Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!cfa!cfa250!mcdowell
From: mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Soviet shuttle
Message-ID: <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 88 16:37:03 GMT
References: <1988Oct1.224801.11041@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Lines: 21

From article <1988Oct1.224801.11041@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> You're thinking of their "mini-shuttle" experiments, the purpose of which
> is still disputed.  Their big shuttle is pretty much the same size as the
> US one, although the detail design is very different.
[+ other postings in which Henry says that the two orbiters are different..]

Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization 
forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. From the pictures I've seen
so far (CNN and NYT) I really can't decide whether it's a genuine Soviet
orbiter or an airbrush touch-up of a US orbiter photo pasted onto the
Energia photo. The rear is indeed different (no SSME's) but even the RCS pods
look the same. This is more than similar engineering; it is reverse engineering
to a large degree. I don't say that it ain't a great achievement, and I suspect
they have learned from NASA's mistakes (not using solids, for one),but if this
really is the Soviet orbiter, it's a copy of ours.

Jonathan McDowell


P.S. I hope the reverse flow explanation for the SRB plume is right; and I
hope a lot of thermal studies have been done on its effect on the ET.