knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/01/88)
Amongst all the photos of our re-entry into space, there was one of the shuttle stack sitting on the pad. It was a little funny: (1) The gantry didn't look quite like any angle Id seen (2) The ET was a bit skinny (3) The booster fairings, instead of conical crayon points, were dovetailed into the ET (a good idea, seems to me) (4) Some kids had spray-painted "CCCP" on the port wing. Well, you can guess that the caption said "First released photo of the new Soviet shuttle." It's nice to know Xerox sells to the Soviets, or was it Sharp? No, Toshiba of course! I knew there shuttle was similar to ours, but not only is the orbiter the same shape, but even the color scheme is the same, with black leading edges and all! Kidding aside, have I read on this newsgroup that their boosters are liquid fueled? The caption referred to them as Energias. Do they use tiles? I know they throw titanium around like plastic (whole submarines with titanium hulls).
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/02/88)
In article <6981@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >Well, you can guess that the caption said "First released >photo of the new Soviet shuttle." It's nice to know Xerox >sells to the Soviets, or was it Sharp? No, Toshiba of course! [From context, the above *may* not have been serious... but it's worth reminding new readers that jokes should *always* be marked with smiley faces ":-)", because tone of voice is not conveyed well by this medium and misunderstandings are easy.] People who claim the Soviets stole the design of their shuttle from the US are (a) underestimating the Soviets, (b) underestimating the degree to which good design is dictated by the laws of nature, and (c) ignoring the ways in which their design is better. >I knew there shuttle was similar to ours, but not only is >the orbiter the same shape, but even the color scheme is the same, >with black leading edges and all! This is hardly a surprise. The black stuff on the leading edges of the US shuttle is not paint, it is the carbon-carbon high-temperature tiles. If the Soviets are using similar thermal protection, their leading edges will look black too. Also, don't overlook the fact that the Soviets have a bit of an inferiority complex, and might choose trivia like the paint scheme to resemble the US one deliberately: "see, we can build one like that too". >... have I read on this newsgroup >that their boosters are liquid fueled? The caption referred >to them as Energias. The things that look like SRBs and the thing that looks like an external tank are, together, the Energia heavy-lift launcher. The SRB lookalikes are strap-on liquid-fuel boosters. The ET lookalike is not just a tank, it is a complete rocket stage. The combination is the heaviest launcher now operational in the world, in the same class as the defunct Saturn V. The Soviet shuttle orbiter is just an unusually-shaped payload for Energia; the orbiter has no major engines of its own. >Do they use tiles? Quite possibly. I don't think anyone is sure. >I know they throw titanium around like >plastic (whole submarines with titanium hulls). Rockets have always made a lot of use of exotic alloys, so it wouldn't be surprising to find titanium in Energia. For that matter, given that the USSR is a major world supplier of titanium, it wouldn't be a great surprise if there is Soviet titanium in the US shuttles. -- 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
rcj@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Robert Johnson) (10/03/88)
With the incresing speculation on the Soviet Shuttle, I was just wondering
why the hell they are using Energia? The whole advantage to ours is that
our main engines are reusable. The Energia and engines will fry, and all
that will be reusable is the shuttle itself, and maybe the SRB's (well,
LFRB's...). All I have to say to this is why? It's akin to sticking a
Shuttle on a Saturn V...Sorta defeats the purpose.
