Slashdot Mirror


Soviet Space Shuttle Found In Bahrain?

An anonymous reader writes "German news source Spiegel are reporting (english babelfish translation) that some TV journalists have found a seemingly abandoned Russian space shuttle in the Persian Gulf. It looks like it could be the atmospheric test demonstrator Buran OK-GLI which was in Sydney, Australia. Pictures here (external) and here (internal). Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!" Another reader, grm_wnr writes "German tabloid newspaper Bild reports that a russian Buran shuttle has been found in the Bahrain desert. Here is the story (in german, Google translation here). What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there. At least the fate of one of the four Buran prototypes is now confirmed." There is not much confirmation on this, outside of a few pictures... let the reader beware.

401 comments

  1. Funny... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...how much that thing looks like the US space shuttle.

    1. Re:Funny... by JaffaKREE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It actually looks like the US space shuttle - if it were made out of legos.

    2. Re:Funny... by DaHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I heard a former Russian engineer respond to a thought like that once... that the shape was governed by aerodynamics, that there are only so many configurations a functioning craft like that could take and they too independently came up with a similar one to the Americans.

      I had also heard a NASA engineer respond a little later saying that if the Russians asked for the plans for the shuttle, that he doubted that NASA would have said no.

    3. Re:Funny... by pbranes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Check out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran

      It looks like the US shuttle on the outside, but inside it is totally different. Interestingly enough, in many ways it is superior to the US space shuttle - for example if could do everything automated - including the landing.

    4. Re:Funny... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just like Concorde and the Soviet TU144 aka Concordski!

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    5. Re:Funny... by wwest4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In an old defense industry job I had, they still had cold war era security warnings around the buildings. They were printed two-tone on posterboard with war propaganda cartoons and obnoxious fonts... one had pictures comparing our shuttle to theirs, and the F-15 to the Mig-29, etc, with the heading "Somebody Talked!" Since they were propaganda sheets, I don't know if there was any truth behind the idea that the Russians actually spied to get ideas for their shuttle, or just copied the basic airframe by looking at it. Looks pretty damning superficially, at least.

    6. Re:Funny... by eutychus_awakes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is, of course, no accident. If you look closely, you'll see that there are some subtle differences - Buran doesn't have main engines at the back, for example. All the launch/orbital injection thrust comes from the Energia booster. This actually improves the Buran's flight performance, as the US Shuttle has a weight/balance/stability issue with those heavy main engines at the back - precisely where you DON'T want weight if you're flying.

      What I imagine happened is the Soviet engineering team was shown a picture of the US Shuttle during development, and that mental snapshot railroaded their thinking to produce what we have today. When it comes right down to it, engineers are the masters of copying other people's work - whether consciously or not. Once you see what a Space Shuttle looks like, it's hard to get your mind off that configuration. . .

      --
      This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
    7. Re:Funny... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Well, there are a lot of major differences between the two. For one thing, Buran has no main engines, whereas the NASA STS orbiters do.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    8. Re:Funny... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      How about the B-29 and the TU-4?

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    9. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      ive heard the same thing (on the history channel)

      it is actually public record. i believe they got the plans in what would probably be considered espionage? but had they just filed a FOIA request they would have gotten it legally.

      anyone remember the specific history?

    10. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except that the US shuttle does an automated landing as well. Didn't you know that?

    11. Re:Funny... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That first response sounds like a big load of horse hockey to me. While there is a nugget of truth to the statement (it still has to be aerodynamic), regular aircraft have the same limitations. Look at the wide variety of aircraft designs in the world today.

      It wouldn't be so bad if the Soviets had at least given it a different paint job, but from the outside it looks like a complete rip-off. I would be curious to learn just how different they are on the inside. People are claiming that it is original on the inside, but other than Soviet propaganda what do we have to go on?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    12. Re:Funny... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Lots of other differences too, namely STS actually made it to orbit!! I was told by an old Shuttle guy during my days at NASA that the Buran had a number of stability issues as well as a lack of advanced computers to handle the automatic flyback. The program was cancelled due to those issues. IIRC, the Thermal Protection System (Tiles) was never really tested either. So, it was a LONG way from ever going into orbit. The cost to complete the Buran was very high and thus it was never finished. Hmmm..seems like the Russians were smarter that the USA. We are STILL paying for the Shuttle problems and we have lost 14 astronauts as well. If Russia wants to launch some guys into orbit they pull out a tried and true (yet simple) Soyuz, fuel up an Energia and off they go, we on the other hand take up an old very high mileage school bus held together with chewing gum.

    13. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the US shuttle can now. It couldn't back when Buran could.

    14. Re:Funny... by BigGerman · · Score: 3, Interesting
      realistically, it is not like stealing how a new car looks.
      All the things that fly require a great deal of design "inside" to work well with what "outside". Similarities in COncorde and Tu144 and in Buran and "classic" shuttle are caused by aerodynamics. Both machines had to perform in identical environments so no wonder they come out looking the same. Kind of mechanical darvinism at work.

      The only exception I know of is the B-29. Soviets got hold of several shut down over Europe and replicated it bolt-by-bolt (Tu-4?).

    15. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether they spied to get the designs or not, it's worth noting that both the Buran and the MiG-29 are considered superior to their american counterparts. In fact, I heard an urban legend that American pilots were instructed to avoid MiG-29's in combat due to the technical superiority of that design.

    16. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Have you seen a US space shuttle up close? It has those tiles too. They make up most of the heat shielding so the shuttle doesn't burn up on reentry. The absence of heat shielding (due to it being knocked off by other insulating foam) is part of the reason the Columbia broke up on reentry last year.

    17. Re:Funny... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It was well known that it was stolen during the Nixon Admin. What is sad is that no matter how secure you are, information can always be stolen.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:Funny... by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, Buran flew twice, both times to orbit and unmanned.

    19. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "regular aircraft have the same limitations. Look at the wide variety of aircraft designs in the world today"

      Yeah, and they regularly take off vertically with 2500 tons of thrust, and re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 25. Great comparison, ass-master.

    20. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear ignorant dumbass, it always could, but to flatter the ego of the pilot, it was never used.

    21. Re:Funny... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 0, Redundant

      including the landing.

      err - our shuttles can land automated as well..

      Most jetliners too. Humans are there just to make the passengers warm and fuzzy.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    22. Re:Funny... by _Pablo · · Score: 1

      It not only looks like the Shuttle it's dimensions are very similar:

      Shuttle
      Length: 37.25M
      Wingspan: 23.80M
      Payload Bay Length: 18.29M
      Payload Bay Diameter: 4.57M
      Wing sweep: 45 degrees

      Buran
      Length: 36.37M
      Wingspan: 23.92M
      Payload Bay Length: 18.55M
      Payload Bay Diameter: 4.65M
      Wing sweep: 45 degrees

      The differences are very small or non-existant, especially in wingspan, wing sweep - and the larger difference in length is most likely due to the Shuttle's engines.

      From just looking at the two, it is clear that the Buran is externally a copy of the Shuttle, however that seems to be where the similarities end. It does make sense for the Russians to have done this as firstly they wanted to appear to have parity with the US so why not make the parity clear in the vehicles appearence. The Russians also knew that the US had spent a lot of time proving the external shape of the Shuttle worked.

      What the Russians maybe didn't know was how much of a compromise the Shuttle actually was and therefor they expended a lot of resources just copying the NASA's mistakes - although from what I have read the Buran would have been a lot cheaper to operate and more efficient due to the absence of the Shuttles main engines.

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    23. Re:Funny... by amabbi · · Score: 1
      Whether they spied to get the designs or not, it's worth noting that both the Buran and the MiG-29 are considered superior to their american counterparts. In fact, I heard an urban legend that American pilots were instructed to avoid MiG-29's in combat due to the technical superiority of that design.

      Well, sure. There are two things to note about this. First, coming later to the game usually means having technological advances. In aviation, for instance, in terms of performance and technology, the B777 > A330-A340 > MD-11, basically in reverse chronological order of introduction of these airframes. Considering the first Buran flight was 7 years after Columbia first took to the heavens, it's not surprising that the Soviets could have figured out how to do things better than NASA.

      Second, many of the limitations of the NASA shuttle were due to fiscal constraints. For instance, the superior performance and safety of liquid booster rockets were well known during the shuttle design phase. However, the decision was made to use solid rocket boosters was made to decrease development costs. Other than cost and the soon-to-be obsolete shuttles, there's no reason this technology couldn't be retrofitted to improve the space shuttle.

    24. Re:Funny... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it was intentionally made to be like the us space shuttle.

      for whatever stupid reasoning in the management part of things("the amerikans have one! make one for us too! i don't care if it doesn't make sense!").

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    25. Re:Funny... by plopez · · Score: 1

      I've heard too that the old Yugoslavia used to act as middle man, buying Soviet equipment then selling at a mark up to the West. Who then dissasmbled and studied the technology, including live fire testing.
      It probably happened both ways, with certain states selling, no questions asked, technology to the Soviets. Remember too that we were a huge weapon supplier to Iran, and we supplied them with 'state of the art' weapons in the 70's including F-14s, F-15s and F-16s before the Islamic revolution.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    26. Re:Funny... by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      I thought it only flew into space once? They had a second flight planned, but it was pulled because of minor issues like the Soviet Union falling apart. ;-)

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    27. Re:Funny... by choas · · Score: 2, Funny

      From the article: Buran piggybacked on an An-225 carrier

      Kinda weird since there was only one An-225 ever built... should be the An-225 I think.

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    28. Re:Funny... by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A minor correction; the B-29s that the Soviets used to create the Tu-4 came into their hands because they performed an emergency landing in the USSR after a raid on Japan. The B-29 never performed any missions in Europe. It was indeed as close to an exact copy as you could reasonably expect.

