4 ms·

If you think that's interesting, check out the buran shuttle which landed autonomously from orbit, a feat only replicated in the us decades later with the x-37.

Faark 7y ago
Yeah, kinda sad it only made orbit once. Buran is at least mentioned every once in a while, though obviously not as often as Sputnik, Gagarin and the like. Youtube has a bunch of hits for it, while in contrast to what there is barely anything at all in english for "Luna 16". I also vividly remember this photo series about remaining Buran mockups [0]. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK
edouard-harris 7y ago
The American space shuttle orbiter at the time had exactly the same autonomy capabilities as the Buran. The only constraint was computer memory: the astronauts had to manually load magnetic tapes into the flight computer that had the takeoff and landing programs in them.
- trothamel 7y ago
  The American shuttle also had a few things that needed to be done by hand, like deploying the landing gear and the air data probes. These were actions that are irreversible (once the Shuttle drops its gear, they can't be raised without outside help) and would lead to destruction if they happened too early. During the early Shuttle program, there was a worry about these events happening due to a software problem, so the decision was made to isolate them from the computer. Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    > Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely. As grisly of a question as this is, are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? IANARC, but it seems if something goes bad in the launch sequence, it's normally catastrophic.
    - nullwasamistake 7y ago
      > are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? Explosive decompression. Not sure if shuttle crews wore pressure suits. Happened on a Russian mission once, during reentry. They opened the capsule on landing and everyone was dead.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        Soyuz 11. It wasn't an explosive decompression per se, merely a rapid decompression, but no less lethal to a crew without oxygen masks. Decompression can be explosive, but in space you'd only be dropping from 1 atmosphere to 0, which isn't that far to drop. For decompression to truly be explosive, a greater pressure differential is required. In the infamous Byford Dolphin incident, four saturation divers were depressurized from 9 atmospheres down to 1 in an instant, and that was a sufficient pressure differential to explode them.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        NB: The Apollo Command Mudule operated at 5 PSI in spave, about 34% og atmospheric sea level pressure. Over 25,000 feet / 7600 meters elevation. The LM operated at 3.5 PSI. The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        Mir, the Soyuz fleet and the Salyut stations were operating at sea level pressure too. I'm not sure how influential that was in the Shuttle's design, but it certainly simplified docking the Shuttle to Mir. The pressure difference between Apollo and Soyuz was a source of complication for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program.

Faark 7y ago

Yeah, kinda sad it only made orbit once. Buran is at least mentioned every once in a while, though obviously not as often as Sputnik, Gagarin and the like. Youtube has a bunch of hits for it, while in contrast to what there is barely anything at all in english for "Luna 16". I also vividly remember this photo series about remaining Buran mockups [0]. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK

edouard-harris 7y ago

The American space shuttle orbiter at the time had exactly the same autonomy capabilities as the Buran. The only constraint was computer memory: the astronauts had to manually load magnetic tapes into the flight computer that had the takeoff and landing programs in them.

trothamel 7y ago
The American shuttle also had a few things that needed to be done by hand, like deploying the landing gear and the air data probes. These were actions that are irreversible (once the Shuttle drops its gear, they can't be raised without outside help) and would lead to destruction if they happened too early. During the early Shuttle program, there was a worry about these events happening due to a software problem, so the decision was made to isolate them from the computer. Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely. As grisly of a question as this is, are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? IANARC, but it seems if something goes bad in the launch sequence, it's normally catastrophic.
  - nullwasamistake 7y ago
    > are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? Explosive decompression. Not sure if shuttle crews wore pressure suits. Happened on a Russian mission once, during reentry. They opened the capsule on landing and everyone was dead.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Soyuz 11. It wasn't an explosive decompression per se, merely a rapid decompression, but no less lethal to a crew without oxygen masks. Decompression can be explosive, but in space you'd only be dropping from 1 atmosphere to 0, which isn't that far to drop. For decompression to truly be explosive, a greater pressure differential is required. In the infamous Byford Dolphin incident, four saturation divers were depressurized from 9 atmospheres down to 1 in an instant, and that was a sufficient pressure differential to explode them.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        NB: The Apollo Command Mudule operated at 5 PSI in spave, about 34% og atmospheric sea level pressure. Over 25,000 feet / 7600 meters elevation. The LM operated at 3.5 PSI. The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        Mir, the Soyuz fleet and the Salyut stations were operating at sea level pressure too. I'm not sure how influential that was in the Shuttle's design, but it certainly simplified docking the Shuttle to Mir. The pressure difference between Apollo and Soyuz was a source of complication for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program.