U.S. Space Shuttle vs Soviet Buran

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.

Thoughts?

In article ,
says...

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.

Thoughts?

Yes it is, at least in some respects (e.g. externally, so they could re-
use much of the aerodynamic work already done by NASA). But huge
obvious differences include the lack of main engines on the Soviet
shuttle.

How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
Part 1: Moscow finds an online bonanza of information from U.S.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/#.UTUVkldZKM0

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

Dean writes:

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.

The similarities are fairly superficial. Buran was a very different
craft, even if it looked similar. It was launched as a payload on a very
heavy launcher with all engines on the launcher, liquid boosters instead
of solid ones...

But certainly Buran was a copy of the very concept/capabilities, because
the SU just couldn't figure out what the Shuttle was meant to do and so
they tried to match it's capabilities to make sure that they didn't miss
out on something. This meant that Buran ended up looking fairly similar,
there's not much wiggle room for a spaceplane with a cargo bay of a
certain size, a certain cross-range and so on.

Maybe the concept and its capabilities and limitations were "stolen"
from the Shuttle, but as far as I know it wasn't actually copied in any
technical detail.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jeff Findley writes:

How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
Part 1: Moscow finds an online bonanza of information from U.S.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/#.UTUVkldZKM0

OK, so they *did* use all the publicly available data to save them work.
If this is "stealing" is probably up to interpretation...

One thing is clear: All in all they'd better not bothered with all of
this and saved a lot of rubles.

The launcher (Energia) was all their own work and very impressive to say
the least.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Monday, March 4, 2013 4:56:26 PM UTC-5, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
But certainly Buran was a copy of the very concept/capabilities, because
the SU just couldn't figure out what the Shuttle was meant to do and so
they tried to match it's capabilities to make sure that they didn't miss
out on something. This meant that Buran ended up looking fairly similar,
there's not much wiggle room for a spaceplane with a cargo bay of a
certain size, a certain cross-range and so on.

The worst part about this was that there was no Soviet need for those parameters: in particular, the cross-range requirement- which drove the big heavy delta wings- was entirely an artifact of America's need for a once-around polar orbit capability (STS Reference Mission 3 A/B) that, because of American geography, required returning all the way to the launch site. The Soviets did not use long lived photo-recon satellites for which sun-synch polar orbits were an advantage, and even if that orbit did matter to them, a polar orbit once-around from Tyuratam would pass over Soviet territory with plenty of opportunities for landing without having to return to the launch site.

Maybe the cargo bay might have been useful but those wings were definitely something for which Soviet operational requirement existed. Only the political requirement- have a copy of the Shuttle- could explain it. [1]

[1]: The reason for the differing launch system- the Energia booster- was equally political. Glushko used the Soviet military's demand for a shuttle to keep his dream of a moon mission alive by trying to leverage that shuttle design into a super-heavy booster suitable for moon missions- similar in many respects to early American shuttle designs built around a Saturn V.

Chris Manteuffel

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

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!

If we could go back in time before US shuttle began flying which
design shuttle or buran would be better? and why?

In article 8b8f5fa9-b811-46a0-8068-
, says...

If we could go back in time before US shuttle began flying which
design shuttle or buran would be better? and why?

Buran, but only because Energia was capable of putting Buran nearly into
orbit by itself. Because of this, Energia could be used to launch other
payloads than Buran. Note that this was attempted once, but the launch
failed due to the payload trying to perform its orbital insertion burn
in the wrong direction. In other words, it deorbited itself instead of
orbiting itself. From what was reported, Energia performed well both
times it flew.

Energia was designed to be modular and could be launched with various
numbers of (liquid fueled) boosters strapped to its sides. For a
shuttle launch, it needed four boosters. Its boosters are also
(essentially) the first stage for Zenit-2. (also the basis for the
three stage Sea Launch vehicle). For an "Energia M" launch, it would
have used two. If a truly huge payload needed to be orbited, Energia
could conceivably have been flown with more boosters (resembling the
Vulkan launcher).

Energia
http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-desc.php

Energia M
http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-M-desc.php

Vulkan
http://www.buran-energia.com/energia...ulkan-desc.php

Zenit-2
http://www.buran-energia.com/energia...zenit-desc.php

Again, their "shuttle" design is better not so much because of the
shuttle design, but because it was separate from the launcher design.
Furthermore, the launcher design was modular and supported an entire
range of payloads from Zenit-2 to Vulkan (or a similar Energia).


Unfortunately, the demise of the Soviet Union meant an end to both Buran
and Energia. Otherwise, it could have been used to orbit very large
payloads (e.g. space station modules) in one launch. Buran could have
been used to service the space station (much in the same way that the US
space shuttle did with Mir and ISS).

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

On Mar 6, 10:59*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 8b8f5fa9-b811-46a0-8068-
, says...



If we could go back in time before US shuttle began flying which
design shuttle or buran would be better? and why?

Buran, but only because Energia was capable of putting Buran nearly into
orbit by itself. *Because of this, Energia could be used to launch other
payloads than Buran. *Note that this was attempted once, but the launch
failed due to the payload trying to perform its orbital insertion burn
in the wrong direction. *In other words, it deorbited itself instead of
orbiting itself. *From what was reported, Energia performed well both
times it flew.

Energia was designed to be modular and could be launched with various
numbers of (liquid fueled) boosters strapped to its sides. *For a
shuttle launch, it needed four boosters. *Its boosters are also
(essentially) the first stage for Zenit-2. *(also the basis for the
three stage Sea Launch vehicle). *For an "Energia M" launch, it would
have used two. *If a truly huge payload needed to be orbited, Energia
could conceivably have been flown with more boosters (resembling the
Vulkan launcher).

Energiahttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-desc.php

Energia Mhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-M-desc.php

Vulkanhttp://www.buran-energia.com/energia/vulcain-vulkan-desc.php

Zenit-2http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/zenith-zenit-desc.php

Again, their "shuttle" design is better not so much because of the
shuttle design, but because it was separate from the launcher design.
Furthermore, the launcher design was modular and supported an entire
range of payloads from Zenit-2 to Vulkan (or a similar Energia).

Unfortunately, the demise of the Soviet Union meant an end to both Buran
and Energia. *Otherwise, it could have been used to orbit very large
payloads (e.g. space station modules) in one launch. *Buran could have
been used to service the space station (much in the same way that the US
space shuttle did with Mir and ISS).

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

Too bad the shuttle hadnt used the liquid flyback booster.