On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:51:10 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



Dean wrote:



Has there ever been any consensus that Buran was a copy (stolen) of the U.S. Shuttle? The resemblence of the two seems to be too close to be anything but.





Form follows function. Once you want something of a certain size to

operate in a certain regime, they will start looking more and more

similar.



There are quite a few detail differences between the two vehicles.



Many of those differences can be attributed to the fact that the Soviet

shuttle didn't have (very heavy) main engines mounted at the aft end.

This created a CG issue which led to things like a different payload bay

length and etc.



Still, it's quite obvious that the external shape (overall aerodynamics)

was copied. Of course the US isn't beyond doing the same when it

essentially copied the aerodynamics of one of the small Soviet shuttle

designs (BOR-4) and renamed it the HL-20.



http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm



I'll note that the shapes of these two classes of shuttle designs (space

shuttle and BOR-4/HL-20) are so different from each other that one can't

simply claim that "form follows function". Specifically for HL-20, the

US abandoned its space shuttle design and several, prior, lifting body

designs in favor of copying the Soviets, apparently superior, design.



In the realm of aerodynamics, there are many ways to skin the same cat.

Couple that with structures, propulsion, dynamics and control, and etc.

and the possibilities are practically endless.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Very interesting! Thanks Jeff!