[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 40 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: Evolution_Space_FLASH.jpg (21 KB, 420x240)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
https://hubpages.com/education/Why-the-Soviet-Union-Feared-the-Space-Shuttle
>>
>>1317942
Space Shuttle was shit, it was the most dangerous manned space vehicle, it was expensive as fuck to launch and it took forever to launch again.
The only good thing about it was its payload capacity and the ability to take big payloads back to earth.
>>
File: soya 5.jpg (78 KB, 955x1024)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>1317977
>Space Shuttle was shit
>>
>>1317994
The concept was good, but it ended up costing more than single use launch vehicles and wasn't as safe as them.
The main issue where the heat-shield tiles.
>>
>>1317996
It could also do a lot of missions single use launch vehicles couldn't do. Like attach a new engine to a spacecraft after its engine failed to take it into the correct orbit.
>>
>>1317998
Reusable vehicle AND boosters in one system when?
>>
The Buran was ironically a better concept, despite having most of its general layout copied wholesale. Its crew could eject, and it wasn't powered by two souped-up fireworks.
Also, what the fuck were Martin Marietta thinking when they used unshielded foam cladding on the main fuel tank?
>>
>>1317998
You could do that with a single use spacecraft as well.
>>1317999
SpaceX is doing something like that with BFR, however taking boosters all the way into orbit is inefficient.
>>
>>1318001
>The Buran was ironically a better concept
Lol

>and it wasn't powered by two souped-up fireworks.
There is literally nothing wrong with using SRBs to get into orbit
>>
>>1318012
Except leaky O-rings...
>>
>>1318012
>There is literally nothing wrong with using SRBs to get into orbit
Being unthrottlable and not being able to shut them off after starting them can occasionally be a bit of an issue.
>>
>>1318012
>There is literally nothing wrong with using SRBs to get into orbit
>>
>>1318013
When used within intended temperature tolerances there was a 0% failure rate


>>1318015
It's not. All you want for the first stage is max thrust so you just design one that burns out before you need to start throttling down. Mechanically they're exponentially simpler than using liquid propellants.


>>1318038
>opens up google
>searches for 'problems with SRBs'
>posts result with maximum technobabble
>>
>>1318038
This came from a USAF risk assessment for Ares I, which would have put the (still unfinished) Orion capsule on top of a single 5-segment SRB. The slides were showing that despite Ares I having an Apollo-style escape rocket, the capsule would be lost anyway.
>>
>>1317942
There were maybe like 5-6 missions that only the Space Shuttle could do.

All the rest of the missions could have very easily been done using separate crew and resupply vessels like what the Russians had already been doing with the Soyuz and Progress.
Indeed, that's what NASA is doing now, with resupply being done by SpaceX's Dragon and Northrupp Gruman's Cygnus, and crew to be brought up by SpaceX's Dragon2 and Boeing's Starliner.
>>
>>1317942
Buran was better. A shame the Soviet Union ran out of money
>>
>>1317977
Good luck building the ISS or servicing Hubble without it.
>>
>>1318338
ISS could have been constructed using a conventional rocket design using a system similar to the Saturn IVb and similar to the upcoming SLS Exploration Stage.

A design more like that of HTV or Cygus could also theoretically be used. A service module could be attached to a module's common berthing mechanism, and the module could be captured using the robotic arm and then permanently berthed to the station.

That is exactly how the BEAM was installed after it was delivered by a Dragon spacecraft.
>>
>>1318338
>What is a Saturn V
Bruh
>>
>>1318345
This is extremely wrong and it's pretty telling that you have no idea why.
>>
>>1318342
There were plenty of conventional rockets available as it was being built and there was still a deliberate choice made to use the Shuttle over them.
>>
>>1318335
>Buran was better.
How


>>1318349
How many conventional rockets have a manipulator arm?
>>
>>1318385
So which is it? Either conventional rockets + the space station arm could have done it, or they couldn't/didn't. Can't have it both ways.
>>
>>1318392
Nice strawman
>>
>>1318396
It's not. At all.

You said it could have been done with conventional rockets. Then you said it couldn't.
>>
>>1318418
Not true.
>>
>>1318385
>How many conventional rockets have a manipulator arm?
Irrelevant.
Both the main Russian Orbial Segment parts, Zarya and Zvesda, are capable of propelling themselves and carrying out station keeping with no additional parts. Since both were launched using Proton rockets, it would have been very easy to simply install a manipulator arm to one of these modules, given the international nature of the station.

