|
kenny582 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Planes having sex in the sky. DAMN. I wish I could take off at 300mph while being inside her.
A86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"It was definitely a human class launcher."
True. By "conversion" I only meant installing life support systems and fully completing all of the living quarters.
"Most likely for safety concerns."
Exactly. The Soviet bureaucracy was known for being very meticulous about safety. More so than the US a lot of the time which was also a source of criticism from the US at times on why the Soviet program fell behind in the 70s. Though I think safety is more important than being first.
hobatu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Energya didn't need any conversion. It was definitely a human class launcher. If you meant Buran instead of Energya then from what I've heard and read, the shuttle was flown without a crew because of a political decision. Most likely for safety concerns. I don't think they saved a lot of money by not flying a crew. The second flight that was planned wouldn't have had a crew either so it was part of the strategy.
A86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hobatu - Energia was never converted for human use because it was invented during the breakup of the Soviet Union which caused an economic depression. It was grounded for the same reason the US space shuttle and Orion would be if the US fell into an economic depression. Economic collapse is not an engineering flaw. That's like saying that funding is a battle tactic.
6 other Buran shuttles were being built before 1992, I think that says the Soviets had A LOT of confidence in it.
A86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"It's not a viable alternative"
It think it can be for a short term. Like 5-7 years as a tie-over until Orion, the Space Dragon and other projects are finished.
A86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Buran would have all of the shuttle's issues"
I'm not sure about "all" but definitely most. 90% or so. Some of the shuttle's problems are simply problems with it being technologically outdated. It mostly runs on late 70's-late 80's technology.
"issues the shuttle program has already solved"
Not if RKK Energia does research on the issues with the shuttle that NASA has already solved. Kliper would have similar issues.
theredraven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Buran has flown once. The NASA program has flown many, many times. While there have been two fatal accidents, the benifits have outweighed the downsides. Maybe one day Buran can be revived and you can prove it is better. Until then, it's only better in theory.
theredraven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The problem with Russian technology is it is often underfunded or rushed and corners are cut. I always put this lack of funding and such as the main cause of so many Soviet Submarine accidents. Because they didn't want to spend the money or because they wanted to be first they cut corners and sailors have died as a result.
It's tragic when you consider the Russian's are a proud people with some very intelligent ideas. Screwed by facelss beurucrats and such and power mad leaders.
Saighton (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Reply to hobatu
More like the USSR collapsed one year after this shuttle's maiden flight, and the funding for this (military-purpose) project went along with it. The technology could be reasonable, even if copied from the USA somewhat. Don't underestimate Russian technology.
hobatu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Quite little is actually known about the Buran. I doubt it's superior to shuttles of the time. Humans have never used it in orbit. That should tell you something about the confidence Soviets had in this technology. Not reliable enough to but people in it. |
