A couple of Russian Space Shuttles (frozen in time) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 11:24:26 am
content: Lots of abandoned space hardware urbex goodness in hires photos.Photographer Captures the Ruins of the Soviet Space Shuttle Programhttp://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html(translate.google.com does a fair job on the Russian text)Secondary sources, lower res pics, but English text:http://petapixel.com/2015/06/14/photographer-captures-the-ruins-of-the-soviet-space-shuttle-program/http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/abb3jEv_700b.jpghttp://9gag.com/gag/abb3jEv

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 02:43:24 pm
content: I saw the one on display in Sidney back in 2000. Just wish I had taken the opportunity to view the inside. From memory, it was very expensive on go onboard.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 03:17:55 pm
content: Yet another communist rip of.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/how-soviets-stole-space-shuttle/

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 03:56:23 pm
content: Curses! That evil Boris and Natasha did it again....

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 04:06:06 pm
content: The US now is using old Soviet designed rocket engines, just because they are more efficient of fuel, so can carry more payload. There is a lot of reverse engineering of them going on as well, to make more after the warehouse is empty.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 04:11:10 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 16, 2015, 03:56:23 pmThere is a better version, Philip and Elizabeth Jennings. Excellent series, available on Netflix.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2149175/

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 04:25:21 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 16, 2015, 04:00:45 pmWell given the structural integrity, avionics, and efficiency problems among others throughout it's amazingly short lifespan, yes it was. An even bigger one than Concorde which patriotism and technical "wow" factor aside was itself a massive failure.Also funny you bring up the TU-144 trying to defend the USSR against espionage accusations given the arrests at the time and later leaks showing the KGBs involvement in it's development

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 05:36:47 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on June 16, 2015, 04:25:21 pm“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 06:50:49 pm
content: I'm glad Space is so awesome that it transcends nationalities and ideologies.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 07:28:55 pm
content: I find it more sad that the actual Buran that went into orbit was destroyed in 2002 when the hangar it was in collapsed. Unbelievable they didn't properly put it on display in a museum. I don't care if it's a ripoff or not, they did manage to build a working shuttle system.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 07:38:02 pm
content: The US Shuttle itself was in many ways a failure with respect to its original goals, and had a poor safety record.http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htmPerhaps the real goal of the Shuttle program was to incite the Soviets to copy it at great expense, thereby bankrupting their system... Similar theories have been made about the Ada programming language, which was designed specifically for defense and aerospace applications.http://tunes.org/wiki/the_20true_20story_20of_20ada.html

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 07:40:15 pm
content: Nice pictures. Thanks for sharing the links.Aurora

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 07:46:28 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on June 16, 2015, 04:06:06 pmThey're using them because they don't have a better alternative since the discontinuation of the Space Shuttle.The only American company producing rocket engines is SpaceX, and they want to sell the whole rocket, not engine cores.The engines are hit and miss. There have been quite a few failures at launch and at stage separation that have been attributed to engine misfire or failure:

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 08:22:27 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 16, 2015, 04:00:45 pmGiven its truly massive thirst for fuel in comparison to 'the competition' and that it was relegated to performing mail delivery services, then failed would IMHO be a good assessment.2 hours 52 minutes and 59 seconds

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 10:21:05 pm
content: I thought there was talk that the leak of Concorde plans was deliberate misdirection? Whatever, the wings are massively different to those of the 144 especially the leading edge. The engine intake ramp functionality on Concorde is the work of true genius. I've flown on it, seen it overhead at dusk on the last scheduled flight out of Heathrow with the diamond pattern of the afterburners clearly visible, and saw the last ever landing at Filton of G-BOAF. The world took a huge step backwards that day. Nothing else comes close. 250mph before it unsticks, the curvature of the earth, the blackness of space, the insane speed, it really did shrink the world, or at least one ocean

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 10:56:03 pm
content: If you've ever put a satellite up into space you will know that the uncanny pin point accuracy of multiple payload orbit injection and reliability of Russian launches is extremely well respected. You can thank the cold war for that.From a practical perspective, they are as good as it gets.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2015, 11:37:03 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 16, 2015, 04:00:45 pmIndeed. What a load of crap! Because it looks similar to the Shuttle, it has to be stolen, right? Has to be, because those dumb commies couldn't do anything by themselves.A good article on the development of Buran and the differences between Buran and the Shuttle is here:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htmFor ex. Buran doesn't have any main engines, only RCS and deorbit ones - it was meant to be carried up by the massive Energia booster instead (Shuttle only has a fuel tank there instead). The boosters on the sides were liquid fueled (unlike the Shuttle SRBs) and there could have been up to 6 of them, permitting heavier payloads. It was fully automated from the get go (and its only flight was unmanned, flown in the automatic mode) - something the Shuttle was reportedly capable of but has never been done. It was also to have a crew of 10 and 30t payload capacity (7 and 20t for the Shuttle).The only thing that is similar between the Shuttle and Buran is the shape - but the laws of physics and aerodynamics are the same in Russia and in America, so that is a fairly logical consequence.I actually remember the first (and only) flight of Buran being shown on TV - it was a big event back then.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 12:55:28 am
content: Quote from: janoc on June 16, 2015, 11:37:03 pmYes, sure, two independent clean room designs, must be.The even copied the number, location and shape of the cockpit windows. Same goes for the Tu-144. Knock off.http://io9.com/incredible-soviet-rip-offs-of-western-technologies-973280252

author: babysitter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 03:38:45 am
content: I believe there is a big similarity by original design and some smaller extend espionage results.Similar design goals often lead to similar results - we even have this effect in small scale during sketching at work.If you get to Sinsheim/Germany, you can get your own opinion of copy or not, there is a Tu-144 next to a Concorde.A Buran prototype called OK-GLI you can see a few km away, in Speyer. Take photos and measurements before comparing to a shuttle at exhibition

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 04:26:27 am
content: Quote from: Towger on June 16, 2015, 02:43:24 pmI went to that and IIRC sat in the pilots seat. Didn't cost much that I remember.

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 04:48:02 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 16, 2015, 04:00:45 pmU.S. and Russian liquid fueled rocket engines are similar because they are both copies of German liquid fueled rockets engines.U.S. and Russian (and everyone else's) gasoline engines are similar because they are all copies of German gasoline engines too.All the designs keep getting better and better, but at their core it's the same basic original designs.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 07:12:40 am
content: Quote from: babysitter on June 17, 2015, 03:38:45 amIs the Buran yellow and has FUKE written on it?That's a sure sign of a knock off.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 08:23:32 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 17, 2015, 12:55:28 amWell, if you judge whether something is a knock-off by the general shape and number of the cockpit windows I guess there is no point in debating this further.

author: smjcuk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 10:28:24 am
content: This thread is really cool. Thanks to everyone for posting.(space geek here)

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 10:34:17 am
content: Speaking of Tu-144.Here is a photo log of the restoration of Tu-144 (CCCP-77106) in Monino aviation museum.http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/636256.htmlAlmost the same thing as with the Buran - itwasin the museum, but no one bothered to keep it in any sort of shape, or keep the looters away.It was up to an unfunded team of enthusiasts to get it back into presentable shape.All in all, it's a damn shame that all these machines were left to rot and fall apart.So many cutting-edge stuff we had, nothing of it left.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 10:38:43 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 17, 2015, 07:12:40 amWell I guess you should resign of making electronics immediately. As almost everything you'll produce will resemble the outer shape of something already made.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 02:35:12 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 17, 2015, 01:53:39 pmA picture worth a thousand words.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 02:44:48 pm
content: Note how the nose is different, as is the position of the nosegear:To me the difference is not unlike that between an Airbus and a Boeing...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 03:34:17 pm
content: Plus the wing shape and pitch, the engine cowling, tail shape and position of the rear wheels.Zapta, you may want to look into the concept of convergent evolution -- how two distinct species can evolve similar features to adapt to similar factors in distinct environments.If your task was to make a reusable shuttle-like spacecraft, there are only a few ways you can really accomplish this. The basic designs are likely to be similar, in the same way that Airbus and Boeing are not engaged in continuous corporate espionage but rather they have converged on the same design because it is the most optimal design that is currently practical to manufacture and use.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 04:12:00 pm
content: Cockpit windows despite the same count are very different too.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 04:18:06 pm
content: Don't forget that the Russians put the flag in the wrong spot.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 04:58:53 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 17, 2015, 04:12:00 pmNot reallyNASABuranQuote from: tom66 on June 17, 2015, 03:34:17 pmThis is a very short evolution process, convergence in first generation ;-)Quote from: tom66 on June 17, 2015, 03:34:17 pmI didn't say that this is not the optimal shape nor did I say that there is no copying between Airbus and Boing. I am not sure how this is a counter argument for the ripoff assertion.Anyway, here is more convergent evolution for your enjoyment:

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 05:07:23 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 17, 2015, 04:58:53 pmMany of them were not copied but licensed. For example Lada (Zhiguli) were made in collaboration with Fiat.Quote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 06:49:37 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 17, 2015, 05:07:23 pmI saw some of those eastern European cars when I visited the GDR, and the local version of cola they had in the stores.

