Indeed, the american shuttle was seen by the Soviet leaders as a formidable military asset, so they decided to create one.
This program was the most ambitious project of the history of the Soviet space conquest. During 18 years, more than 1 million people in companies and 86 ministries and departments directly worked on the project. The greatest scientific and industrial centers of the country took part in it. Unfortunately, the total cost of the program Thus, many differences separate this 2 orbitors, here are some: the Buran shuttle have a higher orbital and deorbital carrying capacity, its 2 engines at the rear enables it to fly during the re-entry in the atmosphere, it is equipped with a more powerful heat shield, but the main difference is that Buran can fly in automatic mode without any pilot on-board, from the takeoff of the rocket to its landing on the tarmac.
It was planned to be used, with the shuttle, or with other loads, placed on the side like Polious or in the nose cone. Energia is part of a very modular launcher family based on same technicals characteristics wich allow them to be complementary. In its maximum configuration 8 booster rockets , the payload that can be put into orbit could reach the tons. Certainly the 'Buran-Energiya' system is the more effective space complex. But it is necessary to remember that "Buran" was created after 'Space-Shuttle' with a break of more than 5 years.
It has allowed on one hand to apply more modern methods of designing, materials, manufacturing technologies, test methods etc. Shattered dreams and unfulfilled promises? Much like the US space shuttle An exact copy?
The tools were almost available, but the political and financial will were not. Sounds familiar hint: current NASA's budget crisis?
Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle (Springer Praxis Books) [Bart Hendrickx, Bert Vis] on deocomdudistio.cf *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Authors: Hendrickx, Bart, Vis, Bert. In Energiya-Buran: the Soviet Space Shuttle, the authors describe the long development path of the Soviet space shuttle system, consisting of the Energiya rocket and the Buran orbiter. The program eventually saw just one unmanned flight in.
So why they should use another design just to say: "look we haven't spied on you! It's not an exact copy.
No big engines at the rear, for starters. And once you remove those, you remove a lot of weight from the rear, meaning that the center of gravity changes entirely, and the center of pressure, etc. So the Soviet engineers had to take all of that into account and design this vehicle essentially from scratch.
First of all, they benefited technically from the American data on the tiles and thermal stresses. I've read claims that all of that information was published openly in the United States. However, such claims have lacked detail. How much of that info was published openly? Plus, telling everybody what the tiles and other thermal protection was made of is not the same as telling people how to make it. Second, and I think equally important, is the question of why the Soviet engineers picked the dimensions that they did for Buran.
Why is the payload bay the same size as the US shuttle? It could have been smaller. And why did they seek wings that were roughly the same dimensions? We know that the US shuttle wings were dictated by crossrange requirements. Why did the Buran designers pick the same crossrange requirements?
mta-sts.new.userengage.io/map34.php In summary, I think that the Buran espionage story is overly simplistic on both sides. The people who say that the Buran designers "stole" the US shuttle design are wrong. But the people who counter by saying that Buran had to look the same as the shuttle are also wrong. It could have had less crossrange. It could have looked significantly different than it did. I'm hoping that this upcoming book answers those questions. The key work that was copied was not the design, but the concept. Or to be more honest, they understood all too well that NASA's studies were flawed.
They didn't believe it would be capable of rapid turnarounds on the ground, and they didn't believe it would lower the cost to orbit. They believed NASA was lying about both these benefits in order to hide the real purpose. But they couldn't figure out the purpose either. The only thing they could surmise is the design allowed for a launch, dropping of a nuclear bomb over the Soviet Union, and landing in one orbit.
So they decided this must be it's real purpose. Given that threat they needed a counterpart, so they made a vehicle that could do the same thing. That, plus the details of the American shuttle available in literature as Mr. Day describes, is the reason the two are so similar. However, the logic that we built the shuttles to drop nuclear weapons over Russia is, quite frankly, silly. On one hand "they didn't believe it would lower the cost to orbit" and on the other the only real purpose for it would be to allow for launch, drop and landing in a single day.
When you put this in light of the fact that we had and still have other methods of delivering nuclear weapons, even on Russian soil, that logic doesn't hold water. Why would we develop a new weapons system that costs more to launch than our existing methods and also includes humans at the same time?
The risks are higher, the costs are higher and there's no compelling reason to do it in the first place. Not for that reason. Sorry, I was active military US at the time the shuttles were built.
Yes, we heard a lot of propaganda about the "Russian threat". And a lot of it wasn't true.
But this doesn't make sense. The Russian's aren't that dumb. Even in view of what we were taught at the time. Maybe not dropping a bomb, but the basic idea of the space shuttle serving as a platform from which to rapidly deploy a military asset fits within the known history of the vehicle's development.
No big engines at the rear, for starters. Then in , on the demise of the…. Never used! N ot everyone in the Soviet space community was pleased with the decision to develop a reusable space shuttle. One of the most iconic spacecraft of all time.
To quote Jim Oberg: A key scenario among the planned missions that drove the shuttle's design was the Pentagon's need for a superfast, single-orbit mission that would deploy or retrieve a military satellite.