Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Soviet shuttle Message-ID: <6798@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 3 Oct 88 19:02:17 GMT References: <1988Oct1.224801.11041@utzoo.uucp> <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 30 In article <1109@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >Aw, c'mon, Henry... I refuse to believe that engineering optimization >forces you to be THAT close in size and shape. Do not confuse the airframe contour with the overall system design. We went through years of computer modelling to come up with an optimized shape for a man-rated cargo craft that can launch and re-enter in one piece. Our orbiter is pretty but everything is there for a mission-related reason (except the flag and name ). If the Soviet mission is the same, it's reasonable to expect a similar appearance. I'm not saying our experience didn't save the Soviets a bundle of headscratching, but this is essentially what a Shuttle is supposed to look like. For comparison, consider Orbiter designs over the life of the STS program from the planning stages onwars. Throughout all the wacky changes in booster design and configuration, the one thing that stayed looking essentially the same was the orbiter. > 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. Then you haven't looked very closely. Theirs is *much* stubbier than ours, and the wing flanges don't extend nearly as far up the fuselage. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)