      The OP's examples (F-15/MiG-29 and Shuttle/Buran) are pretty poor; they look similar only to one who is not familiar with them.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    29. Re:Funny... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Wierder . . . How do you loose a shuttle?

      Even if it is a test vehicle I'd think they would keep pretty close tabs on it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    30. Re:Funny... by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      wingsweep & wingspan are determined by the laws of physics generally. The size a space shuttle 'has' to be would be pretty obvious, so after that you're not left with much 'creative' freedom on wingspan....

    31. Re:Funny... by _Pablo · · Score: 1

      Sadly Buran only flew into space once:

      http://k26.com/buran/Info/1st_Flight/the_flight.ht ml

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    32. Re:Funny... by caluml · · Score: 1
      US space shuttle

      I found one in Moscow too! (Bottom left)

    33. Re:Funny... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      How about the B-1B and the TU-160?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    34. Re:Funny... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Similarities in COncorde and Tu144"

      Were actually down to industrial espionage rather than aerodynamic reasons. TU 144

      "Soviets got hold of several shut down over Europe"

      I may have missed that war, being British. When did that happen?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    35. Re:Funny... by phayes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given that there were no western witnesses, nor videos nor pictures of Buran in the process of being launched, it is widely assumed that buran never achieved orbit & that the pictures being presented as the return from orbit are actually those of one of the atmospheric tests (like Enterprise).

      Corrections welcome of course, but it's been 20 years & you'd have thought that someone would have turned up a picture if buran had really made it to orbit.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    36. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, in many ways it is superior to the US space shuttle - for example if could do everything automated - including the landing.

      This is true. The Russians has NASA's 10+ years of experience behind them when they were working on the Buran. As such, they avoided several points which made the shuttle such a difficult craft. A few items:

      - The Buran had no launch engines. All lift power was provided by the Energia it was strapped to.

      - The Buran had more advanced computers with real-time control abilities instead of the "key in the program" design of the shuttle.

      - The Buran stack was lighter due to the single-booster design.

      - The complexity lost in the single-booster design meant that turn-around times would have been far faster than the shuttle.

      - Future versions of the design would have made the Energia booster able to fly back to Earth and be reused.

      All of this did come at a price, however. IIRC, the Russian program was about twice as expensive in R&D as the US program. As for the aerodynamics, my understanding is that the Russians did have stolen shuttle specs as a reference. Even if they didn't, they still had a large collection of photographs from which they could divine the areo-shell design. As a result, the Buran was nearly an exact aerodynamic copy of the space shuttle.

      And for anyone who thinks that may have been a coincidence, think again. There was no need for the Russians to have built a large cargo craft. They already had excellent cargo boosters, so they could have built a man rated vehicle for much less. They built the Buran to compete with the shuttle on every point, but did it in such a way as to show that Russian design was "better".

      That being said, I'd love to see the Energia program revitalized. With those rockets, we could have cut the costs of ISS construction several fold!

    37. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, stolen and copied.... Just how come Tu-144 made its maiden flight before Concord?

    38. Re:Funny... by Kn0xy · · Score: 0

      Besides the Buran program being able to be Piloted via Remote, they also had the ability to handle a larger payload compared to a US Shuttle. Problem with the Buran Shuttles was that they could not get around problems with sustaining a Suitable Life Support System, Computer Bugs and Crashing (Not Windows back then! =) ), and a list of other problems that ultimately forced the program to be scratched.

    39. Re:Funny... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except that the US shuttle does an automated landing as well. Didn't you know that?

      It can't fly the entire mission unmanned like the Buran did.

    40. Re:Funny... by hoofie · · Score: 1

      Luckily [perhaps] that those various 'F's' will no longer be of any use, as the Iranians would not have been able to keep them running eventually due the lack of spares etc from the original manufacturers. An F-14 is less use than a pointed stick if its grounded due to a dead engine.

    41. Re:Funny... by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1
      I found one in Moscow too!

      It's a restaraunt now.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    42. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, and the Americans never landed on the moon. You know there were no witnesses.

      Come on, every launch by one side is tracked by another side. Buran flew to the orbit once allright. Landed automatically, too. No people onboard though.

    43. Re:Funny... by _Pablo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is the "size a space shuttle 'has' to be" "obvious"? The size of the Space Shuttle was dictated by it's cargo bay which was in turn dictated by the Department of Defence.

      The Russians could have decided to go with an orbital vehicle which was bigger or smaller than the Shuttle, however they decided to go almost exactly the same vehicle so that was the only way in which the size of the Buran was "obvious".

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    44. Re:Funny... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      how very true. do not despair, tough,because some of the technology is used in the west as of now http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/BoeingSeaLaunch. html.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    45. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's pretty easy. The facility was in Ukraine, and was pawned to the Ukrainian government in exchange for a loan. The Ukrainian government has been pretty poor about the upkeep, and the original orbiter was lost during a hanger collapse. The test vehicles were considered scrap and have been known to show up in several locations.

      For example, Gorky Park in Moscow managed to snag one of the test vehicles as an attraction. If you ever go there, you can walk through the shuttle and take a 3D ride.

    46. Re:Funny... by AndyElf · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess this is similar to statements that US never landed on the moon, Gagarin never flew to space, and that good-old movie Capricorn-1 (is that right) about a manned flight to Mars....

      --

      --AP
    47. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm aware of the Zenit strap-on boosters reuse. In addition, the Protons are still launched by Lockheed-Martin IIRC. But none of them compare to the amazing launch power of an Energia. Over a hundred metric tons could be put up in the Buran configuration. The Vulkan configuration could have done 150 metric tons. The Hercules configuration could have done a whopping 175 metric tons!!! That's only about a dozen tons shy of the current weight of the ISS! One launch!

      Wow.

    48. Re:Funny... by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 1

      Is that why all flying things are the same size? Birds, insects, aeroplanes, and so on? The relationship in size may be dictated by physics (though even there there seem to be a huge number of viable flying shapes), but the size is variable within a pretty broad range.

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    49. Re:Funny... by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      I believe the Iranians announced fairly recently that they would be mass producing spare parts for combat aircraft within the country, intending to export them for profit - I do wonder if this is linked, the maintenance of these aircraft became too difficult to find parts, so they decided to sort them out themselves?

      I honestly don't know if those American plans still fly in the Iranian Air Force or not...

    50. Re:Funny... by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 1
      Ok, I was a bit murky in my phrasing of that:

      s/The relationship in size /The relationship between the various dimensions/

      s/but the size is variable/but the overall size is variable/

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    51. Re:Funny... by EABird · · Score: 1

      As I remember, those in the Tupolev Design Bureau we so afraid of not following Stalin's orders to the letter, that they copied everything from the nameplates and serial numbers. Tupolev wanted to make several enhancements to the design, but did not dare in the first version of the Tu-4, for fear of being sent to Siberia. (or the grave)

    52. Re:Funny... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      The MiG-29 came out after the F-15 so obviously technology would have advanced. Regardless, the F-15 is still far superior at Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat and long distance fighting. Essentially, that MiG better be damn careful because an F-15 can detect it and destroy before it even knew there was anything else out there. If a MiG did get closer though, it does have a few advantages over the F-15. Thats why we built the F/A-18 Hornet many years ago. It'd be humorous to see a MiG-29 try to take one.
      Regards,
      Steve

    53. Re:Funny... by BigGerman · · Score: 1
      They must have got the designs for time-machine as well because 144 flew several months before Concorde.

      Actually if you look at early pictures of 144 you see that it is very different even outside - delta wing instead of curved and one 4 engine compartment instead of 2 blocks of 2.

      I was already corrected about b-29 above. Of course, it were b-17s that were shutdown in Germany and even landed in Ukraine.

    54. Re:Funny... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The link to astronautix.com has a great history of the effort, how they copied the STS (without engines) and how they developed the N-1 Launch Vehicle. The test flight discussed seemed to a bit odd with a very eccentric orbit of like 150km x -20km, so they barely got into LEO. And I don't think they tested payload delivery either. The big debate was if the first flight was to be manned or unmanned. Unmanned won. I am assuming with the fall of the Soviet Union that the history of Buran is pretty solid by now free of the typical Soviet mis-information about success OR failure.

    55. Re:Funny... by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      Wow it could land by itself. Thats pretty cool, but it doesn't seem to have been able to land in the correct Country. ;-)

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    56. Re:Funny... by cluckshot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just to continue the funny discussions.

      The size of the US Space Shuttle was actually determined by the limitations imposed by the Solid Rocket Boosters. --> The size of the SRB's was determined by the fact that the plant which made them was in Utah and there was a Rail Road tunnel in the way to the cape. --> The size of the tunnel was determined by the construction of the Transcontinental Rail Road in the 1860's and by the width of a Standard Gage Train Track. --> The width of a train track owes its history to the width of a standard mine cart or wagon from the old English days. --> The width of the wagon from old English days was determined by the width of the ruts in the old English roads from antiquity. --> The width of the ruts in old English roads was determined by the width of a Roman Chariot which by no coincidence was determined by the width of the two horses that pulled the chariots.

      So the Roman Standards for War Chariots determined by the width of two horses rumps was a determining factor in the NASA and Russian Space Shuttles dimensions. The reason the Russion one was larger even by increments was it was intended to be bigger.

      Warning to programmers. What you do today may have some considerable unforseen influence on the future. Thy not to limit them too much!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    57. Re:Funny... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      it happened in the Pacific, in 1944-45.

      A b-29 made an emergency landing in an airfield in Russia, and was impounded. bear in mind that, at the time, Russia was not at war with Japan, so there was a faint legal point that made it possible, at least in Stalin's mind. Eventually Russia was able to produce a copy.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    58. Re:Funny... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      The Hercules configuration could have done a whopping 175 metric tons!!! That's only about a dozen tons shy of the current weight of the ISS! One launch!

      Impressive indeed, but that configuration was never built. If we're talking about spaceships that were conceived but never built, you might as well mention project orion, which would have been able to lift masses that dwarfed what chemical rockets can.