Robert Johnsonhenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/88)
In article <5705@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> rcj@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes: >why the hell they are using Energia? The whole advantage to ours is that >our main engines are reusable. The Energia and engines will fry, and all >that will be reusable is the shuttle itself, and maybe the SRB's (well, >LFRB's...). All I have to say to this is why? It's akin to sticking a >Shuttle on a Saturn V...Sorta defeats the purpose. The Soviets say that all of Energia, the core as well as the strap-ons, is designed to be recoverable. Sounds like a tall order to me, but there is nothing fundamentally impossible about it. I believe they haven't yet tried recovering the core. Bear in mind that Energia has two primary roles, not just one. It's not just a shuttle carrier; it is also a heavylift booster in its own right. Putting the engines on the orbiter would make that impossible. The US is just now talking about building Shuttle-C, the shuttle-derived heavylift booster; the Soviets started with the heavylift booster and added a shuttle as a bonus. Don't forget that the economics of reusability are not quite as simple as one might think. The Soviets have a far more capable space program than the US's, based entirely around expendable boosters. Their costs for an expendable launch are considerably lower than for the US's mostly-reusable shuttle. Mass production makes a big difference. The West tends to think that 50 boosters is a huge bulk order; that's six months' supply for the Soviet space program. They are committed to a 40-year production run on Energia already. (Lest we forget, the Saturn V was dead ten years after its first flight.) Sticking a shuttle on a Saturn V would have been a hell of a lot better than sticking it on segmented solid boosters! And it would have flown sooner, and probably have been cheaper, too. -- 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) (10/04/88)
In article <1988Oct2.021158.15076@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > People who claim the Soviets stole the design of their shuttle from the > US are (a) underestimating the Soviets, (b) underestimating the degree > to which good design is dictated by the laws of nature, and (c) ignoring > the ways in which their design is better. OK, I'll remember the :-) next time. Actually, my posting resulted from my surprise at a number of things: Speculation had been that the Soviet shuttle would be titanium wings (like our old DynaSoar idea) and not tiles. Now I've always thought that tiles were an elegant usage of exotic materials, but I've seen them poo-pooed on this newsgroup as yet another NASA sleazy cost-cutting. As if we really *should* use solid titanium or tungsten or whatever. So the Soviet color scheme suggested that they too consider tiles worthwhile. Unless they just painted the thing that way for the photo. Maybe they just tile the leading edges, the rest is bare metal. > Also, don't overlook the fact that the Soviets have a bit of an inferiority > complex, and might choose trivia like the paint scheme to resemble the US > one deliberately: "see, we can build one like that too". You'd think that inferiority complex would be gone by now, but... > The Soviet shuttle orbiter is just an unusually-shaped payload for Energia; > the orbiter has no major engines of its own. I knew what the Energia was, but I was fooled by the camera angle (which hid the main engines) into thinking the engines were on the orbiter. I'd alos heard the orbiter was supposed to be just dead payload on an Energia or Proton, but this photo looked otherwise. If the Soviets intended dis-information, they scored big on me. Overall, I'm surprised (plesantly) by how thoroughly the Reds have followed our design, including bothering with a Shuttle at all. Of course, our mistake was not indeveloping the shuttle, but doing it to the exclusion of other launchers. The Soviets instead have *integrated* their shuttle as anothger "customer" of big boosters. And they don't have to glide and land those heavy engines. Do they parachute-recover Energia boosters, or are they cheap enough to forget about? "Cheap" may mean different in the USSR.
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/04/88)
In article <5705@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, rcj@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Robert Johnson) writes: > With the incresing speculation on the Soviet Shuttle, I was just wondering > why the hell they are using Energia? The whole advantage to ours is that > our main engines are reusable. The Energia and engines will fry, and all > that will be reusable is the shuttle itself, and maybe the SRB's (well, > LFRB's...). All I have to say to this is why? It's akin to sticking a > Shuttle on a Saturn V...Sorta defeats the purpose. Well, I've thought about this, and maybe saving the main engines is not the only purpose of a shuttlecraft. First, the Soviet engines are probably a lot cheaper than ours (built to use only once), and the Soviets don't have to be quite so gung-ho on cost-cutting -- they shoot off lots of expendables. (Ironically, with Mir they have a good use for recoverables, tho). Remember, the orbiter itself is 100% re-usable. We never re-used any of our space capsules with ablative heat shields, tho maybe with the constant Mir traffic the Russians do. And they'll turn their orbiters around a lot faster since they don't have to refurbish the engines (we don't just refuel our SSMEs -- they get dismounted and overhauled). Their shuttle can still deploy heavy payloads needing human assistance, and bring back satellites in the cargo bay. And they can glide and land lighter without dragging the main engines back in their tail. Splashing down in the ocean (or a Soviet beet field) under parachutes is an undignified, dangerous, and bumpy way to come back to Earth. If we had Saturn V's, I'm not so sure that strapping engineless orbiters to them would be such a bad idea. Although I'd sure work on a parachute scheme to get those F1 1st-stage engines back.
