Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/23/2023 8:20:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: MrGoodkat]
Early in the program, the United States was publicly telling the world that the shuttle would reduce the cost of space travel, but the soviets could see that this was clearly bullshit and that it would ultimately be more expensive than rockets.  Because of this, the soviets were convinced that the shuttle was actually being built for military purposes.  The main reason was that the shuttle was able to land with it's full payload capacity.  In other words, it was able to bring cargo both to and from space.  The soviets believed that it's real purpose was to bring weapons such as lasers into space, test them, and return them to earth.  They thought that the shuttle would be able to intercept soviet spy satellites and bring them back to earth.  I did not know it was able to land with a payload.  This actually makes a lot of sense to me.  Do you think this was the true reason it was built?

Obviously the Buran was built to counter this perceived military threat.

What do you think?

Did The Soviets Build A Better Space Shuttle? The Buran Story


ETA:  This channel is great by the way.  His videos are incredibly professionally done and very educational.
cmmg
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:21:55 PM EST
[#1]
The Space Shuttle swamp was far, far too big to hide an ulterior motive like that.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:23:10 PM EST
[#2]
if buran was so good why didn't it get sold by a oligarch?  China might find something like that useful.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:24:30 PM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
The Space Shuttle swamp was far, far too big to hide an ulterior motive like that.
View Quote


Yep. this is true.

The Shuttle probably yeeted some spy satelites but that's about it
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:29:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: Colt653] [#4]
"This Video Caused An International Incident! ( Spaceship Discovery )"



Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:31:54 PM EST
[#5]
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.

Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:33:57 PM EST
[#6]
New a couple guys that worked at the cape building the original space shuttle. Neither one of them believed it would survive it's first mission  
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:34:20 PM EST
[#7]
I think the commies watched Moonraker a few too many times.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:40:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: QwikKotaTx] [#8]
There was a long duration exposure satellite that had many different types of materials on it designed to catalog orbital debris impacts. It damn near filled up the shuttle's payload bay. The intent was to bring it home for study. So I guess I always assumed that was the case.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:42:17 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.

View Quote


Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:44:29 PM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

It’s pretty much that simple.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:46:55 PM EST
[#11]
The thing I find myself saying about The Shuttle a lot lately.

It was intended when they were designing the thing that it would be flown once a week. The Shuttle never came anywhere near that cadence.

Falcon 9 roughly achieved that cadence last year. Lessons learned I suppose...
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:49:11 PM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:

It’s pretty much that simple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

It’s pretty much that simple.


If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us?
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:52:54 PM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hesperus:
The thing I find myself saying about The Shuttle a lot lately.

It was intended when they were designing the thing that it would be flown once a week. The Shuttle never came anywhere near that cadence.

Falcon 9 roughly achieved that cadence last year. Lessons learned I suppose...
View Quote


The video also makes note of that.  He claims the soviets knew that the US would not launch at that frequency so that also led them to believe it had military reasoning behind it.  

There apparently was also supposed to be a second launch site in California planned that would put the shuttle over the populated cities in the USSR within one earth orbit and therefore able to deliver nuclear weapons faster than Russia's nuclear strike capabilities.  At least that what the video says.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:53:42 PM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

It’s pretty much that simple.


If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us?

Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:55:38 PM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.

View Quote


Simple sounds true.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:56:45 PM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.
View Quote


Terrible cost analysis and budget overruns? That sounds very likely.

The space shuttle was supposed to be great, but it ended up holding us back for decades.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:57:49 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:

Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

It’s pretty much that simple.


If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us?

Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one.


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 8:59:11 PM EST
[#18]
The shuttle was supposed to be a little different and cheaper but the Air Force wanted to do [CLASSIFIED] stuff with it
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:01:13 PM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?
View Quote

It could be many things. Maybe we knew the costs but kept writing the checks until it was too late for anything but to proceed forward. Our government has shown precedence of doing that with many projects, after all. Maybe Russia was just posturing and was as paranoid as ever. It was the Cold War after all, both sides were assuming everything had to be weaponized in one way or another.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:01:48 PM EST
[#20]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:03:42 PM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

There were many ideas and plans, most of them were never pursued.   Maintenance of spy satellites alone was enough to justify its budget.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:03:43 PM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.



Yes, that is what google says.  But, that doesn't explain anything.  If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft?  Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns.  Or maybe it's not.

It’s pretty much that simple.


If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us?

Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one.


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?

I guess I can only speculate. I suspect the optimists within the bloated Shuttle program believed that with enough volume, costs would come down per launch.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:07:41 PM EST
[#23]
Too bad the roof fell on Russia's version.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:08:40 PM EST
[#24]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:09:02 PM EST
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?
View Quote

Lies that Congress wanted to believe.   The Apollo program also claimed that they would reduce the cost of payload to $10,000/lb.  The exact same number claimed for the Shuttle and again for the Venture Star.  Pure speculation.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:10:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal] [#26]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:11:14 PM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Southernman077:
Too bad the roof fell on Russia's version.
https://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/img/hangar12-grand.jpg
View Quote

They really don't care about preserving stuff like we do.