    59. Re:Funny... by grm_wnr · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit late for this, but I have a question about the Buran: I saw a documentary about the russian shuttle program on TV once, and they mentioned that the Buran was initially designed to be able to act as an orbital bomber. They even had a photograph of the shuttle with a vaguely bomb-shaped pod on a hardpoint under the craft's body. It seems that the russians did this because they thought at first that the american shuttle had similar capabilities... When they learned that that was not true, they dropped their plans for arming the Buran. Can anyone confirm this information, or were they just talking out of their behinds?

    60. Re:Funny... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      These people are the guys that made latest russian fighters possible.
      Mind you, by the time the russians had made up the performance gap in the flight performance, the name of the game had become Electronics .

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    61. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Well, the primary difference is that the Vulkan and Hercules configurations were more of a matter of bolting on more Zenits rather than constructing a new craft. So while the configuration never flew, it's not entirely accurate to say that it was "never built".

      Even if we're talking about the Buran configuration, however, that's still 100 metric tons per flight. With that kind of booster, you could have an entire space station in two launches. The only comparable rocket is the Space Shuttle, but it's design precludes carrying more than ~23-25 metric tons. The rest of the weight is the shuttle itself.

    62. Re:Funny... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The KGB certainly had a large branch responsible for technology espionage. See, for example, The Mitrokhin Archive.

    63. Re:Funny... by rwven · · Score: 1

      uhm....they said right in the article that the soviet was aerodynamically designed to look just like the US shuttle. The Soviets didn't even want the US to look like they were any better....

    64. Re:Funny... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Informative

      At the risk of being labelled a pedant;

      "the Pacific" - Not Europe

      "airfield in Russia" - Also not Europe.

      I actually knew about the B-29s that were downed, because it led to one of the more interesting aspects of the cold war in terms of the idea of scaling arms. Before the TU-4, there was no way for Russia to get to the US, and Russia was already reeling from the attack of a European superpower.

      Regarding the reverse engineering, there was a story that Rolls Royce supplied a Merlin aero engine to China on technology transfer that they copied down to the last bolt, and there's some speculation that the EP-3E forced down in China was heavily catalogued before Lockheed Martin engineers were allowed in to dismantle and crate the plane.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    65. Re:Funny... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Besides the Buran program being able to be Piloted via Remote, they also had the ability to handle a larger payload compared to a US Shuttle. Problem with the Buran Shuttles was that they could not get around problems with sustaining a Suitable Life Support System, Computer Bugs and Crashing (Not Windows back then! =) ), and a list of other problems that ultimately forced the program to be scratched.

      Well, that and the fact that program was going in late 80's when money became a huge issue for Soviets. I think the financial problems coupled with impending doom of the USSR are the main problems that canceled Buran program.

      -EM

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    66. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      So Tupolev is the equivalent of Microsoft to the Airplane industry?

    67. Re:Funny... by hoofie · · Score: 1
      I honestly don't know if those American plans still fly in the Iranian Air Force or not...

      I didn't either, but this article would tend to indicate that they are indeed still flying.

      After a bit of googling, I found some more material that, whilst not a subjective analysis, may indicate that some may still be combat effective. I presume the Iranian military wouldn't like to advertise the fact they are still operational, as I'm sure if hostilities commence between the US and Iran, those aircraft will be high-priority targets.

      I'm sure however, that the U.S. Military knows EXACTLY how many are still flying and where they are.

    68. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Wild Ass Guess? They're talking out of their behinds. Not only would that be an inefficient way of bombing the US, Russian had already launched a satellite nuclear weapons platform. They had no need for the Buran to be armed, and it would have been too large of a radar target anyway. The U.S. would have simply started arming carriers with warhead-carrying Pegasus boosters, and it would have been "Goodbye Buran".

      My guess is that some reporter heard an idea that had been batted around, and decided to take it as fact. Because Russia == The Evil(TM), you know. *rolls eyes* :-)

    69. Re:Funny... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Just how come Tu-144 made its maiden flight before Concord?"

      I suspect that comes down to airworthiness tests demanded by the flight authorities in the specific countries, but three months is not that long a time between the two flights. The espionage is actually a matter of public record, though, Mr Coward.

      That the spies were caught quite well before the planes were finalised probably had more to do with it, but there is a fairly consistent mode of piracy that operated in the former Soviet Union and thrives in China, which was one of the conditions on entering the WTO.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    70. Re:Funny... by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 3, Informative
      The size of the US Space Shuttle was actually determined by . . . .the width of a Roman Chariot which by no coincidence was determined by the width of the two horses that pulled the chariots.
      False. As noted at Snopes. Just in case anyone thought the parent was not a joke ("I saw it on Slashdot! It must be true!") Note: this is not to say it isn't funny. I can neither confirm nor deny that the parent was funny.
    71. Re:Funny... by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      Also, F-111 and Su-24.

    72. Re:Funny... by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      They only have the F-14 out of what might be considered "current." Before that, the F-4 and F-5. No F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.

    73. Re:Funny... by Schemat1c · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most jetliners too. Humans are there just to make the passengers warm and fuzzy.

      Then why do we get so upset when we catch them drinking?

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    74. Re:Funny... by oldwarrior · · Score: 0

      So could apollo 11. But the LEM computer went south just before touchdown and one pilot who checked his ego at flightschool hand landed it safely. Think before issuing platitudes.

      --
      If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
    75. Re:Funny... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      ...how much that thing looks like the US space shuttle.
      Behold the power of Open Source development!

      Seriously, though, why build from scratch what you can take (ehm... steal) and enhance to get the same result faster?

    76. Re:Funny... by merdark · · Score: 1

      I would be curious to learn just how different they are on the inside. People are claiming that it is original on the inside, but other than Soviet propaganda what do we have to go on?

      You know, the link to wikipedia has been posted over and over in this thread. That would tell you "just how different" they really are.

      As for propaganda, I could say the same about US propaganda. The US was no better during this time period. You know, while your at it, why not just say the moon landings are fake?

      The specs are known from many sources. Hell, there are even 'pictures' that show that say, the Buran did not have any main engines like the shuttle. But I guess those too are soviet propaganda? They photoshopped the picutres during the cold war... riiiight, that's it.

    77. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those posters are still in use, by the way. The shuttle/Buran one was in the roatation here (an "undisclosed defense industry plant") as recently as six months ago.

    78. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That thing looks like its made out of paper mache!

    79. Re:Funny... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Kinda weird since there was only one An-225 ever built... should be the An-225 I think.

      Maybe someone mistook one aircraft which has flown under both military and civilian registration (as well as with 2 different sets of engines and avionics) for being two aircraft or something...

    80. Re:Funny... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The only major different Wiki mentions is the fact that the Buran can land by computer control only. This is a fairly minor point since the astronauts on a Shuttle don't actually land it either (it's almost all done by the computer). The lack of external engines is a fairly big difference, but that's still within the realm of "modifications to the original design" than anything else. I'm more interested in the airframe construction, layout, and factors like that. Even the design of the human habitable sections should be quite different since that is largely up to the preference of the engineer designing the vehicle.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    81. Re:Funny... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I'm sure however, that the U.S. Military knows EXACTLY how many are still flying and where they are.
      Don't worry. When time will come, the truth will come out that all that time the planes were used by al-Qaeda.
    82. Re:Funny... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Wow, how in the world do those other space vehicles handle it then? They're not shaped anything like the shuttle! I can guarentee that the takeoff has nothing to do with the shape of the vehicle by the way.

      You know what's even better? Have you ever looked at the concept designs for future space vehicles? You know what they don't look like? The Shuttle.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    83. Re:Funny... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      there's some speculation that the EP-3E forced down in China was heavily catalogued before Lockheed Martin engineers were allowed in to dismantle and crate the plane.

      Why else would China be so adamant about keeping it from being removed?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    84. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do every day. The performance is close enough that it comes down to pilot training. The US military uses captured MiG-29s in pilot training all of the time and the instructor pilots "shoot down" the trainies all of the time. When the MiG-29 was finnaly premiered at the Paris Airshow in 1989 it shocked the western world. It had long range multiple target capabilities similar to the F-14 with one improvement. The Soviet arsenel has rear firing missiles.

      My point is that aircraft are more dependent on pilots than technology. If an F/18 tried to take on a WWII generation aircraft in a dogfight it would lose hands down. Fire a missile from 20 miles away and that prop driven aircraft is toast. Fortunatly the US has the best pilot training out there.

    85. Re:Funny... by lemonylimey · · Score: 1

      This comparison is flawed, largely because MiG-29 isn't the counterpart to the F-15. The F-15 was designed as a high altitude, no-limits bomber/fighter interceptor ('not a pound for air-to-ground') that would engage it's targets with long-range missiles. The MiG-29 is a fighter-bomber designed for operating over the front lines, supporting the Soviet advance - it's direct counterpart in the US inventory would be the F-16.

      The Soviet counterpart to the F-15 would be the Su-27, which is arguably superior in terms of dogfighting capabilities (better aerodyamics and short-range heat-seeking missiles) but loses out dramaticaly at beyond-visual-range combat (inferior radar and radar-guided missiles).

      The F/A-18 has it's roots in the YF-17 that lost the USAF's light weight fighter competition to the F-16. Requiring an aircraft to replace the F-8 and A-7, the US Navy purchased a version of the YF-17 with a heavier internal stucture and landing gear as a fighter-bomber. Unfortunately, the resulting aircraft has always been poorly regarded by the naval aviation community because of it's limited range ('Just enough fuel to take off, circle the carrier once, and then land') and inability to carry a significant warload.

      From the perspective of the MiG-29 pilot, the F/A-18 would be a worrying opponent because of it's AMRAAM missiles, but in a close-in dogfight, the F/A-18 would be serious trouble.

    86. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I have always thought Snopes a good source of information for debunking urban myths but that explanation makes me doubt their value.
      It starts by stating that the story is false then goes on to list how it's actually all true, just somewhat coincidental. Who ever said the size of the space shuttle was inevitable consequence?

    87. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it is that all the F14's Iran has were subtly disabled when the Boeing contractors were forced to leave by having critical parts of the fire control systems removed.

    88. Re:Funny... by merdark · · Score: 1


      This should give you more information. Google my friend, google.

      http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

    89. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      The US shuttle can virtually land itself by computer control, but final approach and landing are controlled by a human being, which was done in part because astronauts didn't feel comfortable with trusting their fate to automated systems. The shuttle was designed so that the landing gear can't be automatically activated in large part due to this philosophy. However, the change would be relatively simple to make.

      The fact that Buran flew unmanned on its first flight is not that significant, however. It is normal for a new system to be flown unmanned at first in case something goes wrong. The fact that STS-1 actually had any crew at all was quite unusual, and due to the design choices mentioned above.

    90. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering that the U.S. would have known that Buran was flying, in order to prevent WW3, NORAD almost certainly had opportunity to debunk the flight of Buran with orbital tracking data. At the height of the Cold War, you can be certain that any U.S. proof of failure of the Energiya-Buran to achieve orbit would have been leaked by the Administration if the Soviets tried to play of a technological coup and failed...

    91. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Informative

      All urban legends. Check snopes.com.
      The boosters are made in Louisiana, and shipped by barge to Florida. No trains at all.

      And the implicit stupidity of putting the SSME's in the Shuttle when there was no provision for engine restart, especially since that great fuel tank was already falling into the ocean. Yeah, the Soviets did it better in that regard.

      As to tile technology, well that has matured some, but the fragility of the entire system is keeping NASA from any major overhauls in that regard. Had the Soviets actually continued with the program, they might just have built a flyback booster, aka, what the STS was supposed to be.

      Ah, the perils of money...

    92. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It looks similar for several reasons:

      1. The work was based in part on non-classified US shuttle information that was publicly available.

      2. The US design was already tried, tested, and known to work. Why do something new when you can duplicate? The Soviets were very good at this; e.g. quickly copying the jet engines they were given during the 1950s, even going so far as to secretly collect metal shavings dropped on the floor by machining tools at the engine factory in England to find out what thte turbine blades were made from.

      3. Convergence. This is an evolutionary principle which states that often, recurring similar solutions will arise spontaneously when two different organisms evolve to fill the same niche or accomplish the same goals, even if they evolved in separate parts of the world with no genetic exchange taking place. In other words, what engineers find works for a given goal in country/company A will also often come up as the best solution selected by engineers in country/company B. The principles of science and nature are absolutes the world over.

      More on the history of Buran:

      Buran - In Depth History

    93. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Nobody necessarily "talked". Buran was developed partly from publicly available information about the Shuttle. For example, the film Moonraker has very, very accurate Shuttles shown in it, including the launch sequence (from the blockhouse) which is very close to the actual procedures that were used in the real program. The film was released in 1979 or so, meaning it was worked on during the Approach and Landing Test program during which no actual missions were flown by space-qualified orbiters. Yet, it is very, very accurate (including the white External Tank, which was painted for STS-1 and STS-2 but not for subsequent missions). The US has never hidden information about its shuttle program. The Soviet philosophy, on the other hand, is "hide it unless and until it works".

      You're just seeing, in this case, an example of those different philosophies. The F-15/MiG and Concorde/Tu-144 similarities, however, probably actually are indeed due to industrial espionage. The Soviets have a very long history when it comes to copying Western technology; they aren't good at coming up with things on their own but are very good at imitation and adaptation.

      More on how all this happened:

      Buran - In Depth History

    94. Re:Funny... by foxhound01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      because they don't share their drinks!

      --


      Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
    95. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Only once, in 1988, with no crew on board. Program dismantled shortly thereafter due to lack of funding.

    96. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Erratum: The SRBs are processed in Utah.

    97. Re:Funny... by DeepEye · · Score: 0

      How do you loose shuttle ? Project "Moonraker" anyone ? Ask Drake Industries...

    98. Re:Funny... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      It was indeed as close to an exact copy as you could reasonably expect.


      The mandate to copy the design was so strictly ahered to, that the first production Tu-4's included patches from aircraft battle damage repair on the origional B-29.
    99. Re:Funny... by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm a bit late for this, but I have a question about the Buran: I saw a documentary about the russian shuttle program on TV once, and they mentioned that the Buran was initially designed to be able to act as an orbital bomber.

      The worry came out of the American decision to put a Shuttle base in Vandenberg CA. Flights from Vandenberg would have entered a polar orbit taking them over the Soviet Union. It was an immensely provocative idea that was bound to attract the attentions of the Soviet military.

      The Soviets quickly worked out that the Shuttle had an enormous cross-range capability - that is it could be steered back to a landing, so they concluded that a Shuttle could be blasted out of Vandenberg and drop a weapon on the Soviet Union as part of a first strike, then return to Edwards Air Force base after a single orbit.

      When the Politburo was informed of the American plans, Breschnev effectively turned the carefully planned Soviet strategy for reusable spacecraft on a dime and ordered that his engineers produce something equivalent to the American Shuttle. Which was a disaster as the Soviets had plenty of original ideas including the Spiral hypersonic aircraft which were in an advanced stage of development.

      In reality the US Air Force had already concluded that the Shuttle would make a lousy weapons platform. Submarine launched missiles could achieve much more at a lower cost and were already being deployed. However, the USAF did want Vandenberg to put heavy reconnaisance satellites into polar orbit and perhaps use the Shuttle itself as a reconnaisance ship.

      In the end, Vandenberg was mothballed after the Challenger disaster and no Shuttles ever took off from the enormously expensive facility.

      So perhaps the Buran is a good reminder of how often we view the world in the light of our own worst fears.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    100. Re:Funny... by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Does it have anything to do with the fact that their train tracks are wider? :)

      --
      AccountKiller
    101. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then why do we get so upset when we catch them drinking?"

      Because we're jealous of their warm and fuzzy feeling?

      Because they won't let you bring your own bottle on board?

      This used to bother me until I realised how little they do anymore...kinda like an windows administrator.

    102. Re:Funny... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Interestingly enough, in many ways it is superior to the US space shuttle - for example if could do everything automated - including the landing.

      Except for the minor detail that the US space shuttles are/were operational with over a hundred missions while this one has how many mission and is rusting in a desert...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    103. Re:Funny... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The Soviet space program, from the very beginning, had a lot more emphasis on remote control and automation than the US program. While this did put them ahead in that technology, wasn't it done more for political rather than technical reasons? i.e. - they wanted to make it impossible for a cosmonaut at the controls to decide where the craft goes, and thus avoid the possibility of a high-profile embarassing defection. Or, is that just a rumor?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    104. Re:Funny... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Planes take a long time to build and test before they fly. It is entirely possible for one group to copy the design before the final test flight, and then finish their model and fly it before the original is test flown. Especially if they have different methods and standards of testing. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying that the proof you provided is insufficient to rule out the 144 being the result of espianoge. Don't forget that the Concorde, as a joint British/French production, was not exactly rushed through from drawing board to production with lightning speed. There were a lot of delays and agreements to be reached on who did what parts.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    105. Re:Funny... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      I heard an urban legend that American pilots were instructed to avoid MiG-29's in combat due to the technical superiority of that design.

      Replace "combat" with "close combat". From a long distance the F-15 is superior to the Mig-29 due to better electronic measures - radar identification, missle guidance, etc. Up close the Mig-29 is better due to amazing manueverability. The F15 pilots were instructed not to get close enough to dogfight, and instead to use fast straight passes, and missles.

      This is the standard tactic when your plane is either faster than the opponent, or better able to shoot from a distance than the opponent. It's the same tactic used by the US airmen against the Japaneese Zero in WW2. The Zero was amazingly manueverable, but structurally weaker such that it could barely reach 300 MPH before becoming in risk of breaking. So the US, with fighters that could top 400 MPH in level flight, and even reach 450 in a dive, would just fly straight in from a distance, take one pass shooting, and then zip right past, without turning to dogfight. While the Zeros could easily turn to keep the US fighters in their crosshairs during this, the distance between them would expand at about 150 MPH, leaving them only a precious few seconds of shooting before it was pointless. Then, after getting far enough away, the US fighters would turn back and do it again.

      This is pretty much the same kind of thing, except using the longer-range attack instead of the faster speed to result in the same tactical decision - don't stick around the enemy - fight from a distance.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    106. Re:Funny... by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I always thought the optimum shape would be like a disc resembling a large frisbee. With little twinkly lights all over it, you know, to help it fly better. That's what I learned while watching science shows like The Twilight Zone.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    107. Re:Funny... by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 1

      . . . How do you loose a shuttle?

      With a wrench, obviously.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    108. Re:Funny... by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      I have seen it with my own eyes (in 1993) - it looks amazingly like our own Space Shuttle with the only striking difference I noted being the configuration of the jet engine cones / exhausts in the back. I don't remember off the top of my head what the differences were, only that I remember them being slightly different.

      Granted I wasn't all up close and touchy / feely with it, and I had to be slightly discrete with my interest - I will have to go look over the picture(s) and see what else I can see.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    109. Re:Funny... by iocat · · Score: 1

      The irony -- well it isn't that ironic -- is that based on what we know happened to Columbia during its destruction; the computers on-board did a better job keeping Columbia alive that was ever expected, and longer than ever expected. If the hole was slightly smaller, Columbia may have survived (or at least survived long enough for a bail out, were that possible).

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    110. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IAAA (astrophysicist) and I've personally seen the launch and landing videos and some of the telemetry from the flight. I'm convinced they launched, orbited and landed sucessfully. There are some videos are on the net if you look for them, but I'm not going to subject the already flakey server to /. . You can find them if you spend a little time looking. :)

    111. Re:Funny... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Drool over Soviet superboosters if you will... but the Saturn V launched 118 tons to LEO in 1968. And if we're interested in the fantasy variants that were never built, here's an insane fantasy about tying four Saturn V rockets together into one uber-booster. 527.6 kilos to LEO. Slightly less crackers is this design with strap-ons, 160.88 tons.

      I can't find Hercules, but this early design, RLA-150, would have done 250 tons. If it had got off the ground, that is... I can't feel confident about ALL that many boosters working to plan.

      The spin-off from Energia that frightens me, though, is Polyus. If that thing hadn't crashed... well, the word 'pwn3d' springs to mind.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    112. Re:Funny... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Humans are there in case something happens that is outside of a set of preprogrammed responses.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    113. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      There is indeed an escape system on the Shuttle, installed after Challenger (not that it would have ever had a chance to save that crew.)

      If the orbiter is in controlled (relatively) wings-level (mostly) flight, the side hatch can be blown off explosively and an extendable escape pole set up. This pole is used to ensure that the people jumping out of the ship won't hit the wings before they're caught in the slipstream -- a problem that led to the development of ejection seats when jet aircraft proved too fast for older conventional bailout techniques.

      After that it's much like bailing out of anything - hit the ground properly, use your raft/whatever, and stay alive long enough to be rescued.

      Given that Columbia wasn't really in controlled flight, it would have depended on how much longer the ship would hold together at the time of bailout. Fortunately, the nose RCS thrusters are far enough away from the hatch that I think it could have been a safe jump. However, the thrusters are generally disabled by the time the shuttle gets low enough for a bailout to be an option.

    114. Re:Funny... by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how many of those other vehicles land as airplanes (gliders, actually), with the capability of bringing down a huge payload? While the take-off is probably not really a point here (except maybe for some details regarding structural loads during a high acceleration vertical vs. low acceleration horizontal take-off), the landing sure is a biggie.

      Regarding your second point: how many of those "concepts" are artistic visions with no chance in hell of ever becoming actually built, and how many depict actually planned vehicles?

      Not to forget, that today's technology is WAY more advanced than what the world had back at the time Shuttle and Buran were built, allowing for a wider range of different implementable designs.

      While I'm not arguing the one or the other theory (rip-off versus engineering necessity), the possibility that Russians came to extremely similar solution on their own can not be entirely dismissed solely on the fact that the "concept designs for future space vehicles" look different now.

    115. Re:Funny... by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 'forced down' EP-3E was nothing less than a technology gift to China. Standard procedure is to make a water landing, bail out, and let the explosives inside (which are activated by being soaked in salt water) scuttle the plane. Laughable also were the reports of the crew valiantly chopping away at the 'computers' inside, so China couldn't acquire them. Anyone who knows anything would know that the crew was certainly only attacking monitors and keyboards, the real computers being stored in armored racks.

    116. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should change your login name.
      Everytime I see it, I read "AkamaiBatman" which is a lot cooler if you know what akamai means and now you probably know where I live too, if you are akamai at least.

    117. Re:Funny... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The size of the US Space Shuttle was actually determined by the limitations imposed by the Solid Rocket Boosters --> The size of the SRB's was determined by the fact that the plant which made them was in Utah
      So the size of the suttle was determined by the size of the pork barrel - the project hijacked by those who didn't care about it but did care if they could get some votes in marginal electorates.

      With a project that was less politically encumbered - the Saturn5, they built as much as they could in the then barely industrialised Florida, and shipped in what they couldn't build there.

    118. Re:Funny... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Akamai? So you think I'm "intelligent, clever and cool", huh? ;-)

      As for where you live, I'm guessing Hawaii. Of course, you might just know the name from a company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but I don't think you'd understand the usage then. :-)

    119. Re:Funny... by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      The Buran looks almost exactly like the space shuttle. But that is because there is only so many ways you can have a big plane hit the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and not turn into a meteor. It's really quite different, though. For example, it purely uses a Energiya booster to reach orbit, rather than mainly relying on its own engines.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    120. Re:Funny... by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
      WRONG! Snopes says on that page, specifically:

      "This is one of those items that -- although wrong in many of its details -- isn't exactly false in an overall sense and is perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons.""

      One more snopes snob who slips up and makes himself look like a horses a$$. Gee, shall we design a spaceship based on HIS measurements?

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    121. Re:Funny... by persicom · · Score: 1
      - The Buran had more advanced computers with real-time control abilities instead of the "key in the program" design of the shuttle.

      All though the shuttle started flying in the early 1980's, it was developed in the 1970's using 1970's computer technology. The lead times required to build such a device basically obsoleted the computers before the shuttle got off the ground. Nowadays, I would hope that planned obsolence and upgrades are part of the design.

    122. Re:Funny... by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Wow, that Polyus is both cool and scary - thanks for the link. Strange, though, that the article doesn't seem to mention the nuclear space mines indicated on the schematic!

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    123. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FWIW what came off of the Columbia when the foam struck was not those ceramic tiles, but rather the "reinforced carbon/carbon" which is the black stuff that makes up the leading edge of the shuttle wings.

      The link goes to a nasa page with more info about the molecular structure etc

      the parent poster was right though, the shuttles do have heat resistant ceramic panels on them. I got to hold one once when I was in grade school, they are very lightweight and remind of a hard sort of styrofoam.

    124. Re:Funny... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Standard procedure is to make a water landing, bail out, and let the explosives inside (which are activated by being soaked in salt water) scuttle the plane."

      This is something that confused me because it didn't match SOP, although I'd ask you if you were sure about explosives happening while the crew and plane were in the same bit of water? 'Concussive shock' springs to mind.

      "Laughable also were the reports of the crew valiantly chopping away at the 'computers' inside, so China couldn't acquire them."

      Yeah...I recall that the standard practice for disposing of starlight scopes a couple of years ago was putting a bullet through the optics if you feared capture, although melting the wiring looms would be a decent method of destroying the relationships between the machines.

      "Anyone who knows anything would know that the crew was certainly only attacking monitors and keyboards, the real computers being stored in armored racks."

      The storage is removable. Surely that's the point that would be attacked rather than the console mounted stuff?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    125. Re:Funny... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "They must have got the designs for time-machine as well because 144 flew several months before Concorde."

      I always thought that 'several' meant a few more than 'three'. I live and learn.

      The maiden flight wasn't actually publicised at the time, just in case of failure; it was very much a belt'n'braces affair and shouldn't be considered anything more than actually trying to 'beat' the Europeans into the air, which they did.

      The Tu-144 had some serious problems, though.

      "delta wing instead of curved"

      Compound Delta and 'Ogive'. Ogive's are a fairly computationally 'difficult' shape to get right. In terms of supersonic aircraft, French/European designs preferred the Caravelle ogive (which late became the Concorde wing design) over the flat delta, which has completely different separation characteristics. The Concorde was a lot more stable in flight; the Tu-144 required a canard refit (the stubby wings next to the cockpit) to increase low speed stability after one aircraft was lost in an overly fast approach on landing. I suspect that the -1G roll at the '73 Paris airshow that crashed a Tu-144 would have also contributed to this fairly rapid design change.

      "one 4 engine compartment instead of 2 blocks of 2."

      The only picture I have of the early Tu-144 is a side shot of it being escorted, gear down, by MiGs. It's difficult to see the intakes, but i'd question the single bay compartment simply on the basis of it being a lot of wasted space on an airframe where weight was a premium. Got a photo you can point me at?

      Incidentally, Fabiew wasn't caught until 1977, when he handed over a cipher for the intercepted messages, one of which congratulated him on supplying a complete set of blueprints for the Concorde. I haven't checked through the Venona stuff, mainly because I haven't thought to link industrial espionage with military, but the major thrust of the KGB was about getting information from places where it was considered impossible to get information from, something they excelled in.

      Look at the Manhatten Project.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    126. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected: http://www.atk.com/ProductSheets/ATKThiokol/201267 8.htm

    127. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      It looks like my original post somehow got eaten, but what I was trying to post (maybe I did and I'm not seeing it when trying to climb the post tree?) was that you got it backward... the External Tank is produced in Lockheed's Michoud plant in LA and shipped by barge to FL. The SRBs are processed in Utah and shipped by rail to FL. (and back to UT post-launch). The SRBs do indeed have to be sized to fit within the available rail tunnels, or more accurately, within the railcars used to transport them which must fit within the constraints imposed by the shipment routes. Alas, photos of the transport cars are relatively rare, and as a train buff, I've looked. Argh.

    128. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a 10-12' wide railcar. 11 segments @ 10', 12' in diameter, that's a big car.

      I can't imagine there are a lot of tunnels between Utah and Florida via rail...

    129. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily tunnels, though. Some lines run in urban areas, others are cut through or next to sheer cliffs (like highways), some pass through industrial centers. While oversize loads are sometiimes carried on railroads, they are relatively rare. But the SRBs may well be one of those loads.

      Here are some of the few photos of the SRB transports that I've been able to find:

      RailPictures.Net Photo Union Pacific Railroad EMD SD9043MAC

      NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery

      NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery

      NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery

      Notice that the shrouds are wider than the width of the flatcars they cover.

    130. Re:Funny... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Do not HUMP? Like some giant ogre is going to have his way sexually with an SRB motor segment?

      Thanks for the pics, BTW.

    131. Re:Funny... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Hump yards -- biiiiiiig hill. But then, I'm pretty sure you're teasing. ;)

    132. Re:Funny... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I hate to say that, but this shape was the only design which anyone on earth could do at the time. Insufficient computing capability. Plain and simple.

      Example XB-70. Similar? Strikingly. Arrow. Similar? Vulcan. Similar? Quite. We can continue with many other craft by other design houses both soviet and western.

      The fact is - Tu144 was initially designed with a very interesting "ozhivalnoe" wingshape. A full scale prototype was flown (you can find pictures of it in many books on aerodynamics and aircraft history and design) and it was decided to fall back to the well known, tested and proven though inefficient shape because some stability problems remained unresolved and Mark Galai (Tu chief test pilot) did not sign off the testing.

      Nowdays someone with the computing resources of Boeing may in fact make the original design work as it was promissing to be considerably better in terms of both fuel efficiency and landing/takeoff speeds (which in term means less noise).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  2. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The SPACE SHUTTLE finds YOU!

    Kill the GNAA and Furries

  3. Nie by essreenim · · Score: 2, Funny

    Njet. WE zont need ze bakup systems. We need moore thruzt .

  4. Grain of Salt by RainbowBrite · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm am definitely sceptical. I live in Bahrain and it is about three times the size of Washington DC. I think I would have heard of this. I do not see an exact location in the story. If I can find one I will go check it out.

    1. Re:Grain of Salt by troggan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/0,1518 ,319521,00.html

      (Sorry, only German)

      The Location is Secret. The Shuttle is only "parked" there.

      A German Museum has bought it and is waiting to ship it to Germany. The Museum has bought many things like this in the past (Tupolew TU-144, a Concord...)

    2. Re:Grain of Salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm am definitely sceptical.

      Yeah, me too. Its probably one that the US lost.

    3. Re:Grain of Salt by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree with the poster.

      Bahrain is a small island about ten miles wide and twenty miles long. It is long known as an important trading center in the Gulf where fundamentalists don't impose arbitrary social restrictions on international business.

      The idea that a space shuttle could fall from the sky and land here undamaged as opposed to any point in the millions of square miles of ocean on the Earth's surface is absurd. Suppose the navigational on-board computer was damaged and it missed landing in the Soviet Union. It still would have gone into the ocean or broken up.

      Maybe someone bought it under the table and then was told that it was going to be used to create an international incident, so they towed it out to the desert where it would be found and assumed that it had fallen from the sky.
      Maybe some enterprising Russians sold it to someone with a lot of money (hmmm, anyone like that in Bahrain?) and convinced them that they could use it to begin an Islamic space program. Then they towed it out to the desert before anyone found out how gullible and backward they were (or how much money they got taken for).

    4. Re:Grain of Salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A German Museum has bought it and is waiting to ship it to Germany. The Museum has bought many things like this in the past (Tupolew TU-144, a Concord...)
      Did they buy the chest of drawer in the picture too? Maybe it's the one cosmonauts in soyuz were using to store their socks and underwear?

      Or is this how they got to the hatch?

    5. Re:Grain of Salt by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Considering that the shuttle apparently isn't even a working model (if it's test article), I'd guess it was shipped to Bahrain instead.

      It wouldn't be much use for starting a space program, seeing as it has no engines at all, it relied on the external engines to launch it...

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    6. Re:Grain of Salt by IAR80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasn't spiegel just another tabloid? If it is not it is certainly going in that direction.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    7. Re:Grain of Salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you're just kidding...

      But those are actually shipping containers...

      =)

    8. Re:Grain of Salt by troggan · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's not a tabloid. Its a "serious" weekly political magazine.

    9. Re:Grain of Salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right :-) the containers do look like a chest of drawer on my laptop screen, though... kind of...

    10. Re:Grain of Salt by kkovach · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is today September Fools Day in Germany?

      - Kevin

      --
      The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
    11. Re:Grain of Salt by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      In the last couple of years all kinds of fun stuff has been stolen in Russia.

      Some town went out one day and the only bridge leading into the town had been stolen.

      Russia's first steam locomotive was stolen and found cut up for scrap.

      I could imagine if someone drove into Gorky park with a <i>Really</i> big truck and loaded a Buran onto it, would people really notice?

      All kidding aside, who knows. Maybe they built two of them and that one landed in Burhain.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    12. Re:Grain of Salt by pdamoc · · Score: 1

      The Shuttle is "Out there"... somewhere around the Twilight Zone.

    13. Re:Grain of Salt by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      I'm sceptical too. Look at the internal picture: there's no steering wheel!

    14. Re:Grain of Salt by macsuibhne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but pretty much the entire population lives on the north end of the island around al-Manamah, the centre of the island is all desert (apart from the truly amazing "Tree of Life"), and the southern part of the island is restricted to the military. If I was going to stash it and had connections, that's where it would be.

      Tony.

      --
      -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
    15. Re:Grain of Salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone bought it under the table and then was told that it was going to be used to create an international incident

      Hmmm, let me guess who bought it. Hugo Drax.

    16. Re:Grain of Salt by nutshell42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Think of it as the German Time magazine

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    17. Re:Grain of Salt by festers · · Score: 1

      "Time with Tits" is probably a little closer. :)

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    18. Re:Grain of Salt by freqres · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, everybody knows that
      In Soviet Russia, Buran shuttle steers YOU!

      Sorry comrade, I just couldn't help myself.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    19. Re:Grain of Salt by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing it with Der Stern.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    20. Re:Grain of Salt by Schaffner · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's going to the Technik Museum in Speyer.

  5. How did I get here? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny
    What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there.

    Uhhh... it flew?

    OK, not under its own power. But it had to be flown, right? So that's how.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:How did I get here? by Nexus7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was a transporter aircraft, a modified Antonov An-124, I think. Or a Myasischev (sp?). The CCCP definitely had it's pick, the russians always had great transport planes.

    2. Re:How did I get here? by Itsik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What scares me is that if they lost such a huge spacecarft can you imagine what else they could have easily "misplaced" without anyone knowing???

    3. Re:How did I get here? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... it flew? OK, not under its own power. But it had to be flown, right? So that's how.

      The US shuttles are piggybacked on a specially outfitted 747. If I had to guess, customizing a 747 to carry the Buran would cost more than it's worth. And it's been 10 years since that thing was rated airworthy... I wouldn't want to pilot the 747 with a big pile of junk on the back which could disintegrate at any time and damage my own plane, or lose the lift of the shuttle's wings.

      Since it's never going to fly again, it was probably dismantled and sent by ship. People would have noticed it piggybacked on a 747, but probably wouldn't notice one stuffed in the hold of a cargo ship.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    4. Re:How did I get here? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well yeah, who wants to cross Russia on the ground? Certainly not the russians.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:How did I get here? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Its an athmorspheric test version. It did 20 flights on its own, so its quite possible it landed there...
      or it was just shipped there with a ship, it isnt THAT large.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    6. Re:How did I get here? by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      It was actually a different aircraft that I believe was based on the An-124 design, called An-225.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    7. Re:How did I get here? by idontgno · · Score: 1
      Yup, Russian name "Mriya" ("Dream"); NATO designation "Cossack". Apparently, the world's largest airplane ever*.

      Specifications.

      *By weight. The Hughes HK-1 was taller and had greater wingspan, but max takeoff weight was less than 1/3 of the AN-225's 1.3 million pounds.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:How did I get here? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      Did anyone check for WMD in the nearby area? Or Amelia Earhart?

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    9. Re:How did I get here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I once mispaced a rather large wide carrage 24pin dot matrix printer. It took me months to find but eventually it turned up under my bed. Can't say I've ever misplaced a space shuttle though!

    10. Re:How did I get here? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1
      What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there.


      Uhhh... it flew?

      OK, not under its own power. But it had to be flown, right? So that's how.


      The Buran, unlike the US space shuttle, has jet engines that allows for powered flight in the atmosphere. This also allows it to land automagically with no persons on board. In fact, this was done in the first and only space flight of the Buran.
      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:How did I get here? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Like suitcase nukes???

      --

      Gorkman

    12. Re:How did I get here? by essreenim · · Score: 1

      What scares me is that if they lost such a huge spacecarft can you imagine what else they could have easily "misplaced" without anyone knowing???
      Yeah, nucear chocolate even.

    13. Re:How did I get here? by Pragmatix · · Score: 1

      Yes, I often wonder where they have 'misplaced' Yakov Smirnoff's career

    14. Re:How did I get here? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      I believe it has the biggest payload record. Impressive specs.

    15. Re:How did I get here? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Actually, from reviewing the information on astronautix.com, it appears that one test article had jets so it could conduct automatic landing tests. The production articles lacked these engines and were essentially gliders like the Shuttle.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    16. Re:How did I get here? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Didn't know if you noticed, but wood is definitely less dense than steel and aluminum. :-) But your facts are correct.

    17. Re:How did I get here? by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      The AN-225 was not misplaced. It's location is known, it flies transport missions for some company. Aviation buffs (plane spotters) get into fairly high gear when it's near though...

      Some pictures... Search for Antonov AN-225

      Pictures like this

      Cheers, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    18. Re:How did I get here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine that it could be lost. I would be surprized if the Americans would not know about every aircraft that leaves and enters Earth.

    19. Re:How did I get here? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Correct. The Aero-Buran test article that was used for this was fitted with four jet engines for Enterprise/ALT-style tests. It was exhibited for some time in Sydney and is still there due to funding (for other exhibitions everywhere) falling through. It is stored in a lot somewhere within sight of the famous suspension bridge that spans the bay. By my request, an Australian friend of mine visited the exhibit in Sydney and photographed it extensively. The jet engines are unmistakable and allowed me to positively identify which of the test articles it was.

    20. Re:How did I get here? by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      The AN-225 was not misplaced. It's location is known, it flies transport missions for some company.

      I never said it was. In fact, I remember hearing something about there being plans for it to be brought back into service but that they first had to get it approved since it had previously been classified as an experimental military aircraft, didn't know that it was actually in service again though.

      The company is Antonov airlines btw, a descendent of the design beauro that designed the plane IIRC..

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  6. Is this the one that overran the runway way back w by pillageplunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Folks remember the pics back in the 80's of one of the prototypes sitting bogged in mud at the end of a runway taxi test?

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking class" Oscar Wilde
  7. Who? by savagedome · · Score: 1, Funny

    What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there.

    Who is this Mr. noone you talk about?

    1. Re:Who? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's a character in the comic strip "Family Circus", along with Ida Know, and Notme.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Who? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I know, what a looser. Who's the moran who spell checked this story anyway?

    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who?


      What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there.

      Who is this Mr. noone you talk about?


      Jasper 'Buddy' Noone, in Bloodwork .

      Noone was played by Jeff Daniels.
    4. Re:Who? by Rev+Wally · · Score: 1

      Why, oh why did you have to reference the Family Circus!!! It just sits on the comic page, in the lower right corner, just waiting to suck.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    5. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funnier than Penny Arcade.

    6. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that he's always responsible, knows everything and that he really cares.

    7. Re:Who? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Your teh funnay! ;-)

    8. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cultural genocide is funnier than Penny Arcade.

  8. Parking by Nos. · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there
    You ever tried to parallel park one of those things... trust me its easier just to park it in the desert.

  9. This must be the fabled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Noah's space shuttle.

    1. Re:This must be the fabled... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Nah, then they would have found it parked on Mount Ararat.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  10. Space Camp by cyb3rllama · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, that's the shuttle simulator I used at Space Camp back in 1987. ;) How'd it get out there?

    --

    particlesphere.com - quantum
  11. I will personally kill by mrak018 · · Score: 0

    anyone who touched our Buran!

    We in Russia badly need it home!!!

  12. Trolls by Ghotli · · Score: 2, Funny

    God, here come the "In Soviet Russia" trolls.

  13. the internal pic begs for captioning... by CheechBG · · Score: 3, Funny

    "So which one of these buttons turns on the hyperdrive? I need to get the hell out of Tatooine... /watched way too much Star Wars the past few days :)

    1. Re:the internal pic begs for captioning... by thoolihan · · Score: 1

      "The markings match those of a ship that blasted it's way out of Mos Eisley"

      --
      http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
    2. Re:the internal pic begs for captioning... by John+Whorfin · · Score: 1

      Insert Chewbacca yell here...

    3. Re:the internal pic begs for captioning... by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1
      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  14. IN SOVIET RUSSIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolls come to YOU!

  15. seriously by ilovelinux · · Score: 2, Informative

    tell me this wouldn't be the coolest find ever. One day you're walking out in the wilderness and you find a spacecraft.

    If they did actually abandon it out in the desert (which I find unbelievable, you think they would lock it up in a hanger or something), it's probably been completely gutted for the cool parts anyway.

    Did this thing actually get used at all?

    1. Re:seriously by glass_window · · Score: 1

      If you look closely at the internal picture, it's actually missing most of the instruments that (I would assume) belong in those holes in the dash and now have wires hanging out of them.

    2. Re:seriously by ilovelinux · · Score: 1

      ah they are missing indeed. Got caught not checking out articles again!

    3. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's supposed to look like that.
      Post modernist or something.

    4. Re:seriously by peragrin · · Score: 1

      >>If you look closely at the internal picture, it's actually missing most of the instruments that (I would assume) belong in those holes in the dash and now have wires hanging out of them

      Missing or never installed??

      Buran style shuttles were never finished .

      Look closely at the wires they aren't stripped back to conductors, or have connectors on them.

      I bet omeone is using it as a mock up for russian space history

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, only once just one unmaned flight, they ran out of money, it is a very sad story

    6. Re:seriously by Mateito · · Score: 2, Funny
      it's probably been completely gutted for the cool parts anyway.

      If you look carefully at the photo, you can see that the wheels have been taken and that the shuttle is actually up on small piles of bricks.

      Also the hood ornament's been torn off and the driver's side window smashed to take at the radio (which since a small shunt in the late 80s has been able to pick up AM anyway, so that's not too much of a loss).

  16. Lost? by BannedfrompostingAC · · Score: 3, Informative

    How could it be "lost"? Bahrain is only about 650km squared in size.

    1. Re:Lost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think you mean 650 square kilometers -- 650km squared is 422500 square km.

    2. Re:Lost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you lose your keys in your house ;)

      probably the scale of things are similar.

      plus once you are in a sandy area, for instance a desert, it can be a bit of a problem

  17. Stop press! by grm_wnr · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, in the meantime I have a non-machine translation of the Bild article ready. Note that I seem to have my facts wrong: 1. It IS known how the shuttle ended up there 2. The fate of the other three prototypes is known. This is due to the fact that I actually got hold of this information in a newspaper (the Welt, and grabbed the first relevant link I could find. The newspaper article had some facts quite different, and I don't know which source to trust more. Anyway, here is the Bild text:
    German tourist wants to buy lost russian shuttle Russian spacecraft lands in arab desert by DITTMAR JURKO (image caption: The russian shuttle was deemed lost for years und was now found in the arab desert) Moscow - It was the most ambitious project of the russian space program, code named "Buran" (snowstorm): The first space flight with a russian space shuttle! The flight was a success, but experts have been wondering ever since where the four prototypes went. Now BILD readers have found one of the russian space gliders in the arab desert! Volker Hartmann (54) from Schaumburg, Chris G. Maier (32) from Düsseldorf and Kai Niedermeier (39) from solingen met the crown prince of the island state Bahrain, Salman bin Hamad al Khalifa (34). He told him of the hiding place: "We drove near the border to Saudi-Arabia in a jeep. There was the shuttle - covered and abandoned." The glider is the "Buran 002", one of the four airworthy space ships of this type. 36,67 metrs long and 17,37 meters high. She took off 25 times. 1993 the space project was cancelled. A Saudi bought the shuttle, but forgot it in the desert. And the other spacecraft? One was destroyed, one dismantled, the mothership is now on display in Moscow's Gorky Park. One of the german finders now wants to buy the "Buran 002" for 300,000 dollars, and go on a world tour with it: "The sheik approves".
    1. Re:Stop press! by troon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Volker Hartmann (54) from Schaumburg

      I preferred Google's "foam castle" translation of Schaumburg.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    2. Re:Stop press! by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 4, Informative

      According the Spiegel website (yes, I can read German), the shuttle was purchased by the Automobile and Aerospace Museum in Sinsheim, near Heidelberg. That sounds quite plausible to me, as that museum has a very impressive collections of cars inside the museum and a large collection of aircraft sitting outside the museum. Some of the aircraft are open to visitors to walk into.

      If anyone find themselves in southwestern Germany, and is interested in this sort of thing, I would strongly recommend going to visit this museum. It was quite interesting even to someone like me. Even though I don't find cars interesting and aircraft only mildly interesting, I still enjoyed this museum. Seeing the full-size aircraft in person instead of in pictures is a worthwhile experience. The presence of the Buran shuttle would make it even better.

    3. Re:Stop press! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      how the heck does one "forget" a space shuttle in the desert?

    4. Re:Stop press! by Jo_2521 · · Score: 1

      Please note that BILD is a tabloid and heavilly slanted. If you rely your knowledge on it you probably don't deserve any better...

    5. Re:Stop press! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bahrain is an island state (as the article actually mentions. How can you drive to the 'border' with Saudi Arabia?

      And I agree with other posters -- the size of Bahrain is not such that you could lose a shuttle in it.

    6. Re:Stop press! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 300,000 he could turn around and sell it on e-bay for a nice profit, but beware, buyers pays shipping and shuttle comes "as-is".

  18. Buran history by Leomania · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read with great interest the history of Buran on astronautix.com. Man, once I found that site I burned several hours reading about the N1 program, Buran, just tons of Soviet-era information that I had no idea was out there. Amazing that the N1 engines were bought by an American company and will end up being used; great story about how they were squirreled away after being ordered destroyed.

    I was amazed to learn that Buran flew into space completely by remote control. Kudos to the Russians for this feat.

    - Leo

    --
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
    1. Re:Buran history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a great documentary on the discovery channel once about those engines.. Now used by used by an american company as you said.

      Cool stuff.

    2. Re:Buran history by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      **WARNING** IE users: assload of popups.

      Damn I wish I could use firefox at work :(
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Buran history by prof_peabody · · Score: 1

      That's a good write-up. The best line is: But this triumph was also the last hurrah. Buran would never fly again. The Soviet Union was crumbling, and the ambitious plans to use Buran to build an orbiting defence shield, to renew the ozone layer, dispose of nuclear waste, illuminate polar cities, colonise the moon and Mars, were not to be. Still laughing!

    4. Re:Buran history by Leomania · · Score: 1

      I saw a great documentary on the discovery channel once about those engines.. Now used by used by an american company as you said.

      Come to think of it, that's probably where I got that tidbit of info -- not from the Astronautix site.

      I can't explain why I'm so damned fascinated by the Soviet space program, but I eat it up. I guess it might be kinda like breasts; hidden and built-up for so long that I look at 'em every chance I get.

      - Leo

      --
      You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
    5. Re:Buran history by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

      I was amazed to learn that Buran flew into space completely by remote control. Kudos to the Russians for this feat.

      The U.S. astronauts can't seem to take a piss without someone on the ground double-checking whether all the toilets will work properly. The U.S. space shuttle (and the space station) might as well be on remote control!

  19. Where it came from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend in germany pointed this story out to me yesterday. he said he knew of its origins from some russian friends. in short when USSR was doing flight testing of the Buran they simply used standard MIG engines. during one of the tests(in the pacific) they had some engine problems and had to do a forced landing. Rather than bring the shuttle back to Russia they just stripped all the important equipment, packed up and went home and left the shuttle shell there.

    1. Re:Where it came from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I heard that story too. They were short on funding so instead of gasoline, they used strawberry jam. The strawberry jam, it was found, made the engines run 10% more efficiently. Unfortunately it also made them run hotter and that's why they had the flameouts and the forced landing.