Both Mir and the ROS have an arm system called the Strela. This was mostly used for EVA support, though soon, Nauka will be launched in the next 2 years and Nauka will have the European Robotic Arm. The ERA is constructed by ESA, and will carry out many of the tasks the Canadarm cannot do, as it cannot reach beyond Zarya and Rassvet.

The upcoming Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway (formerly known as the Deep Space Gateway, and sometimes referred to as Gateway) is planned to be launched primarily on the SLS with any Russian contributions to be launched by the Yenesei. Part of LOP-G's design includes a manipulator arm which will be delivered by the Exploration Upper Stage and the Orion and ESM. This manipulator arm, the Canadarm 3, will arrive along with one of the pressurised modules.

An ISS built without the Shuttle would have been more than feasible, but it would also have resulted in design changes. Both Columbus and Kibo would have had to have been redesigned, however, this is a minor issue, as Unity, Destiny, Harmony and Tranquility would not have needed any significant design changes.
>>
>>1318431
In other words, it's not irrelevant
>>
>>1318434
No, it is irrelevant.
Manipulator arms can be attached to any number of different modules and spacecraft parts.
The fact that there are modules which have been launched with conventional methods which have delivered robotic arms, and the fact that there are future modules planned to be delivered by conventional means as well with manipulator arms, shows that you don't need a fucking Space Shuttle just to have a manipulator arm.

A Zarya launched with a Proton, fitted with a manipulator arm, like the Canadarm, could have been flown as the first part. Zvesda, launched with a Proton, could then rendezvous a few weeks later, and then the first Souyz could then dock with the new station and await the first launch of a US station part on something like a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V 551. The manipulator arm could then capture the spacecraft, which could consist of a PMA, Unity/Node 1 and an expendable service module 2 days later. After attaching the US station part, the service module could then detach and then deorbit itself.

Russia, the US and Europe all had the capability to launch space station parts as large as the USOS parts on conventional rockets. The fact that they used the Space Shuttle instead was because that thing wasn't being used otherwise.
>>
>>1318449
>you don't need a fucking Space Shuttle just to have a manipulator arm.
I never implied that, and the manipulator arm isn't useful for just the ISS. The Shuttle's Canadarm could accomplish tasks that no rocket could. Thus, relevant.
>>
>>1318495
>The Shuttle's Canadarm could accomplish tasks that no rocket could
Like what? Taking pictures of the heatshield to see if the crew will die a horrific death on re-entry?

The Canadarm did 2 things. Transfer MPLMs to the ISS and capture the Hubble for servicing. All other satellite captures were done by hand during EVAs. The only other thing the Canadarm did on the Shuttle was act as an EVA platform, and the Russian Strela is way more effective at doing that job, thanks to its telescopic design.
>>
>>1318504
It can do more than that, and more than a conventional rocket can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm

Shuttlelets, when will they learn?
>>
>>1318524
>It can do more than that
No, it can't.
Canadarm's limitations come from the fact that all it can do is attach to objects with grapple points. Hubble had to have grapple points attached to it during its first servicing (also fixing the mirror issue), because the first time, they had to have 2 astronauts actually grap the damn thing by hand.
The 2 commercial satellites which the shuttle has serviced also had no grapple points, meaning that the astronauts had to also grab the satellites by hand.

The Canadarm has access to a boom arm, but that thing is really only used to assist in EVAs and also to take pictures of the heatshield, again, to check to see if the crew will die a horrific fiery death or not.

The Canadarm2 is probably the thing you're thinking about, because that can attach itself to Dextre, which has end effectors which can physically grasp things. It does not need a grapple point. Oh, and the Canadarm2 is on the ISS.

Canadarm 3 will be delivered on an SLS rocket to LOP-G.

The Space Shuttle could do something like 5-6 different kinds of mission that no other spacecraft could do, like spacecraft servicing, and that's about it. Science experiements in the mid-deck were utter crapshoots, and even with ESA's Spacelab, that was basically space station level equipment..... doing stuff for 17 days.

Meanwhile, the likes of Salyut and Mir could do long duration experiements and science and only needed crew rotations and resupply every 3-6 months.

The Space Shuttle was very influential in the construction of the ISS, I'll give you that, but the ISS could well have been constructed without the Space Shuttle. There are like 3 modules which could not have been there without the Space Shuttle, ESA's Columbus, JAXA's Kibo/JEM and ASI/NASA's Leonardo.
Everything else could have been delivered using conventional rockets, and BEAM and the upcoming Bishop module have been and will be delivered by SpaceX Dragon.
>>
>>1318449
The Shuttle made it far easier to service Hubble and other satellites. There a reason the philosophy has been carried forward with the X-37B.
>>
>>1318529
I guess you didn't read the Wikipedia article I linked
>>
>>1318569
I did read the article, and it leaves bits and pieces of information out.
It's designed to manipulate payloads in orbit and has emergency explosive bolts.

It's basically the smaller version and inferior version to the Canadarm 2.
>>
>>1318580
>it leaves bits and pieces of information out.
Such as?
>>
>>1318009
>however taking boosters all the way into orbit is inefficient.
a man can dream of true SSTO's
>>
>>1318338
>building ISS
Heavy lifters existed back then, the russians for example had the Proton.
>service hubble
Spacewalks are possible with singe-use capsules as well.
>>
>>1318658
Dreaming about them doesn't negate their inefficiency.
Two stages seem to be the best compromise for LEO.
However we could use reuseable boosters like Falcon-9 to launch a reuseable spacecraft/upper stage.
>>
>>1317942
It could have been much better, the Buran was a superior design. Less effort into them and more into perfecting single-use spacecraft would have been best though.
>>
>>1318713
The Shuttle was a significantly better and easier platform fir both.
>>
What we got was complete shit. Should have been a titanium hull Saturn derived launch vehicle shuttle
>>
>>1318985
>significantly better
Is that what you'd say to the 14 dead astronauts who were killed by Shuttle design flaws?
>>
>>1318994
Let me know next time Soviet/Russian rockets are the primary platform used to construct anything even approaching the scale of the ISS.
>>
>>1318996
Mir existed in case you forgot, and Zarya and Zvezda were delivered by the Proton-K. More modules for the ISS would have been delivered with them if NASA didn't need to justify the existence of the Shuttles. All but one of the future module launches will be from the Proton-M and Soyuz 2.1b.
>>
>>1319011
Mir was a small fraction the size of the ISS.
>>
>>1319011
Actually, ISS' pressurised volume is pretty small. The ISS wouldn't have been so big if it hadn't been for the truss segments.
>>
>>1318965
>the Buran was a superior design
How


>>1318994
It goes without saying that if you lose a spacecraft that carries more people than a capsule does it will have a higher rate of mortality. Spaceflight is an inherently risky activity and the Shuttle carried more people into orbit safely than any other platform.
>>
>>1319071
>the Shuttle carried more people into orbit safely than any other platform
While also having a higher vehicle failure rate and crew mortality rate than any other platform as well.

The Soyuz has only had 4 deaths, Soyuz-1 and Soyuz 11. This is after 141 crewed missions. The Space Shuttle had 135 crewed missions. The Space Shuttle has had 14 deaths and 2 loss of vehicle incidents. The Soyuz has never had a loss of vehicle incident. That's was a total lifetime risk of 40% that the Space Shuttle you were on would kill you.
Meanwhile, the Soyuz, from a period from 1983 to 2018, the Soyuz did not have a single launch or mission abort, no fatalities and successful missions.

Spaceflight is hard, but it seems that the Soyuz has become the most reliable and the safest spacecraft to ever serve, and in all the launch aborts, the crew survived with no injuries.
>>
>>1319071
Just remember that the Space Shuttle was built because the military wanted to use it for placing military assets in orbit, and Nixon wanted to kill off Kenedy's legacy of the Apollo and Saturn programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program
>>
>>1319075
>While also having a higher vehicle failure rate and crew mortality rate than any other platform as well.
You're acting surprised that the system that took the most astronauts into orbit also has the highest mortality rate? Weird flex but ok

>That's was a total lifetime risk of 40% that the Space Shuttle you were on would kill you.
Completely dishonest
>>
>>1319077
Even if you believed that the military (which has their own space launch capabilities) is the ONLY reason the Shuttle exists, so what?
>>
File: Buran_50p.jpg (338 KB, 1217x860)
338 KB
338 KB JPG
>>1319071
>How
Completely automated from start to finish with quadruple redundancy to avoid MAXing out. Could also be remotely piloted from Earth if necessary.

Lighter and more aerodynamic while still having the same payload capacity.

Superior heat shielding.

More powerful computer onboard.

Better boosters.

Would have had better arms if they were finished.

A superior platform that was cut short by the Soviets imploding, and even if they didn't they'd realize single use was still a better bang for the ruble.
>>
>>1319221
>Completely automated
How would this be an advantage in a ship designed to fly with people on board?

As for the rest, I don't think anything the Soviets built was better than a Western design
>>
>>1319223
>How would this be an advantage in a ship designed to fly with people on board?
In case an emergency happens (Soyuz 11), it will react faster and automatically for what needs to be done to save the craft without overburdening the crew. It could even eject itself and land from an aborted take-off.
You could preprogram the entire mission plan into it and have it do missions on its own, like using the two arms to move payloads and do repairs on a space station. And it generally just makes things less complicated for the crew, which is good since they have enough to worry about anyways and can now focus on things like experiments and research.

>As for the rest, I don't think anything the Soviets built was better than a Western design
Ignorance is bliss.
>>
>>1319228
Lol shill

Virtually everything the Soviets built was shit compared to the West. Bragging about making a manned spaceflight vehicle completely automated just shows how lowly they thought of their own cosmonauts
>>
>>1319231
>provide verifiable facts
>get called a shill
You can hate the Soviets all you want my burger friend, but you have to give them credit where credit is due, and space technology, research, and exploration is a very big one. They and the Russians after them know their shit, which is why ISS is based on Soviet space station design and why its successor will also.
>>
File: Victor Glushkov.jpg (75 KB, 800x455)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>1319228
The Soviets actually had quite a strong movement on automation and cybernetics. Sort of fitting of them to focus on utilizing technology to pragmatically minimize manual labour where ever possible.
If you're interested, you should check out the OGAS project, even though like Project Cybersyn in Chile, it was never realized.
/offtopic
>>
>>1319231
>my Nazi scientists are better than your Nazi scientists
>>
>>1319330
>but you have to give them credit where credit is due
Buran never accomplished anything, like the USSR itself
>>
>>1319575

And burger made O rings and loose foam panels did much for your shuttles...
>>
>>1319605
When used within intended temperature tolerances there was a 0% failure rate
>>
>>1319575
You know the buran flew into orbit and landed itself autonomously? More than the shuttle could ever do.
>>
>>1319629
Meanwhile, on the Shuttle, you have to have 4 people to dock with a station (Mir or ISS). One person at the rear controls, 2 people at the flight deck controls and 1 person with a laser rangefinder, calculating distance and speed manually.

Meanwhile, the Soyuz has been docking with space stations autonomously since the Salyut 1.
>>
>>1319629
You're the 4th or 5th person to bring this up, so fucking what? What's the point of completely automating a manned spacecraft?

It should be obvious the automation was because Soviets didn't consider their own cosmonauts up to the task of commanding such a vehicle.
>>
>>1319632
Number of times the Buran docked with a space station: 0

Number of times the Shuttle docked with a space station: >0
>>
>>1319633
>What's the point of completely automating a manned spacecraft?
Maybe ask Jim Bridenstine that question. He's been really gushing about how Dragon 2 and Starliner are completely automated from launch to splashdown/landing.

The main point is that you can then focus on bringing up people who are actual scientists and engineers. You don't need 2 test pilots to fly a spacecraft, you can put in a crew of 4 scientists and engineers to run experiments and perform maintainence. JAXA's Astronaut Corps consists mostly of scientists and engineers with the odd former commercial pilot. ESA's Astronaut Corps mostly consists of scientists and engineers and a handful of former military pilots. Roscosmos is mostly former military pilots, and NASA has a weird mix, usually switching between a mostly pilot astronaut selection cycle and a mostly scientist and engineer selection cycle.

When the work of the ISS and other space stations is about working out how long duration spaceflight works, test pilots are really only good for getting up to space, afterwards, they're just nothing more than human test subjects. Having actual physicians, physicists, aerospace engineers, biologists and materials engineers in space means that you can actually, properly generate good science data to bring back to earth. Who's more valuable in space? Someone with a PhD in astrophysics and several published research papers, or someone who spent 20 years in the airforce flying fighter jets?
>>
>>1319637
Worth noting that the Buran flew before the Space Shuttle ever docked with anything.
>>
>>1319644
Pretty much every Shuttle pilot had a PhD in astrophysics or some branch of aeronautics. The fact that they were military aviators beforehand is crucial because they are used to making crucial decisions under enormous pressure. "I fucking love science!" doesn't mean anything to me


>>1319647
If the USSR was capable of doing anything besides stealing and then building upon Western designs, the Buran might have been impressive. The Shuttle was a success before the Buran was wheeled out to the launch pad.
>>
>>1319652
>stealing and then building upon Western designs
R7 and Soyuz rockets existed before the US had a functional rocket of any kind.
Soyuz capsule was designed from the lessons learned from the Vostock and Voskhod designs, which are basically only comparable in terms of the era to the Mercury and the beginning of the Gemini programs.

The fact of the matter is that the USSR had a reliable and proven rocket design which could do both crewed and uncrewed supply missions to space stations.

If the USSR really did steal so many Western designs, how come both the Atlas V and the Antares rely on Russian engine designs from the 1960s and 1980s?
>>
>>1319223
>>1319231
>>1319575
>>1319633
>>
>>1318385
The buran was an improvement, but was still shit due to the flawed concept.
>>
>>1319665
Why did they steal the Shuttle if they were so good?


>>1319731
>The buran was an improvement
Nope
>>
>>1319752
>Why did they steal the Shuttle if they were so good?
The Soviet Union, after hearing Ronald Regan be so keen on the Strategic Defence initiative were actually very scared of the prospect of the Shuttle launching from Vandenberg AFB in California.
A Shuttle in a polar orbit, would be over most of the major Soviet cities by the second orbit or something. The Soviet Union believed that the Shuttle was going to be used for placing nuclear weapons platforms into orbit, and that the Shuttle could even be used for pre-emtive strikes, especially since Regan was very keen to mention how he could wipe out the "Evil Empire".

The Soviet politicians pushed for the design bureaus to build a shuttle in response, and OKB-0 delivered, by designing a shuttle, similar in design to the Space Shuttle, because the Space Shuttle is a proven airframe. The only difference, would be that the Buran and its sister spacecraft would be launched on the new Soviet moon rocker, the Energia.

The Buran was scrapped for 2 reasons. A, the collapse of the USSR, and B, the lack of need for the Buran, because, 1, Russia still had Soyuz and 2, Russia now had access to the Space Shuttle.
>>
>>1319780
Guess Soyuz wasn't so great after all
>>
>>1319782
Soyuz was designed to ferry crew from Baikonur to whatever space station and back again.

The Soviet Union also designed the TKS spacecraft, however, it only ever really became the Functional Cargo Block. Such FCB spacecraft include the ill-fated Polyus, Kvant-1 (Mir), Kvant-2 (Mir), Kristall (Mir), Spektr (Mir), Priroda (Mir), Zarya (ISS) and Nauka (ISS).

The Soyuz also outlived both the Apollo and the Space Shuttle. The Soyuz has been involved in missions with both Apollo and Space Shuttle spacecraft.

Oh, let's not forget about the fact that there have been a lot of Soyuz designs, which were either scrapped, not built or had prototypes built. These include the Soyuz 11K, a tanker Soyuz which would refuel other spacecraft, Soyuz 7K-L1, a Soyuz which would be capable of a Lunar fly-by, Soyuz 7K-L3, a Soyuz which would be capable of doing a Lunar mission including supporting a lunar lander, Soyuz P, a fighter Soyuz equiped with missiles and weapons to intercept enemy spacecraft, Soyuz R, a reconnaissance Soyuz with the ability to take photographs of enemy position from space and Soyuz 7K-S, a Soyuz troop transport capable of bringing soliders up to a military space station, in case of war in space with the US.
>>
>>1319806
Russians can't do anything better than the West. Case closed
>>
>>1319752
>buran can land on autopilot
>space shuttle cannot

Gee, that alone seems like a massive improvement.
>>
>>1319807
>Russians can't do anything better than the West.
Is that why Russian engines power the Atlas V and the Antares? Is that why NASA astronauts have to take a Soyuz to the ISS until the end of 2020? Is that why the Boeing CFT crew members now need to spend 4 months in Russia learning how to do space?
>>
>>1319809
>Gee, that alone seems like a massive improvement.
Shuttle landing accidents: 0


>>1319810
Why spend millions developing a new engine when an existing engine works good enough? Why is only the first stage of the Atlas V powered by a Russian engine? Why did the US, not the USSR, develop the most powerful rocket engine ever produced?

Our shit's better, always has been, and if we had to use our own engines for our shit we'd have no problems doing so. As for why we use Soyuz, that's a political not a technological problem.
>>
>>1319812
>Most powerful rocket engine ever produced
>What is the RD-170?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170
https://youtu.be/oGr1UVNBDLs
>>
>>1319816
>4 combustion chambers
>"single"
>>
Let's just be honest, the space shuttle put NASA on life support
>>
>>1319817
4 combustion chambers, 1 turbopump.
Counts as 1 engine.
>>
>>1319819
It doesn't in actuality though. If they were as advanced as you think they are, they would have used 1 turbopump and 1 combustion chamber.
>>
>>1319821
Nice to see it only took 50 years for the Russians to catch up to us, albeit in their own inferior way
>>
>>1319818
NASA is doing more than any other national space agency, by far. So.... no.
>>
>>1319821
No, they wouldn't have. That's dumb. The bigger you make your engine's combustion chambers, the more risk you have from combustion instability. That's why the F-1 had to have those massive baffles in the injection plate.
The RD-170 didn't need any of those, as all you need to do is make the combustion chamber smaller, and make more combustion chambers.

The Titan II LR-87 is the same thing, 2 combustion chambers, one turbopump.

By aerospace rules, the turbopump is the engine. The RD-170 is the most powerful rocket engine in the world, and the rocket engine with the highest Specific Impulse in the world (Soviet engineers reduced the specific impulse for the Energia for safety margins).

This is just a massive cope here.
>>
>>1319826
Like I said, it only took them 50 years to catch up, but in a way that's not as good as our design.
>>
>>1319823
>>1319827
Uh, no.
F-1 had its first flight in 1967 on Apollo 4. The RD-170 had is first flight in 1985. It took the Soviets about 20 years to surpass the US engine.

What's more, is that the Soviet engineers developed the RD-170 from the NK-33, which would have been used on the N-1. The NK-33 had much higher specific impulse and efficiency compared to US engines thanks to a closed cycle engine design. Not even SpaceX uses a closed cycle kerolox engine. The US instead developed the RS-25 and RS-68, because hydrolox is easier. The Soviets kept on at it, and the RD-170 remains unbeaten, even by the Raptor in testing.

While the near future is all about methylox engines, there's good competition between the Raptor, the BE-4 and the Prometheus.
>>
>>1319829
Oh only two decades? Man, those guys are good, even though it's a compromise design and they never accomplished what the F-1 did with a single combustion chamber
>>
>>1319830
Two decades, because the Soviet Union didn't actually develop the RD-170 until the Energia.
The Soviet Union already had the NK-33 in the late 60s.
The Soviet engineers considered an upgrade to be unnecessary since the Proton could just do the necessary heavy lifting for unnamed Moon missions and launching space stations.

Meanwhile, the US abandoned the F-1 to develop the RS-25.

Be an F-1 fanboy all you want, but the F-1 was a really flawed engine. No two F-1s were the same thanks to the engines being hand made. Let's not forget that the engineers who built the F-1 used their own knowledge to build them. They didn't actually write down anything about how to build an F-1. If you build an F-1 using the specs, the thing leaks and won't work. It was the Rocketdyne engineers who knew how to put them together. And with those engineers dead, their knowledge of how to build the F-1 is dead with them. Sure, the F-1X has been proposed, but it's a totally different engine, and the R&D costs aren't worth it, when there's a more powerful RD-170 engine available to buy.

The Saturn V was an immense machine, but it was a flawed machine as well. Ultimately, America fucked up space. After Apollo 12, Americans were bored with the Moon. They were also bored with the Space Shuttle after STS-4.
>>
>>1319836
You went from cope to plain sad

The USSR/Russian space program is a joke compared to USA's. Remind me again how many manned moon landings the Soviets accomplished?
>>
>>1319842
Why don't you tell me how many space stations the US built and operated?
>>
File: soyboy 7.jpg (470 KB, 640x387)
470 KB
470 KB JPG
>>1319846
>He thinks operating a space station is just as impressive as landing on the moon
>>
>>1319812
>denying that a safety feature is useful just because it's never used

The absolute state of ameriboos. Face it, you know you've fucked up hard when even the Russians are ADDING safety features to your design.
>>
>>1319852
Let me give you a hand: the only impressive thing the USSR space program ever did was land something on Venus and take pictures. And I have to remind you of that. Nothing else they ever did was noteworthy or better than anything the West did.
>>
File: benderlaugh.jpg (28 KB, 363x310)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>1319859
>>
>1319868
Nice meme. I'll accept it as your resignation.
>>
>Some speculate that, had NASA avoided the Shuttle program and instead continued to use Saturn and commercially available boosters, costs might have been lower, freeing funds for manned exploration and more unmanned space science. In particular, NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin argued in a 2007 paper that the Saturn program, if continued, could have provided six manned launches per year — two of them to the Moon — at the same cost as the Shuttle program, with an additional ability to loft infrastructure for further missions.

That's the real sad part. The Shuttle was sold as being more capable than Saturn at a lower cost, but ended up being a complete downgrade with no real advantage, and impeded progress in manned space exploration for nearly 40 years.

Imagine where NASA would be today if Saturn was continued, or if an equivalent to the commercial launch program existed in the 1970s.
>>
>1319885
C O P E
>>
>>1319221

The whole point of the shuttle is that you could bring back and re use the expensive main engines, which the energia just dumped.

The smartest thing the soviets did with the buran was tp never actually use it outside of test flights. It was a propaganda piece and nothing more
>>
>>1319898
>Imagine where NASA would be today if Saturn was continued
Behind where we are now


>1319907
Sad!


>>1319928
Based
>>
>>1319928
But throwing away expensive engines is the future! Why reuse engines when you can steal them from museums and throw them into the ocean?
>>
>>1318348
>No reasons given
>Ur WrOnG

You're right, the ISS in its current form would not be built with a saturn V. It could be created in fewer launches and far cheaper using modules derived from S-IVB stages.

Servicing the Hubble would also not be possible with a Saturn V, the Saturn I would be used instead. Plus the Hubble would be far larger and more capable than the current one.

Stop creaming yourself over a shitty launching system
>>
File: IMG_2519.jpg (341 KB, 1122x1830)
341 KB
341 KB JPG
>>1317942
Yes,,,,yesido.
>>
>>1317977
fuck off, it was the most kino vehicle ever designed
>>
>>1318271
That was because the spacecraft would have come down through the SRB plume (still-smoldering particulate matter), which would have destroyed the parachutes
>>
>>1319665
The concept of the Apollo D-2 was effectively copied by the russians in the soyuz. Have an orbital, re-entry and service module, put anything not needed for re-entry into the orbital and service modules to minimise mass.
If the Apollo D-2 was made, the whole craft would way the same as the reentry capsule for the apollo that actually flew.
>>
>>1323829
*weigh
>>
File: IMG_2644.jpg (3.37 MB, 4032x3013)
3.37 MB
3.37 MB JPG
>>
>>1317942
absolute failure, only good to come from it was the spinoff tech space travel brings. If they never went with this shitty launch + vehicle system, we could actually be on mars by now. it also slowed rates of commercial expendable launch vehicles being created and implemented, crushing any hope us anons had for space travel.
>>
>>1326767
>absolute failure
No

> If they never went with this shitty launch + vehicle system, we could actually be on mars by now.
No

>it also slowed rates of commercial expendable launch vehicles being created and implemented
No
>>
>>1317998
>do a lot of missions single use launch vehicles couldn't do
It's not the single launch/reusable vehicle that's expensive. SpaceX is doing OK.

It gets expensive when you have to make the heavy lift vehicle man rated. Better to launch the payloads on a big but cheap rocket. And then if you need people up there to do assembly or repair, you launch them in a smaller, man rated (i.e. very expensive) launch system and capsule. Rendezvous with the payload and bolt together, repair or whatever. Recovery and reusablity can be optimized for the cargo rocket and the manned vehicle separately.
>>
>>1319939
The SLS is retarded in so many ways, because the government have to keep giving contracts to aerospace contractors so they'll be around to do defence contracts (e.g. solid fuel rockets for boosters/ ICBMs).

If I was in charge of the SLS project:
>Base it around an adapted 3 stage saturn V, with options for additional boosters.
>Methane/Ox fuelled first stage- can be shrunk down.
>First stage engines - F-1B engines adapted for meth/Ox.
>Focus on heavy lift mission.
>Use commercial rockets/smaller derivative of SLS to send Orion into LEO.

For the Orion MPCV:
>Make it like Soyuz- orbital, reentry & service module.
>Keep similar dimensions (4-5 crew, etc).
This will allow for more habitable volume plus (counter-intuitively) reduce the mass by lessening the amount of reinforcement and shielding for reentry.

There, just solved most of the problems and improved dV to boot.
>>
>>1327195
>If I was in charge of the SLS project:
I'd just cancel or would have never started to begin with. SLS is the boondoggle of rocketry. NASA lost the moment they retired the STS with no suitable replacement, they should just use private launchers for that shit now. Maybe then they could focus on developing technology for use in-orbit instead of spending a decade of empty promises on a launch system.
>>
>>1327612
Good point.
However they aren't developing much for in-orbit tech either.
NASA is a shitshow and need to up the ante
>>
>>1327195
If I were in charge of the SLS project, I would probably have looked into a cheaper engine type than the RS-25s, maybe look into human rating the RS-68s which the Delta IV uses. I would then have probably looked to some other options as well. Blue Origin BE-4s would be a probable alternative if Rocketdyne were unable to deliver and I would probably have looked into the J-2X, which Rocketdyne put a huge amount of R&D into, but with no engines sold.

With regards to the Orion MPCV, I would have probably considered keeping it as is, and if it were to be used for LEO missions, I would have then payed ArianeSpace to launch it on the Ariane 5 or Ariane 6, since the Ariane 5 already launched the ATVs, and the ESM is basically already just the service module off of an ATV.

I don't know if I would have gone with Boeing for the contract for the main stage fuel tank. Their delays are causing delays to everything, and Boeing is fucking over the whole SLS project. I might even be Boeing which causes the whole SLS project to be cancelled as they can't make a main stage fuel tank in time.
>>
File: IMG_2678.jpg (1.24 MB, 2449x1970)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
weeksbefore,,launch,,,folkstop midstride,,mummble formulas,ratios,incantations.,
,,allactions,,overshadow.,
,thereis,,nothing else,,,,,,FOCUS!,,harder.,
,,,ROLLOUT!,,,ASSembled!!,onthe Creep!,
,Space,,,Plane!,wingsandstuff.,
,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,LAUNCHDAY!,,suitup,,OrangeTang,,lay couch on its back for groupride.,
,,,ooooooo Doge,,countdownslow!,
,ENGINESROLL!!!!CANDLES IGNITE IMPRESSSSSSSSSSS!!,
,
,RELEASEME!!!!WAM! shake couch at BREAK LEVEL!!,SHESCLEAR THETOWER!!,,MYASSISBURNING!!,,is that a seagull?,,AHHHHHH THEPRESURE<hands on face pulling back.,,,SHES GETTING PUNCHY!!,,SHESGETTING TWITCHY!,shesfine,smooooooooth!!!,
,MAAAAAAXQ!!EXHALE LIKELEPHANTON CHEST!,,STEPONIT!!,,,,SRB!!DROP!!!YOUWERNTREADYFORIT!!,,THISCONDOM TOSMALL!!,
,Fadeing. ,,Fadeinggg.,,,safe.,,45 minutes till insertburn.,
,,Tang?
>>
File: IMG_2693.jpg (992 KB, 1432x2848)
992 KB
992 KB JPG
floatingaway,,,'Lanon,GF,,,"how long are you going to do that?",,,idrift around theroom feigning weightless,,sideways oneleg MichalJackson Mooonglide!, iminspace!,,,"you look silly."
,,,putfood in bagies,,cut corner for space Saladsnacks.,
,,arrivearly,,Hugh line into landing viewing area,,park at sunset,,,FULLMOON,,,setup campstove,passout Treats,,
,,,,a,,city forms,,streets happenot for cage but peds.,,folks cluster at voids bringing food,fire,music,magic.!,
,vendorsell all,,,i buy vodka from 8yearold ,,roving wagon bar!,
,,HIGHFIVE Yetty,,Lowfour E.T.!,SPACE DANCEVERYONE!,,best,,,,party,,EVER!,
>>
>>1331955
>idrift around theroom feigning weightless,,sideways oneleg MichalJackson Mooonglide
You're such a clown dude, that sounds like an insanely fun day. I hope to go to a launch to party someday
>>
>>1317942
Buran was better in basically every way, too bad the USSR collapsed too soon.
>>
>1331979
It wasn't better
>>
>>1331979
not really. the buran still suffered from the major problems of the shuttle due to both of them being born from a flawed design doctrine.
>>
File: 1555282488905.jpg (1.73 MB, 3628x3007)
1.73 MB
1.73 MB JPG
>>1317942
There's an MIT OCW course where they invite guest lecturers to discuss the system design of various parts of the shuttle.

One of the things that stuck with me was this one lecturer (I think it is the first one :p) where the lecturer went over the "triangle of systems engineering." The three vertices of the triangle were "Performance, Cost and Schedule" and he said that it's a principle, in systems engineering that you can't specify all 3 vertices in a design specification and hope for anything good yo come out. There must be some area of flexibility.

NASA didn't have that liberty. They needed a high performance, low cost aircraft that they could turn around in a short period of time. It's remarkable that they were able to partially meet all those goals DESU.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/
>>
>>1333082
>It's remarkable that they were able to partially meet all those goals DESU.
Well, it's the deadliest space vehicle to date. That's the axis no systems engineer will ever show you.
>>
>>1333082
It was supposed to be cheap and safe way to access low earth orbit. It wasn't. Design was compromised on the moment congress forced NASA to accommodate military payload requirements.
>>
>>1333082
In the thumbnail that looks like a sci-fi cartoon.
>>
>>1333177
It's also carried the most people into space. That's the axis histrionic spergs won't show you


>>1334082
Half-truth at best
>>
>>1334106
Shuttle was really expensive to operate, way more expensive than it was supposed to be. It never reached even close to turnaround speed they had aimed for.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.