alastair@geovision.uucp (Alastair Mayer) (10/04/88)
In article <6981@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >Amongst all the photos of our re-entry into space, >there was one of the shuttle stack sitting on the pad. >It was a little funny: >(1) The gantry didn't look quite like any angle Id seen >(2) The ET was a bit skinny >(3) The booster fairings, instead of conical crayon points, >were dovetailed into the ET (a good idea, seems to me) >(4) Some kids had spray-painted "CCCP" on the port wing. > >Well, you can guess that the caption said "First released >photo of the new Soviet shuttle." It's nice to know Xerox >sells to the Soviets, or was it Sharp? No, Toshiba of course! > >I knew there shuttle was similar to ours, but not only is >the orbiter the same shape, but even the color scheme is the same, >with black leading edges and all! > >Kidding aside, have I read on this newsgroup >that their boosters are liquid fueled? The caption referred >to them as Energias. >Do they use tiles? I know they throw titanium around like >plastic (whole submarines with titanium hulls). Just because a shark and a dolphin have similar shapes, does that mean one is a copy of the other? The US and Soviet shuttles have similar shapes for aerodynamic reasons. (Not totally true - other shapes would work, but US shuttle proved that large delta wing works.) The structures are totally different. The color scheme, by the way, is dictated by thermal loads during reentry (but I expect you knew that). There are quite a few differences: the Soviet shuttle doesn't have (main) engines - the main engines are at the base of the ET-like structure. They are (like shuttle) LH2/LOX engines. The strap-on boosters are *liquid* (lox/kerosene ?) not solid. Yes, the basic central tank and engines, plus liquid boosters, is the Energia heavy-lift launcher. The shuttle is just one of the payloads it can boost. It can be used for straight cargo by using a cargo pod instead of the shuttle. It can lift more by adding strap on boosters. Furthermore, it's recoverable. The boosters separate and recover by parachute. The central tank and engines are apparently also recoverable, but splits into three sections (engines, O2 tank, H2 tank) for recovery (dunno how they're recovered though). Shuttleski has been on and off the pad several times this year. Some rumor of software problems delaying the launch, but most likely explanation I heard (given Soviet way of thinking) was that the were various political considerations in the timing vis a vis its probable overshadowing of other newsworthy events.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/88)
In article <7014@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >Overall, I'm surprised (plesantly) by how thoroughly the Reds have >followed our design, including bothering with a Shuttle at all. Don't be misled by this; remember that they are not doing it as a launch vehicle, they're doing it as a recovery vehicle. It makes a difference. >Do they parachute-recover Energia boosters, or are they cheap enough >to forget about? "Cheap" may mean different in the USSR. The mysterious boxes on the sides of the Energia strap-ons are reported to be parachute housings. -- 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
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/88)
In article <7016@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >If we had Saturn V's, I'm not so sure that strapping engineless >orbiters to them would be such a bad idea. Although I'd sure work on >a parachute scheme to get those F1 1st-stage engines back. Serious attention was given to the idea of making later Saturn V first stages recoverable. When the production run was cut to 15, such ideas were shelved. -- 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
perl@step.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (10/05/88)
In article <6981@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: > I knew there shuttle was similar to ours, but not only is > the orbiter the same shape, but even the color scheme is the same, > with black leading edges and all! The commentators on CBS addressed this saying that any glide-reentry shuttle would have to look the same as ours because of the aerodynamics involved. Robert Perlberg Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., New York phri!{dasys1 | philabs | manhat}!step!perl -- "I am not a language ... I am a free man!"
rlf@mtgzy.att.com (r.l.fletcher) (10/07/88)
So what if the Soviets did use our Shuttle shape to build theirs. I doubt very much if anything besides the shape is similar. Is their main computer based on an IBM 360 too? Its not like we fly the thing with a cloak over it to keep its shape a secret. Does anyone know the patent number for the shape and color scheme of a US Shuttle? Yeesh, who was it that said, "impersonation is the ultimate form of flattery?" Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a major world power "borrowed" technology/ideas/people from other countries to further their own space effort now would it? I believe it is quite possible that the Soviets arrived at the shape of their own accord, or they could have copied us. Much of the Shuttles physical specifications are public information. But why does it matter? Sure, let's let our egos further the dis-integration of Soviet/US space efforts, it can only help in the long term exploration of space, right? I wonder how far along the world space effort would be now if all interested countries had collaborated on space programs from the beginning. Ron Fletcher AT&T Bell Laboratories Middletown NJ