Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: orbiters
Message-ID: <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <494@newave.UUCP> <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> <4374@disk.UUCP> <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 22:08:40 GMT

In article <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
>   Then, I'd say that this 'launch' is in the same class as the US dropping
>a shuttle to test the aerodyn & systems.

An orbital flight is just a wee bit more ambitious than dropping an orbiter
off a 747.  The Buran launch was a stage of testing that the US skipped
completely:  an unmanned orbital flight by a prototype orbiter.  This tested
many more systems than the US glide tests did.

>   BTY, what was the reported max altitude, and displacement down range of
>the Buran 'launch'.  Any idea on the actual expected date ?

Sustained altitude circa 300 km, displacement downrange unlimited -- that
was a real live orbital launch, not a ballistic hop.

They are talking about a test flight next year, although the details are
vague.  It's pretty clear that the program is on the back burner and is
not moving nearly as quickly as it could.

>   It seems to me, that the development time of the Buran shuttle system,
>has been rather lengthly, especially given the amount of data and devopment
>that the soviets did NOT need to pioneer.

Uh, what "amount of data and development"?  Contrary to popular misconception,
the Soviets did not just Xerox the plans for the US orbiter.  The overall
layout is similar, but many details are different.  They'd have had to do
most of the development and test work from scratch.
-- 
The type syntax for C is essentially   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
unparsable.             --Rob Pike     |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry