Abandoned Soviet Space Shuttles [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Abandoned Soviet Space Shuttles [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM
42 comments
It is really interesting how similar the Russian space shuttle is in design to the American space shuttle. Kinda like how all of China's latest generation fighter jets look suspiciously similar to their American counterparts... https://www.defensetech.org/2015/09/29/lawmaker-chinese-j-31...
I believe this story runs deeper.
See, there are only so many form-factors you can do given a particular set of requirements. In a lot of cases it's just one, this is why all modern passenger planes look very similar — aerodynamics dictate the form as soon as you accept the requirements (safely and cheaply transport people from A to B).
The Shuttle had wings quite larger than the minimum necessary to land. Apparently the reason for that is military's requirement for "polar once around" capability: it had to be able to launch, do one polar orbit and land immediately [1]. Such a maneuver makes it impossible to predict when and where the Shuttle will overfly some (e.g. Soviet) territory. The problem is that while the Shuttle does that orbit, the Earth spins a bit and now you are over ocean. To compensate for that, Shuttle had to have large aerodynamic surfaces so it can fly sideways and land properly. If not for this requirement, Shuttle may had smaller and lighter wings and lower chance of damaging heat proof tiles.
We know that requirement existed because nowadays Shuttle's design documents are declassified. However, I've not seen a single bit of rationale for Buran's shape/wing surface. So it may be the case that it's not just a copycat, but copying without for the sake of keeping up, with no purpose for the copy.
[1]: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318...
See, there are only so many form-factors you can do given a particular set of requirements. In a lot of cases it's just one, this is why all modern passenger planes look very similar — aerodynamics dictate the form as soon as you accept the requirements (safely and cheaply transport people from A to B).
The Shuttle had wings quite larger than the minimum necessary to land. Apparently the reason for that is military's requirement for "polar once around" capability: it had to be able to launch, do one polar orbit and land immediately [1]. Such a maneuver makes it impossible to predict when and where the Shuttle will overfly some (e.g. Soviet) territory. The problem is that while the Shuttle does that orbit, the Earth spins a bit and now you are over ocean. To compensate for that, Shuttle had to have large aerodynamic surfaces so it can fly sideways and land properly. If not for this requirement, Shuttle may had smaller and lighter wings and lower chance of damaging heat proof tiles.
We know that requirement existed because nowadays Shuttle's design documents are declassified. However, I've not seen a single bit of rationale for Buran's shape/wing surface. So it may be the case that it's not just a copycat, but copying without for the sake of keeping up, with no purpose for the copy.
[1]: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318...
Fun fact... although the Soviets (obviously) never executed, they actually independently developed the exact same solution for going to the moon as the US used - lunar orbit rendezvous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous
It seems espionage is a recurring theme : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/12/14/buran-shut...
That's because Buran was built as a direct response to the Space Shuttle. Apparently the Soviets couldn't imagine civilian uses for such a large reusable vehicle so built their own to find out what it was for.
There are also significant differences though. Buran didn't carry its own engines, Energia provided all the launch thrust. The orbital manoeuvring system used LOX/Kerosene instead of MMH/N2O4. Also it was fully automated, its solo launch and landing happened under computer control.
There are also significant differences though. Buran didn't carry its own engines, Energia provided all the launch thrust. The orbital manoeuvring system used LOX/Kerosene instead of MMH/N2O4. Also it was fully automated, its solo launch and landing happened under computer control.
Let's not get too cocky here. Copying went both ways: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/nasas-newest-cargo-s...
And the pork barrel project extraordinaire: http://aviationintel.com/yak-141-freestyle-the-f-35b-was-bor...
Lockheed entered into a "partnership" with Yakovlev, copied the blueprints, and dissolved the "partnership", while pocketing hundreds of billions in US government largesse. The end result even looks similar.
And the pork barrel project extraordinaire: http://aviationintel.com/yak-141-freestyle-the-f-35b-was-bor...
Lockheed entered into a "partnership" with Yakovlev, copied the blueprints, and dissolved the "partnership", while pocketing hundreds of billions in US government largesse. The end result even looks similar.
I didn't know that with the Yak. There's some footage of it flying / crashing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmoMOc1Z_KE
This is not very well known in the US, although the Russians were sore about it for quite a while. This was back in early 90s when the US was universally perceived as a "friend" by freshly ex-Soviet people for the first time in their lives, and such military cooperation was actually possible. Turns out this somewhat naive trust was misguided.
It was designed for the Air Force for delivering military satellites to polar orbit.
It's a bit more than similarity. Watch the launch video of the Buran and you'll see it executes a roll shortly after take-off. Why does it do that? The American space shuttle performs that exact roll at that exact height because the orientation of pad 39A at Cape Canaveral is wrong and it corrects as soon as it clears the tower. The Buran launches from a different tower at a different latitude with a different height at a different orientation... but it performs _exactly_ the same roll. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
That's not surprising at all, and would be required even if Buran was developed completely independently to STS. Without that manoeuvre the engines would thrust off-axis due to the side-mounted payload. It's easier to compensate for off-axis pitch than yaw when you have gravity to account for.
For Soyuz launches on the other hand they physically rotate the launch pad.
For Soyuz launches on the other hand they physically rotate the launch pad.
All space craft perform a roll program to align with the selected launch azimuth, which is chosen for a specific orbital inclination and launch site latitude.
Without roll, all spacecraft from a launch site would be placed on similarly inclined orbits which would be useless.
Without roll, all spacecraft from a launch site would be placed on similarly inclined orbits which would be useless.
My conclusion is that you've got no idea what you're talking about!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_program
From your link:
> During the launch of a space shuttle, the roll program was simultaneously accompanied by a pitch maneuver and yaw maneuver.
It's the STS-specific pitch and yaw I'm talking about. And specifically that it happened at the height it would happen at the Cape, whereas energia had a different tower design that would have allowed the roll to happen earlier, for better efficiency.
> During the launch of a space shuttle, the roll program was simultaneously accompanied by a pitch maneuver and yaw maneuver.
It's the STS-specific pitch and yaw I'm talking about. And specifically that it happened at the height it would happen at the Cape, whereas energia had a different tower design that would have allowed the roll to happen earlier, for better efficiency.
Which launch video are you talking about? The only ones I was able to find don't show enough material to see post-take-off maneuvers.
Amazing. If I ever get banned from entering a country, I want it to be for something epic like this.
I'm super curious how they figured out these were here and the exact location.
Second, If that were me, I'd be wearing a respirator and medical gloves. God knows what sort of toxic chemicals are floating around.
Second, If that were me, I'd be wearing a respirator and medical gloves. God knows what sort of toxic chemicals are floating around.
Maybe they read the myriad of old articles about the site?
http://www.popsci.com/why-soviet-space-shuttle-was-left-rot
The above is from 2015, though I recall reading about the find years earlier.
On my bucket list:
- tour the Chernobyl area
- tour the Buran facility
- sit ringside to a rocket launch in Kazakhstan
Who's in??
- tour the Chernobyl area
- tour the Buran facility
- sit ringside to a rocket launch in Kazakhstan
Who's in??
If you visit the European Astronaut Corps (ESAC) in Bonn/Cologne you can see a lot of cool stuff - they have 1:1 mockups of the ISS (various modules) including stickers, a neutral buoyancy lab and a Soyuz trainer. It's tricky to get in randomly unless you have friends there (not for any security reason, it's just not a public place), but I think they do tours every now and again.
Although why Kazakhstan? You can visit Cape Canaveral (which launches fairly often) or French Guyana. You wouldn't want to be ringside, even if you could get there. There's a good chance you'd be deafened. Rocket launches sound like a fighter jet flyby even when you're in the public viewing areas.
Although why Kazakhstan? You can visit Cape Canaveral (which launches fairly often) or French Guyana. You wouldn't want to be ringside, even if you could get there. There's a good chance you'd be deafened. Rocket launches sound like a fighter jet flyby even when you're in the public viewing areas.
Don't forget Tanegashima, which prides itself on being the most beautiful space launch site.
If only you posted it a few weeks ago... I just came back from touring the Chernobyl area. 10/10 recommended, would go again.
The remaining two of your points are on my bucket list too.
The remaining two of your points are on my bucket list too.
Great footage, perfect use case for drones, their channel looks pretty interesting too.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC73dVtWf9mpjiWYkXyIlm7A
This reminded me of the film Baikonur [1], actually shot on location with a few views of the Soviet facilities there.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1826610/
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1826610/
I remember reading somewhere that those shuttles were in an old hangar that collapsed on top of them. Looks like that wasn't true, this was definitely shot fairly recently, drones and all.
At one point in the video they mention that this is what happened to the only Buran that actually was in space. The ones in the video were never completed/in service it seems.
They actually mention the hanger collapse during the video, that was the only ex-operational Buran that got crushed. The hanger in the video is the one that houses partially completed Burans.
Such a waste. Rusia should restore those sites so people can visit them.
Reminds me of Viceland where they toured the area around Chernobyl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAlUGn0RYg
Except this was like a million times more hardcore, and more awesome with space shuttles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAlUGn0RYg
Except this was like a million times more hardcore, and more awesome with space shuttles.
You can book a flight to Ukraine and go on a tour of Chernobyl yourself. It's kind of a standard tourist thing now, no law-breaking required.
For anyone who's actually going there: you have to book the tour 2 weeks ahead because the company that will be taking you there needs to get an entry permission for each visitor.
I expected better from Vice. They were just drunk the entire time and didn't get to see the mutated animals or anything.
I wonder why they keep these shuttles abandoned compared to turning them into museum type pieces. Pretty amazing that these awesome machines are just abandoned on a military base.
I wonder why they keep these shuttles abandoned compared to turning them into museum type pieces. Pretty amazing that these awesome machines are just abandoned on a military base.
For those interested in some video footage of animals in the radioactive zone a decent video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG-nwQBBfmc
TLDW: No massive mutations like VICE teased with the 3 eyed boars etc.
TLDW: No massive mutations like VICE teased with the 3 eyed boars etc.
I was disappointed to learn it wasn't a difficult place to visit after the kidofspeed girl posted about her (fake) motorcycle tour of the place some years ago.
[0] https://chernobylproject.blogspot.com/2012/01/slight-case-of...
[0] https://chernobylproject.blogspot.com/2012/01/slight-case-of...
[1] https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran