IMHO it was even more fascinating that it was an unmanned spaceflight with Buran which was able to land completely autonomous especially for the 80s.
Space industry in general is only regressing instead of progressing since then.
There's nothing complicated about an autonomous landing, especially under the conditions of a space shuttle. This task is fundamentally different from landing an aircraft flying commercially. The US abandoned this option to speed up the launch of the Space Shuttle program, but the USSR did not. Perhaps if the autonomous landing had been postponed, Buran would have flown earlier and entered service. A similar question applies to the Energia launch vehicle: was its versatility really necessary? Yes, Energia flew twice, but the more requirements the equipment has, the more complex and slower it is to build.
What looks similar on the outside is completely different on the inside.
The laws of aerodynamics and physics are identical in the USSR and the USA, and the consequences of decisions regarding interactions with the external environment are the same. But on the inside, they are completely different.
Eh, it's form is dictated by it's function. It's not like they are 1:1 copies of each other, but this.. shape, gives the most benefit of gliding on some stages of the flight (atmospheric) and doesn't hinder flight too much in other sections. Ofc they could make something different, but what for? If it works, it works.
I studied in moscow aviation uni and we've got some aerodynamic tubes, and let's just say that doing a session after session of experiments with different profiles is time consuming and expensive, so if there is some general shape that is "good" or at least acceptable, it's faster to refine it than invent a new shape
Your logic is lacking. Have you ever asked yourself why every airliner today looks nearly identical? Go ask Boeing and Airbus then why they are copying each other by that logic.
There's nothing sadder than rusting spaceships, including spaceships.
The USSR was 1-2 years late. If manned spaceflight had occurred in 1988, much in the USSR/Russia's space industry might have been different.
IMHO it was even more fascinating that it was an unmanned spaceflight with Buran which was able to land completely autonomous especially for the 80s.
Space industry in general is only regressing instead of progressing since then.
There's nothing complicated about an autonomous landing, especially under the conditions of a space shuttle. This task is fundamentally different from landing an aircraft flying commercially. The US abandoned this option to speed up the launch of the Space Shuttle program, but the USSR did not. Perhaps if the autonomous landing had been postponed, Buran would have flown earlier and entered service. A similar question applies to the Energia launch vehicle: was its versatility really necessary? Yes, Energia flew twice, but the more requirements the equipment has, the more complex and slower it is to build.
Couldn’t the Soviets have come up with an original design instead of copying from the US?
What looks similar on the outside is completely different on the inside.
The laws of aerodynamics and physics are identical in the USSR and the USA, and the consequences of decisions regarding interactions with the external environment are the same. But on the inside, they are completely different.
Yeah that’s nice Still could’ve changed the look of the outside a bit
Eh, it's form is dictated by it's function. It's not like they are 1:1 copies of each other, but this.. shape, gives the most benefit of gliding on some stages of the flight (atmospheric) and doesn't hinder flight too much in other sections. Ofc they could make something different, but what for? If it works, it works.
I studied in moscow aviation uni and we've got some aerodynamic tubes, and let's just say that doing a session after session of experiments with different profiles is time consuming and expensive, so if there is some general shape that is "good" or at least acceptable, it's faster to refine it than invent a new shape
Your logic is lacking. Have you ever asked yourself why every airliner today looks nearly identical? Go ask Boeing and Airbus then why they are copying each other by that logic.
No the Soviets always stole/copied the west design.
Doesn't matter if it's nuclear bomb(notes smuggled from Los Alamos) or for example cameras - they loved to copy German Leicas.