 |
Buran had rockets so that it could mnareuvoe in orbit and re-enter, just like NASA's Space Shuttle. Buran would have been as useful in space as the US Space Shuttle. In one sense, Buran was technically superior since it was designed to fly on auto-pilot and remote control: the US Space Shuttle required a pilot.The idea that a huge automated space-going cargo carrier like Buran capable of gliding a long way on re-entry and landing, the idea that'd be no more use than an Apollo capsule is absurd ignorance.The US Space Shuttle required solid fuel boosters to get it into orbit: its main engines weren't able to manage the job on their own.Solid fuel rockets are very dangerous, as was demonstrated when Challenger was destroyed. The USSR did not make the same fundamental error when designing Buran: the USSR had the advantage of better competition in its aerospace industry, while the USA suffered (and still suffers) from `pork barrel' politics that require federal tax dollars to be supplied to the companies that support the politicians in power. So the firm that made big solid fuel rockets just had to get Space Shuttle work btw, the USSR did not copy the Space Shuttle. It developed its own version, as it did with almost all its aerospace technology: certainly inspired by Western developments, probably informed by industrial espionage at least with respect to sub-systems, but definitely a 100% Soviet effort.The only direct copy was when they copied a Boeing B-29 Super Fortress, and called it the Tupolev Tu-4. http://yyybkdjpvy.com [url=http://dunucjtkpx.com]dunucjtkpx[/url] [link=http://wlysrm.com]wlysrm[/link]
Bewertung:  [2 of 5 Stars!]] |
|
|
Warnung: osC kann in die Konfigurationsdatei schreiben: /var/www/poljot/data/www/poljotwatches.net/includes/configure.php. Das stellt ein mögliches Sicherheitsrisiko dar - bitte korrigieren Sie die Benutzerberechtigungen zu dieser Datei!
