3 ms·

Ah, the classic 'looks the same means stolen', like look! they both has wings! It doesn't even matter what they have a totally different propulsion systems. Ne

Ah, the classic 'looks the same means stolen', like look! they both has wings! It doesn't even matter what they have a totally different propulsion systems. Next one would be Concordsky.

wkat4242 2y ago
Yes they changed things up but it's pretty unlikely that two unrelated design teams come up with the same design. And no it goes much further than "it has wings". I'm not even saying it's bad. This thing happens in IT all the time. Nobody reinvents the wheel. Look at Apple vs Samsung or the likeness between desktop GUIs. I think it was more pride that promoted them to make excuses. After all these are huge prestige projects. The Concordski too yeah. The drooping nose was a curious design decision in both (quite a few drawbacks to this, since an actuated mechanism so far from the centre of gravity will cost a lot of payload). They could have gone with something like a periscope instead (like what's on the Soyuz) I don't buy the "there's only one way to design this" angle especially since both camps had completely separate parts and manufacturing chains with their own strengths and weaknesses.
- justsomehnguy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    I wouldn't call it 'stolen'. More 'informed by'. Don't forget the shuttle was public. Wouldn't you look at the other team's progress if they publish it for everyone to see? It's stupid not to. Especially when you are given the exact same goal. And huge financial constraints and time pressure so you can really avoid mistakes that way. Avoid spending unnecessary money. Improve safety. And the Concordski had a lot more similarity than just the wings. I'm not even saying only Russia did this. America did too as this article claims (and don't forget the Glomar Explorer). And these are only the headline making ones.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      What makes it a copy is the significant functionality that was copied, stuff that wouldn't be informed by the "It's a spaceplane so it has to be a certain shape" function. Things like the split rudder speed brakes that are open at about 15% on touch down, which is identical to US Shuttle performance. Things like using basically the exact same "Conical" energy management flight procedures on landing. Having a very similar landing localizer system. That and nearly everything people mention that differentiates Buran from the US Shuttle never actually existed. Things like "It could carry ten people" or "it has ejection seats for everyone" were never built. The only Buran program shuttle to actually go to space had no systems for human life support and no ability to add it after the fact. That's the entire reason it was "Fully" automated BTW, because they wanted an uncrewed test. The "Buran" with jet engines was only a singular test article used for exclusively atmospheric tests that was not added to the space capable vehicle. The vehicle that made the spaceflight didn't even have functioning payload bay doors.
  - montagg 2y ago
    It was stolen though. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogue-one-how-the-soviets-stole-nasas-shuttle-plans https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogu... > In the ‘70s and ‘80s, Russian KGB spies systematically stole NASA shuttle designs and smuggled them back to their motherland, as detailed in a 1997 NBC News investigation by journalist Robert Windrem. Later, as America tested its new cosmic vessel, Soviet aircraft and satellites flew reconnaissance missions to aide their own carbon copy. This is settled history.
    - justsomehnguy 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - travisjungroth 2y ago
        You’re arguing against strawmen and being condescending.
        justsomehnguy 2y ago
        Guess you can't add anything substantional? There is a lot of differences what clearly separate the desings, but you didn't even try to address these.
    - mepian 2y ago
      It’s settled that it wasn’t a "carbon copy" by the spacecraft’s first actual flight. The US Space Shuttle had no such uncrewed flight capability.

Ah, the classic 'looks the same means stolen', like look! they both has wings! It doesn't even matter what they have a totally different propulsion systems. Next one would be Concordsky.

wkat4242 2y ago

Yes they changed things up but it's pretty unlikely that two unrelated design teams come up with the same design. And no it goes much further than "it has wings". I'm not even saying it's bad. This thing happens in IT all the time. Nobody reinvents the wheel. Look at Apple vs Samsung or the likeness between desktop GUIs. I think it was more pride that promoted them to make excuses. After all these are huge prestige projects. The Concordski too yeah. The drooping nose was a curious design decision in both (quite a few drawbacks to this, since an actuated mechanism so far from the centre of gravity will cost a lot of payload). They could have gone with something like a periscope instead (like what's on the Soyuz) I don't buy the "there's only one way to design this" angle especially since both camps had completely separate parts and manufacturing chains with their own strengths and weaknesses.

justsomehnguy 2y ago
[flagged]
- wkat4242 2y ago
  I wouldn't call it 'stolen'. More 'informed by'. Don't forget the shuttle was public. Wouldn't you look at the other team's progress if they publish it for everyone to see? It's stupid not to. Especially when you are given the exact same goal. And huge financial constraints and time pressure so you can really avoid mistakes that way. Avoid spending unnecessary money. Improve safety. And the Concordski had a lot more similarity than just the wings. I'm not even saying only Russia did this. America did too as this article claims (and don't forget the Glomar Explorer). And these are only the headline making ones.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    What makes it a copy is the significant functionality that was copied, stuff that wouldn't be informed by the "It's a spaceplane so it has to be a certain shape" function. Things like the split rudder speed brakes that are open at about 15% on touch down, which is identical to US Shuttle performance. Things like using basically the exact same "Conical" energy management flight procedures on landing. Having a very similar landing localizer system. That and nearly everything people mention that differentiates Buran from the US Shuttle never actually existed. Things like "It could carry ten people" or "it has ejection seats for everyone" were never built. The only Buran program shuttle to actually go to space had no systems for human life support and no ability to add it after the fact. That's the entire reason it was "Fully" automated BTW, because they wanted an uncrewed test. The "Buran" with jet engines was only a singular test article used for exclusively atmospheric tests that was not added to the space capable vehicle. The vehicle that made the spaceflight didn't even have functioning payload bay doors.
- montagg 2y ago
  It was stolen though. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogue-one-how-the-soviets-stole-nasas-shuttle-plans https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogu... > In the ‘70s and ‘80s, Russian KGB spies systematically stole NASA shuttle designs and smuggled them back to their motherland, as detailed in a 1997 NBC News investigation by journalist Robert Windrem. Later, as America tested its new cosmic vessel, Soviet aircraft and satellites flew reconnaissance missions to aide their own carbon copy. This is settled history.
  - justsomehnguy 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - travisjungroth 2y ago
      You’re arguing against strawmen and being condescending.
      - justsomehnguy 2y ago
        Guess you can't add anything substantional? There is a lot of differences what clearly separate the desings, but you didn't even try to address these.
  - mepian 2y ago
    It’s settled that it wasn’t a "carbon copy" by the spacecraft’s first actual flight. The US Space Shuttle had no such uncrewed flight capability.