author: Aodhan145
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 06:58:12 pm
content: Those explosions are quite spectacular.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 07:49:47 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on June 17, 2015, 10:34:17 amI think I recognize my desk clockaCHS-1, made in the late 70's.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 08:57:31 pm
content: Let's not devolve into a re-enactment of the cold war, okay?I mean, in the cold war, both sides copied technology from each other. Yes, for some reason or another, the Western block ultimately came out superior in the area of electronics and precision manufacturing, but there were great and ingenious solutions on the other side as well.The Soviet space program was an awesome and inspiring chapter of human history. The cold war is over, and let's hope it will stay that way.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2015, 09:06:47 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 17, 2015, 06:49:37 pmI don't remind any cola clones here. Maybe specific to GDR. however:QuoteDidn't it look like this?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2015, 01:34:31 am
content: It's amusing to see some people pumping up their American Exceptionalism balloon with "it's a copy!" rubbish. Like the whole technology world isn't built of copies of copies of copies. Yes, it's a space plane with a large cargo bay, built to re-enter the atmosphere at orbital speed, and hence necessarily approximately the same shape. Even the windows look roughly the same, since that's what you get when transitioning a nose cone to a fuselage.Never mind the massive differences such as the US shuttle has big rocket engines while the Soviet shuttle doesn't, thus making the rear end very different.Or that the US shuttle had reusable solid fuel boosters, while the Russian one had non-reusable. Reusable is great, IF you have the management guts to refuse to launch when the weather is too cold for the section joint seals to be safe. Everyone makes mistakes. I also wonder if the Russian main booster tank would have ever dropped big chunks of ice on their shuttle during launch? You see how pointless this argument is?Note the US now has no space shuttle, and couldn't get back to the Moon to save their arses. Could not even send a manned mission to the International Space Station. I guess they copied that 'advance' from the Russians?Also the world's entire stock of the best rocket engines ever made comes from a long-forgotten Russian warehouse, and it's an exercise in reverse engineering to figure out how to make more of them.Let's not even mention the F-35.The entire world is in industrial, economic and environmental decline, for complex reasons, and which may or may not continue, who knows? There's really no point arguing over who had or has the better this or that. Or do you want a war to really find out? No, I didn't think so.Anyway, here are a few more space and technology related abandonments. I'm selecting Soviet ones; doesn't mean there are no Western equivalents.http://saoirse-2010.livejournal.com/19823.htmlSoyuz graveyardhttp://defensetech.org/2012/01/06/inside-an-abandoned-soviet-rocket-motor-factory/http://lana-sator.livejournal.com/160176.html#cutid1personal blog - abandoned soviet rocket facilityhttp://community.livejournal.com/ru_abandoned/674387.htmlabandoned giant radio mastshttp://englishrussia.com/?p=1363#more-1363abandon. Russian car factoryhttp://io9.com/the-fading-grandeur-of-abandoned-soviet-space-facilitie-456896333http://www.wired.com/2011/09/ff_uvb76/Inside the Russian Short Wave Radio EnigmaThe Nuclear Powerplant Z. East German

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2015, 02:57:55 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on June 18, 2015, 01:34:31 amIt's not nationalism and it's not a cold war. It's merely pointing the obvious that the white big object in the original post is a knock off. If that truth is inconvenient to you than tough luck.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 04:38:27 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 18, 2015, 02:57:55 amNo inconvenience to me. I'm making fun of someone insisting that when two different groups develop solutions to a quite specific problem, and the results are externally superficially similar looking, then there must have been naughty copying going on. It's laughable, and it shows you have an instinctive bias.Aim: build a ship that can get to space on a rocket booster, maneuver in space to some extent, carry and release a large payload, de-orbit and re-enter the atmosphere at near orbital velocity, then fly to a landing.The 'fly' part means it has to have wings. The 're-enter at orbital velocity' means the wings MUST form a flat surface with the bottom of the fuselage. Otherwise hypersonic standing shock waves will really mess with stability and heat resistance. To avoid any chance of tumbling despite the hypersonic shock waves in near vacuum stuff, the wings have to be swept and there has to be a very big vertical tail, also swept. The nose has to be roughly a cone. All surfaces directly exposed to air impact have to be tiled with heat resistant and insulating material. The cargo bay doors have to be on top, where there isn't any white-hot re-entry gas impingement. To get both a spacious cargo bay, and space for fuel tanks and stuff distributed along the body for weight balance, the body cross section needs to be more square than round. Transitioning a nose cone to the squarish body, while providing cockpit windows with enough forward view to actually land it, gives a fairly fixed set of window options. (Though if you look closely, they actually have different outlines.)The booster... where are you going to attach the big fuel tank other than 'underneath' the spaceplane? Or do you want hardpoints along the bay doors? How about that booster rocket exhaust and the tail fin?Since the fuel tank is underneath, where are the actual booster rockets going to go other than on the sides of the fuel tank?Never mind the 'little details' like what kind of booster rockets, how many, internal structure of the spaceplane, number of crew, payload capacity, degree of automation, size of main engines on the spaceplane itself, and so on are all greatly different.If you're still not getting it, perhaps you'd like to show us your idea of an alternative overall shape the Russians could have used, so people like you wouldn't spit on them with 'it's a knock off' ignorant insults. Cold war's over, you don't have to hate them any more. Even if the current US govt. would rather you did (again/still.)

