Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!tellab5!laidbak!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!disk!joefish
From: joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: orbiters
Message-ID: <4405@disk.UUCP>
Date: 30 Oct 90 15:06:43 GMT
References: <494@newave.UUCP> <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> <4374@disk.UUCP> <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish)
Organization: DISK, Louisville Ky
Lines: 77

In article <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>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

While I see the original Buran launch vehicle as a great accomplishment,
I don't see where it is comparable to the first shuttle orbit launch.
The original Buran orbiter is not scheduled to fly again.   It carried
no life support systems.   It was never designed to add the life support
systems, so it can never fly a manned mission.

I don't understand all the shuttle bashing.   The system has performed
better than I have ever dreamed (if a launch in temperatures for which
it was not designed is not counted).

The fact is that the shuttle has flown dozens of manned missions over
the last ten years, and the Buran program has not flown any manned
missions and can not fly any manned missions until another orbiter
is built with designed in manned life support systems.

I see the shuttle as capable of any type of space flight if enough
fuel and provisions are attached to it in orbit.   I see very little
that could be done to the shuttle itself that would be much of an
improvement.

When a horizontal launch vehicle, or a heavy lift system is
operational, it should be used in conjunction with the shuttle.

The shuttle launch system is already the best system in percentage
of successful launches.   It is a full 10 or 12 years ahead of the
Buran launch system if it ever flies manned.    There are three
manned rated vehicles in the shuttle fleet, and none in the Buran
fleet.

The talk of a liquid fueled booster stage fails to realize that
the at least three or four of the largest liquid fuel engines
made would be needed to replace each of the solid fuel boosters.
This would be an enormous project when you consider that the
support structure has several million pounds of dynamic loading
to contend with.

The horizontal launch system is the next major (logical) step
along with a shuttle C, and both these systems are in some stage
of planning.   A vertical launch system cannot compete with a
vertical launch system in orbital weight vs launch weight.

It looks like the manned programs are on track, although they
are massive and complicated.

Joe Fischer        joefish@disk.UUCP