The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Shuttle Atlantis
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-14-2010, 06:58 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,225
Default

Technically, it's more advanced than the US shuttle.
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-14-2010, 03:10 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

How so
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-14-2010, 05:26 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Well yeah they stole the shuttle design and improved it.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-14-2010, 06:37 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
Well yeah they stole the shuttle design and improved it.
Apparently they had the "Auto Pilot" function working well enough to launch and land it without any "On-Board Astro/Cosmo-nauts. That should have been something our shuttles should have had from the start. That way they could have sent up cargos without the need for charging the life support systems, using it as a delivery system for construction and then sending up a crew to do the assembly. Still would have been a bit convoluted using a man-rated vehicle for mere delivery and separate missions for crewed assembly. This is where a smaller crew-only shuttle would have been ideal to develop, leaving a larger work-horse shuttle to deliver and return cargo without additionally endangering a crew. The shuttle-c would have been such a vehicle, but the smaller shuttle would have still been needed to transfer crew.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-15-2010, 04:01 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

The American Shuttles have always had auto pilot.
That's why they can time the landing from de-orbit down to the second. They don't let the astronauts pilot the ship through reentry...

They just practice that incase of equipment casualty.
Now the shuttle isn't auto on the ground like the Buran for braking and navigating once on the ground.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 06-15-2010 at 04:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-15-2010, 04:37 PM
Ensign James T. Kirk's Avatar
Ensign James T. Kirk Ensign James T. Kirk is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
Technically, it's more advanced than the US shuttle.
You mean because of the jet engines in the tail? That just reduces payload capacity, and of course the Soviets never really meant to use Buran for workhorse duty, it seems.

Buran was a "Nyah, nyah, us too" project stolen from the US.
__________________
All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by....and even if you take away the wind and the sea, the stars are still there, Bones." -Admiral James T. Kirk
-
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-15-2010, 04:43 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Actually my theory is that they couldn't achieve the same balance in mass the orbiter has in weight and found that they needed the jet engines to make the landing.

I noticed that the shuttle has it's nose gear actually in the nose and the Buran has the gear further back. This would take away from crew deck just as the jet engines take a way from the payload.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-15-2010, 08:06 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Yeah The reason was cuz the soviets didn't have the guts to send anyone up on the thing.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-16-2010, 03:34 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,225
Default

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program
section "key differences"
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-16-2010, 05:53 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I'm not sure if you can count the payload advantage since the Buran's mass didn't include jet engines.

Most of the pluses for the Russian shuttle actually lie with the Energia Lift System which everyone with any intrest in aeronautics knows is a superior launch system if not a superior design.

I was surprised to see the shuttle was less aerodynamic than the Buran.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.