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 08:06:31 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on June 19, 2015, 04:38:27 amThere are plenty of other possible general designs. Max Faget's original shuttle design was quite different.The enormous dead-weight delta wings were entirely a USAF requirement for cross-range (polar orbit once-around abort). A criteria so important it's rarely bothered with anymore. In either case, the design is terrible. Only about a quarter of the throw to orbit was payload, and it was a rare day they got inside 9 tonnes of it's max 25 tonne load (no ISS segment did, heaviest was 15tonnes). The high cross-range requirement also meant more thermal management requirements (more time at Mach Stupid) than the baseline Faget version, which he pointed out didn't fly at high speed, it fell. The Faget version was also completely reusable, compensating for the low throw to LEO. In the case of the US Shuttle, the one thing they were trying to do (and failed horribly at) was building a low-cost way to orbit, instead, they built the most expensive way to get very little from A to B ever devised by Man. Politics, not physics were defining traits of the design.The History of it:http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htmAnd the NSS take:http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter05.htm#intro<--please note USAF meddling in either case. Plus, if you flip through these, you will find there aremanypossible designs.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 08:43:48 am
content: Actually, there is more than a little bit of resemblance.Pre-shuttle Soviet designs were like this:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/MiG-105-11a.JPGPost-shuttle, they were more like this:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/BOR-4S.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80_Infografia.jpg/1920px-%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80_Infografia.jpgYou'll find similar trends in europe as well.When someone have a working idea, people tend to copy it or converge towards it, if there is nothing much better than it.Now, i don't think it's right to call that a knock-off when engineers look at an existing system and try to create something similar on their own.Look at computers.Early soviet computers were occasionally trinary, with no concept of "selling software" and in general nothing like the western ones.That is what things look like when two sets of designers don't know about each other.Middle-time computers start to look similar.BESM-6 was made to be a scalable supercomputer, Cray 1604 was made for a similar purpose. They ended up quite similar, due to the same goals, but with different internals and details.Two sets of designers working in awareness of each other.Later soviet computers were knock-offs of western systems.EC series were made by stolen designs of IBM 360 system, with some improvements and difference. Later they copied Intel 80186. Same instruction set, similar internals.One set of designers copying the other.I get an impression that Buran is the second case - something that was made while looking at the Shuttle, but with original designs.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 12:34:15 pm
content: Yes, there were a lot of early design sketches and guesses as to what might make a good shuttle. When it came down to actually making one that would work and meet the requirements of the time it really narrowed things down.Take Faget's early idea off the booster and add delta wings. Now how different is it?As far as military influence is concerned, I'd bet the Russian Military had plenty of input on the design of Buran.I believe the Russians already admitted to copying the basic design of the shuttle orbiter wings. Considering that, it's no surprise that two machines designed separately to do essentially the same job are somewhat similar in appearance.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 02:43:03 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on June 19, 2015, 12:34:15 pmLike many design programs the "requirements" of the shuttle program kept shifting. When Faget did his design, there was obviously no intention for it do any heavy lift. His was for a fully-reusable vehicle to transfer light cargo and crew. The Titan-class heavy lift was a "keep our budget" requirement added by the military. The wandering goal-posts problem is why it ended up morphing into such a chimera. Considering it failed entirely at two of it's major design objectives(flight rate and cost), surely no one is arguing that it was a good design? If you read through those histories, this is hardly a case of engineers being left alone to design their Dream Spaceship.As for it's resemblance to STS after adding delta wings...isn't that like saying if I put a spoiler on my 4-door sedan that it now looks like a race car? Faget's design functioned as a second stage, and as such (feel free to check my math) provided over 5km/sec of the deltaV to orbit from it's internal tanks. It even had jets to fly in-atmosphere. Very different beast for a very different function.Check the stats:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuledc3.htmBTW, I am not arguing one way or another that the Russians stole the design, just that the Shuttle is not the only design allowable by design requirement or physics. If that were true, we're screwed.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2015, 03:44:53 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on June 19, 2015, 04:38:27 amSomehow in your mind, pointing out that that big white object in the original posting is a knockoff implies hate the Russians and a desire to restart a cold war. You really see things through.