Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388
From: n8035388@unicorn.wwu.edu (Worth Henry A)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: orbiters
Message-ID: <1990Nov1.234640.17372@unicorn.wwu.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 90 23:46:40 GMT
References: <4374@disk.UUCP> <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Oct29.062306.4543@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Reply-To: n8035388@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Worth Henry A)
Distribution: na
Organization: Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA
Lines: 26

In article <1990Oct29.062306.4543@wpi.WPI.EDU> megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) writes:
>In article <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>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.
>
>Well, we had a guest here at WPI last year. He was one of the first westerners
>to visit the aerospace institute in Moscow. (Sorry, I don't remember his name.)
>Anyway, when He was taken on a tour of the wind tunnel there were many models
>of the orbiter laying around. They were marked with a certain four letter
>acronym? Can you guess it? Give up?
>
>NASA.

     Given that Brezhnev commanded a shuttle clone and that the
usual Soviet-US paranoia would have demanded the capability to bring
down anything that the US shuttle was capable of putting into orbit; 
their interest in the US shuttle and the resulting vague resemblence 
in shape, size, and payload should hardly be surprising (form follows 
function...). However, spacecraft systems and the launch method do 
differ (for example -- no SSME's and unmanned operation).

     BTW, does anyone know what they use for onboard power? I hope they
have not continued their obsession with RTG's and other forms of nuclear
power for orbital use!