3 ms·

On the other hand... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

jbay808 6y ago
Buran is much less of a copy than it looks like. It's superficially similar as it has the same mission profile, which was basically because Soviet officials wanted to be able to keep up with whatever nefarious things the Americans might be doing in orbit with such a thing, even if they weren't sure what that would be. But it's far from being a copy in terms of technology, materials, construction, or even major things like the booster. You can read the parent article for more details. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme A much better counterpoint would have been the Tu-4, which was in every detail a reverse-engineered B-29: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4
- apendleton 6y ago
  Agreed. If anything, the technologically interesting parts compare better to the titanium submarine example, as the RD-170 engine that powered the Energia rocket that lifted the Buran was at least in some ways more sophisticated than anything Americans had at the time, and in particular, used an oxygen-rich staged combustion fuel cycle that American engineers had considered but dismissed as being impossible. Aerojet engineers didn't actually believe the Russians had even built such an engine until they were able to examine one in person after the end of the Cold War.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > It's superficially similar as it has the same mission profile The Tu-160 and B-1 are another example of this.
- nyolfen 6y ago
  buran was literally based on stolen space shuttle designs https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090
  - jacobush 6y ago
    Like movies are based on a true story. Look at the differences in the end result.
Dahoon 6y ago
Did you only look at the pictures? One is made to be piloted by astronauts and the other is made from the bottom up to be remote controlled but with the option to pilot it manually. The USSR were lightyears ahead in remote control and robotics in space.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Not only that - it was simpler, probably easier to refurbish after flight and had, IIRC, twice the payload capacity (because it didn't need to carry the ascent engines along for the ride). It wasn't as reusable as the American counterpart, but if we did that with today's reusable boosters the way SpaceX does it, it wouldn't be that bad. Remember, of course, what drove both designs was the capability to bring large objects back from space in a single orbit It's really no surprise Buran was abandoned and the shuttle was bad at everything else (except looking good in pictures).
p_l 6y ago
One thing is that laws of physics don't have nationality nor borders. Another is that the engineers designing Buran were told to "make it look like US Shuttle" - only look, mind you, as outside of common shape the design is completely different. One of the reasons I've seen for this order was to make a point to USA, though I do not remember the details. MiG designers were reportedly annoyed at the requirement, but still made it look like Shuttle - and be several times more capable than Shuttle.

Buran is much less of a copy than it looks like. It's superficially similar as it has the same mission profile, which was basically because Soviet officials wanted to be able to keep up with whatever nefarious things the Americans might be doing in orbit with such a thing, even if they weren't sure what that would be. But it's far from being a copy in terms of technology, materials, construction, or even major things like the booster. You can read the parent article for more details. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme A much better counterpoint would have been the Tu-4, which was in every detail a reverse-engineered B-29: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

apendleton 6y ago
Agreed. If anything, the technologically interesting parts compare better to the titanium submarine example, as the RD-170 engine that powered the Energia rocket that lifted the Buran was at least in some ways more sophisticated than anything Americans had at the time, and in particular, used an oxygen-rich staged combustion fuel cycle that American engineers had considered but dismissed as being impossible. Aerojet engineers didn't actually believe the Russians had even built such an engine until they were able to examine one in person after the end of the Cold War.
bigbubba 6y ago
> It's superficially similar as it has the same mission profile The Tu-160 and B-1 are another example of this.
nyolfen 6y ago
buran was literally based on stolen space shuttle designs https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090
- jacobush 6y ago
  Like movies are based on a true story. Look at the differences in the end result.

Dahoon 6y ago

Did you only look at the pictures? One is made to be piloted by astronauts and the other is made from the bottom up to be remote controlled but with the option to pilot it manually. The USSR were lightyears ahead in remote control and robotics in space.

rbanffy 6y ago
Not only that - it was simpler, probably easier to refurbish after flight and had, IIRC, twice the payload capacity (because it didn't need to carry the ascent engines along for the ride). It wasn't as reusable as the American counterpart, but if we did that with today's reusable boosters the way SpaceX does it, it wouldn't be that bad. Remember, of course, what drove both designs was the capability to bring large objects back from space in a single orbit It's really no surprise Buran was abandoned and the shuttle was bad at everything else (except looking good in pictures).

p_l 6y ago

One thing is that laws of physics don't have nationality nor borders. Another is that the engineers designing Buran were told to "make it look like US Shuttle" - only look, mind you, as outside of common shape the design is completely different. One of the reasons I've seen for this order was to make a point to USA, though I do not remember the details. MiG designers were reportedly annoyed at the requirement, but still made it look like Shuttle - and be several times more capable than Shuttle.