He finishes off as follows - "And so today, as it heads for orbit for the first time, there will be much jubilation in the USSR. But there will be other emotions." "Some will worry that it smacks a little too much of prestige and not enough of function - a combination that lost them the Moon. Others will say that they have now got a shuttle like the Americans which makes them level and level is the worst possible position they will allow. Yet others will wonder what use they can make of this vehicle now that they've got it. They've never been in that position before but this is the type of problem the Soviets are good at solving." What I was left wondering after reading this article is, who is Mr Whitehouse (A fictitious name maybe :-)), and where did he get all his information. The whole article smacks of sour grapes to me. Anyway I've just seen the launch itself on Swiss TV ... well I didn't see the shuttle clear the launch tower, just a lot of smoke. Then a quick switch to the control room, then another switch to the shuttle gliding into land. As the Swiss commentator said, they may be able to launch a shuttle like NASA, but they don't how to produce good news coverage of it. Did anyone see anything more than this? I mean the shuttle we saw landing might not be the same one. :-) *----------------------------------------------------------------------* | | | Jon Caves UUCP - {uunet,...}!mcvax!cernvax!jon | | Division DD, EAN - jon@priam | | CERN CH-1211, EARN/BITNET - jon@cernvax | | Geneva 23, JANET - caves@cern.cernvm | | Switzerland. | | | *----------------------------------------------------------------------*
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (11/17/88)
From article <880@cernvax.UUCP>, by jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon): About Dave Whitehouse's article in the Guardian: > This is the first time I have heard that the Russian ever had serious > plans to land a man on the moon. Is it true? Yes, most analysts believe the evidence is very strong. The Zond missions in 1968-1970, in which a Soyuz was sent round the moon with animals instead of a human crew on board, then recovered back on Earth, is considered a dead giveaway. Soviet statements prior to Apollo 8 in Dec 1968 were quite explicit about there plans for a landing, and Soviet cosmonauts at the 1967 Paris Air Show told their American counterparts that they had been practising helicopter flying for moon landing training. In addition, the widespread reports that three Saturn V class boosters exploded on the way to orbit in 1969-1972 seem fairly solid, especially given the old launch pad now seen next to the Energia pads, whose existence was deduced from Landsat photos in the early 1970's. > On the design of "shuttleski" he says [Whitehouse summarizes the development of the Soviet Shuttle mainly based on gossip of varying levels of credibility that has appeared in Aviation Week over the past ten years] > > What I was left wondering after reading this article is, who is Mr > Whitehouse (A fictitious name maybe :-)), and where did he get all his > information. The whole article smacks of sour grapes to me. Dr. Whitehouse is an X-ray astronomer at the Mullard Space Science Lab in the UK (or at least he used to be, he now seems to be mostly writing space articles in the UK press). He usually gets his information from NASA press releases and from Flight International and Aviation Week, just like most other people. His information does not seem to be based on the information that has appeared in the Soviet press. Jonathan McDowell
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (11/18/88)
In article <880@cernvax.UUCP> jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) writes: >This is a resume of an article which appeared in the English newspaper The >Guardian on Tuesday 15th November 1988. It was written by David >Whitehouse but the article does not give any further information about >him. Mr Whitehouse believes that the Soviet shuttle is a planned copy of >the American shuttle and goes on to give his reasons... I wonder less about Mr Whitehouse's bona fides than I do about his source. You have to ask yourself, who would that source be? Here we are right after the successful launch, and this reporter surfaces with what is presumably intended to be read as an "insider account" of how the Soviet shuttle was built... the conclusion being, they're hopelessly behind us [!] and so were forced to steal our plans. Now, who would be - or APPEAR to be - in a position to know this kind of stuff? Perhaps a disgruntled Soviet engineer... although any Soviet rocketeer who (a) was active recently enough to have been working on the orbiter project, which is generally thought to have been born in 1982, yet (b) had become a disgruntled whistle-blower since that time, would seem unlikely to be given the opportunity to unburden himself to Fleet Street. Who else? Why, "Western intelligence sources" in the inimitable phrase. Not only is it plausible that the USG would wish to place their own "spin" on what would otherwise be an undiluted publicity and engineering triumph for the Soviet space program... it would be downright lazy of them not to do so! I would expect nothing less for my covert tax dollar. :-) UK papers take a few days to appear here in NY, I will keep my eyes open for this article. -- 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)
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (11/18/88)
In article <880@cernvax.UUCP> jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) writes: >..... [The article] was written by David >Whitehouse but the article does not give any further information about >him. .... Dr David Whitehouse is the BBC radio correspondant on space matters. > "There is an office at Ramenskoye whose job it was to obtain all NASA > documents, reports, evaluations and photographs of their shuttle. With i.e. do research first to find out what work other people have already done on the idea. It would have been very strange if they hadn`t done this. >What I was left wondering after reading this article is, who is Mr >Whitehouse (A fictitious name maybe :-)), and where did he get all his >information. The whole article smacks of sour grapes to me. Dr Whitehouse is usualy a very well informed and objective reporter. The above excerpts, if representitive of the whole tone of the article, which I haven`t seen, looks a lot like someone trying to convince himself that the Soviets haven`t really done anything new, that they just keep stealing everything from the west. >Anyway I've just seen the launch itself on Swiss TV ... well I didn't see >the shuttle clear the launch tower, just a lot of smoke. Then a quick Plus low cloud and drizzle. Bad weather doesn`t stop Soviet launches. >switch to the control room, then another switch to the shuttle gliding >into land. As the Swiss commentator said, they may be able to launch a >shuttle like NASA, but they don't how to produce good news coverage of it. > >Did anyone see anything more than this? I mean the shuttle we saw landing >might not be the same one. :-) There was a lot more. there were shots from when the shuttle was picked up by the cameras after re-entry through the approach and touchdown, and various close up shots of officials and ground crew posing for photographs under the nose. Presumably after it had cooled off. Bob.
nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command) (11/22/88)
In article <880@cernvax.UUCP> jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) writes: >..... >He starts with a brief history of the Soviet space program. One thing I >found curious was claim about the demise of the Soviet moon project. > > "The superbooster designed to put a Russian on the Moon first didn't > work. A damage-limitation exercise was started. They didn't want to > go to the Moon they said. What they intended to do along was to build > space stations. Curiously the West believed them." > >This is the first time I have heard that the Russian ever had serious >plans to land a man on the moon. Is it true? I recall reading in "Chariots for Apollo" (the NASA history of the Moon program) that the Soviets soft-landed a probe on the Moon. It scooped up some soil, and successfully returned it to Earth! This all happened just a year or so before the U.S. manned Moon landing. Anyone else know more about this? Kendall Auel ^ ^ /O O\ Tektronix, Inc. | V | Information Display Group / """ \ Interactive Technologies Division / """"" \ (kendalla@pooter.GWD.TEK.COM) /|\ /|\
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (11/22/88)
From article <10654@tekecs.TEK.COM>, by nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command): > I recall reading in "Chariots for Apollo" (the NASA history of the > Moon program) that the Soviets soft-landed a probe on the Moon. > It scooped up some soil, and successfully returned it to Earth! > This all happened just a year or so before the U.S. manned Moon > landing. Anyone else know more about this? No, the probe actually flew the year after the US landing. Luna-16 flew to the moon and back in Sep 1970, bringing home a small amount of lunar rock. They tried once earlier, while Armstrong and Aldrin were actually on the Moon! Luna-15 tried to land in Mare Crisium to upstage Apollo 11's triumph.. but it crashed. Eagle landed at Tranquility after Armstrong took over direct control to avoid a similar fate. But I won't get into 'uses of humans in space' here, we've talked about it enough lately. Luna-20 in 1972 and Luna-24 in 1976 also returned a few hundred grams of lunar material (much much less than the Apollo missions), while Luna-18 and Luna-23 failed in similar attempts. Jonathan McDowell
thomas@irisa.UUCP (Henry Thomas) (11/23/88)
In article <10654@tekecs.TEK.COM>, nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command) writes: > I recall reading in "Chariots for Apollo" (the NASA history of the > Moon program) that the Soviets soft-landed a probe on the Moon. > It scooped up some soil, and successfully returned it to Earth! > This all happened just a year or so before the U.S. manned Moon > landing. Anyone else know more about this? Yes. The russians send in the first half of the '70s two unmanned buggies on the moon: Lunakhod 1 & 2. "Lunakhod" was a platform carrying a remote-guided buggy which picked up some soil and went back to earth. By the way, the laser reflectors carried by the Lunakhods were french ones. Talking about russians, the first man-made object to land on Mars was russian. It's name was "Mars 3" and it happened in '67 (not sure of the date). "Mars 3" was a kind of dart which plunged in the martian soil and then begin to emit measurements. Less than 60 seconds after, the signal died. Anyway, it was before VIKING I & II. The russians then concentrated their efforts on venus. By now, they says that Energya can send 30 tons toward Mars... ----------------------------------------- Henry Thomas | Phone: 99.36.20.00 extension 549 | Equipe API | Fax: 99 38 38 32 | IRISA | Telex: UNIRISA 950 473F | Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu | E-mail: thomas@irisa.fr | 35042 RENNES CEDEX - FRANCE | UUCP: ...!mcvax!inria!irisa!thomas | -----------------------------------------