I did enjoy my time at the Kennedy Space Center, even if the rest of the family wasn't as amused at looking at old rockets.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:12:53 PM EST
[#28]
Some shuttle missions and payloads are still classified so they probably were not completely wrong.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:14:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal] [#29]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:14:24 PM EST
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:
The video also makes note of that.  He claims the soviets knew that the US would not launch at that frequency so that also led them to believe it had military reasoning behind it.  

There apparently was also supposed to be a second launch site in California planned that would put the shuttle over the populated cities in the USSR within one earth orbit and therefore able to deliver nuclear weapons faster than Russia's nuclear strike capabilities.  At least that what the video says.
View Quote


They built that second launch site at Vandenberg at great expense. Shuttle never launched out of there.

SpaceX is launching literal metric tons of stuff out of Vandenberg these days.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:17:45 PM EST
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ParityError:
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.

The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them.

View Quote

Beat me to it.  Without any kind of payload separation or crew ejection, a mid-launch abort means landing with full payload and fuel.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:18:05 PM EST
[#32]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:20:36 PM EST
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MrGoodkat:


Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran.  The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite.  This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature.  I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not?
View Quote


Because it was designed to be a grift machine, just like everything else the government did after the 60s.

We knew it. But saving money doesn't fill the offshore bank accounts of all involved in the project
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:24:21 PM EST
[#34]
Not Shuttle, but a craft that used some Shuttle tech.



Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:26:52 PM EST
[#35]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:27:03 PM EST
[#36]
Let me put my way back hat on and get all the important facts wrong.

The USAF had decided to provide additional money to NASA if they flew a design based on the lifting body.   So what was learned on the X-20 Dyna-Soar (flown by the 6 million dollar man)  was used for the shuttle.  

This allowed the design of the  X-37B - or what I think as the mini-shuttle.

The Buran was a failed copy of the shuttle; and my guess unless you are lifting a crazy amount of stuff to orbit on that beast would cost too much to sustain.

Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:27:57 PM EST
[#37]
Trying to read some of the spelling in this thread is like
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:56:24 PM EST
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradbn4:
Let me put my way back hat on and get all the important facts wrong.

The USAF had decided to provide additional money to NASA if they flew a design based on the lifting body.   So what was learned on the X-20 Dyna-Soar (flown by the 6 million dollar man)  was used for the shuttle.  

This allowed the design of the  X-37B - or what I think as the mini-shuttle.

The Buran was a failed copy of the shuttle; and my guess unless you are lifting a crazy amount of stuff to orbit on that beast would cost too much to sustain.

View Quote
M2-F2.
Not the X-20
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:57:55 PM EST
[#39]
The fucking soviets put a 23mm cannon in one of their manned spy satellites.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 9:58:54 PM EST
[#40]
Part of the reqs for the shuttle program and the reason it has such a large payload and giant fucking wings was specifically to steal soviet satellites and land with them in a single orbit so the soviets wouldnt even know it happened.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:00:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal] [#41]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:01:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: Pallas] [#42]
They were going to steal a malfunctioning Soviet space station. It got called off, but they were ready to go. I think the Soviets actually go wind of it.

Nude photos of Hillary Clinton -or- the shuttle article, take a chance?
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:01:55 PM EST
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By raven:
The fucking soviets put a 23mm cannon in one of their manned spy satellites.
View Quote


Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:04:41 PM EST
[#44]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:05:26 PM EST
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:



How the hell do you secure it in one orbit?  What if they start putting self-destructs onboard?

I have always thought that one to be more rumor than truth.
View Quote

Adjusting to the orbit of an existing satellite isn't hard, if that's what you are asking. They repaired the Hubble a few times with the shuttle and it wouldn't have been that complicated to take the satellite down with them if they really needed to.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:09:39 PM EST
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:



How the hell do you secure it in one orbit?  It's not designed to interface with the locks in the payload bay!  What if they start putting self-destructs onboard?  It usually took several orbits to secure something actually DESIGNED to be carried by the shuttle.

I have always thought that one to be more rumor than truth.
View Quote

I wont claim to have thoroughly researched it but I'll say that scott manley tends to research his videos pretty well and that is where i got it from.

Pretty sure it was this vid

Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:12:38 PM EST
[#47]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:15:55 PM EST
[#48]
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:16:06 PM EST
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Obo2:

I wont claim to have thoroughly researched it but I'll say that scott manley tends to research his videos pretty well and that is where i got it from.

Pretty sure it was this vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q2i0eu35aY
View Quote

Ok so watching again it wasnt necessarily to recover a soviet craft but a craft in a single orbit without the soviets knowing.
Link Posted: 1/23/2023 10:20:05 PM EST
[#50]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top