  20. In the mean time by triptolemeus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I already posted this one here two days ago, but it got rejected, no wonder that things have happened. The shuttle already got sold to the German Sinsheimer Museum (for cars and technik). More info here. Sorry it is in german and my company doesn't allow translations.

    --
    The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
  21. It was stolen by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some cosmonauts left it idling in front of a convenience store while they ran in for some smokes and carbs. When they came out it was gone. Apparently it ended up in a Bahrain chop shop and the parts ended up on eBay. The pictures tell the rest of the story.

    1. Re:It was stolen by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2, Funny
      Didn't they make a movie about that?

      Dude! Where's My Shuttle?
      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  22. Not Noone again! by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's funny is that noone knows how it ended up there.

    I went to school with Chuck Noone. He was always getting in these kinds of situations... I'll have to track that ol' devil down...

    /no-one

  23. Gee...kinda similar to the US shuttle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RE: Copy of US Shuttle

    Time for RIAA and SCO to send Russia a lawsuit for billions of dollars for copying valuable IP!

  24. Broken down... by elcheesmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Was there a white cloth tied to the antenna or door?

  25. Re:But... by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

    For that matter how did a coconut get to england? Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  26. Nostalgia by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Ahh, remember the good old days of manned space travel and rapid advances in aeronautics. Seems like just yesterday.

  27. How'd It Get There? by The+Dobber · · Score: 4, Funny

    Christ, haven't you guys ever watched Close Encounter Of The Third Kind?

    1. Re:How'd It Get There? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing I thought of when I read that a vehicle of some sort had been found in teh desert and no one knew how it got there. I decided to scan the replies lest I be redundant.

  28. How can I? by robpoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do I buy it for $5 (10000000 rubles) and bring it home? It would make a cool yard ornament, definately a sort of "I'm a better redneck than you -- instead of cars on blocks, I have a RUSSIAN SPACE SHUTTLE, BIAOTCH!!!".. *sigh* oh well...Guess not..

    --
    = Grow a brain...
    1. Re:How can I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5 (10000000 rubles) Look up the conversion mutherfucker. We are not so poor.

    2. Re:How can I? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Funny

      And you can find a currency converter here.

    3. Re:How can I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Conversion factor has absolutely nothing to do with being rich, poor, or having a good or bad economy.

      Or do you really think that Japanese are 100 times poorer than Americans, and British are twice as rich? Not to mention those staggeringly wealthy Maltese, then.

  29. The second half of the story by teslar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also at the Spiegel, the shuttle in question appears to have been bought by a German Museum and the reason why it's in Bahrain is because it was supposed to be shown at an exhibition in 2002. However that never happened and a legal struggle resulted, which is apparently still going on and left the shuttle stranded in Bahrain, the exact location being kept secret.

    1. Re:The second half of the story by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Let me put it this way. Bahrain is not that big and the shutlle is not that small.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  30. Close Encounters... by Savage+Conan · · Score: 1

    reminds me of the scene from Close Encounters where they find the boats and airplanes in the desert

    1. Re:Close Encounters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They found a fake boat in the desert at 33N49.587, 116W59.244. Space aliens are rumoured to be involved.

  31. Ebay by bp2179 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets see how long this takes before it ends up on Ebay.

    1 slightly used space shuttle prototype.....

  32. Likely a Structural Test Article by Spencerian · · Score: 5, Informative

    This find is likely similar to the STS structural test article vehicle--an engineering-exact duplicate of an Orbiter vehicle used for tests in the early days of the Space Shuttle program in America. The Russians needed something similar, obviously.

    Our STA, STA-099, was retrofitted after it was clear that retrofitting the test Orbiter Enterprise would be too costly. So, STA-099 become OV-099, Challenger. There might have been much gnashing of teeth to have seen Enterprise destroyed on that cold January day in 1986 for some fanboys than Challenger, I would think--not to belittle that death of a vehicle or its crew would seem any more or less important based on its name.

    Everything you want to know about the Buran program in Russian, amongst many other space information, can be found at this popular and comprehensive web site.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Likely a Structural Test Article by obirt · · Score: 1

      There are several other sites as well. http://k26.com/buran/ and http://www.buran.ru/ are the two I have visited so far.

      --

      I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
  33. What the Russians didn't publicize by kippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just told a coworker who grew up in Romania under the Soviet influence about this. He said that it was sort of common knowledge that Yuri Gagarin was by far not the first human in space. Rather, he was the first one to come back.

    Of course, there's no way to prove that one way or the other but it does illustrate the fact that the soviets didn't have the "burden" of a free press to publicize when things went really haywire as this shuttle seems to have.

    1. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by madprof · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If this is the case then how come the western media has not picked up on these stories before?
      This would be a significant change to our established history of space exploration.

    2. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by kippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like I said, it may or may not be true.

      Even if it were true, the Soviets would have kept it under wraps. NASA underwent a lot of public crap whenever something blew up on the launching pad. In Soviet Russia all they had to do was tell Pravda to shut up and their space program looked flawless. If it never got out of Russia, how would we find out about it?

    3. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by dapyx · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If this is the case then how come the western media has not picked up on these stories before?

      Because all the proofs are burried deep in the archives of the KGB.

      However, the Russian media wrote about this (in English)

      As 40 years have passed since Gagarin's flight, new sensational details of this event were disclosed: Gagarin was not the first man to fly to space.
      Three Soviet pilots died in attempts to conquer space before Gagarin's famous space flight, Mikhail Rudenko, senior engineer-experimenter with Experimental Design Office 456 (located in Khimki, in the Moscow region) said on Thursday.
      According to Rudenko, spacecraft with pilots Ledovskikh, Shaborin and Mitkov at the controls were launched from the Kapustin Yar cosmodrome (in the Astrakhan region) in 1957, 1958 and 1959. "All three pilots died during the flights, and their names were never officially published," Rudenko said.
      He explained that all these pilots took part in so-called sub- orbital flights, i.e., their goal was not to orbit around the earth, which Gagarin later did, but make a parabola-shaped flight. "The cosmonauts were to reach space heights in the highest point of such an orbit and then return to the Earth," Rudenko said.
      According to his information, Ledovskikh, Shaborin and Mitkov were regular test pilots, who had not had any special training, Interfax reports. "Obviously, after such a serious of tragic launches, the project managers decided to cardinally change the program and approach the training of cosmonauts much more seriously in order to create a cosmonaut detachment," Rudenko said.
      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    4. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Tell your coworker that he has no way of knowing it even if Romania was under soviet influence then.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    5. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by hoofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      This page would tend to indicate that the rumours are not true. If they were, I'm sure by now the truth would have come out.

    6. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      russian space program got pretty careful after the start.

      it is _NOT_ "common knoweledge"(with truth in it) of any kind that they would have sent people to orbit who died there before gagarin(with russians or any others).

      but in the soviet atmosphere urban legends like that would have been sure to nourish(and anyways, by now there would have been ways to prove it wrong or not, they guys who would have knoweledge of it would be numerous and not have anything to lose anymroe).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by benito27uk · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That's true, but Alexei Leonov and David Scott's autobiography Two Sides of the Moon has no mention of anyone getting into space before Gagarin.

      Leonov is very frank in talking about the censorship that occurred during this period and has no reason to perpetuate any lies.

    8. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's lie. Gagarin was first man in space.

    9. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by dapyx · · Score: 0
      but in the soviet atmosphere urban legends like that would have been sure to nourish.

      Especially because of the secrecy that sorounded the Soviet Space Program: it was announced only after the mission succeded. We can imagine that in the case of a failure, it would have been kept secret.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    10. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, with some of their programs they gave hints to the western scientists before so that they could verify what they were doing..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by PPGMD · · Score: 1

      They also hid the fact that their men didn't land in their capsules until late in the program, they used ejection seats and parachuted down for landing.

    12. Re:What the Russians didn't publicize by Lazlo+Nibble · · Score: 1

      The man to discuss this with would be Jim Oberg. His books "Red Star In Orbit" and "Uncovering Soviet Disasters" are both great reads, covering lots of stuff Russia tried to hide from the West during the cold war. (They both predate the fall of the Soviet Union, though, so they're pretty out of date by now.)

  34. Mock-up? Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a "Rather-ized" story???

  35. Cover up by still+cynical · · Score: 1

    What they're NOT reporting is that the Buran was found along with an ENTIRE SQUADRON of Grumman Avengers that disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle over 50 years ago.

    Anyone up for a trip to Wyoming?

    --
    Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Cover up by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the problem with Slashdot... I can't tell if you are being funny or are serious and one of those paranoid conspiracy theory types. We need a mod catagory for that, like +1 crazy, or -1 depending how you look at it.

    2. Re:Cover up by ZosX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is the problem with Slashdot... I can't tell if you are being funny or are serious and one of those paranoid conspiracy theory types. We need a mod catagory for that, like +1 crazy, or -1 depending how you look at it.We don't need a mod category for this.

      Dude. Lighten up. Its a joke. Laugh. Life doesn't have to be so fscking serious all the time.

      zosX

    3. Re:Cover up by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      No, I can't right now... I'm too busy building a mashed potatoe flattopped mountain in my living room.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    4. Re:Cover up by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      How do YOU know? The OP could indeed be a paranoid conspiracu nut. Slashdot seems to attract them; you ever read the -1 flaimbait/troll comments? Some these people are insane, my friend.

      Rob

      PS Thanks to mod who gave me the +1 funny =p

  36. Buran in Sydney by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We toured the Buran in Sydney when it was an ill-fated tourist attraction. It was a very nice exhibit, video on Soviet space accomplishments and it included sitting in the actual cockpit.

    The Buran in Sydney lacked the navigation avionics, leaving a rather large empty space in the deck below the cockpit. The Russians removed that before they exported the shuttle. The guide claimed the avionics were heavily borrowed from Russian ICBMs and had even included targeting data for U.S. sites.

    It's sad that Buran failed as a tourist attraction.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Buran in Sydney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah I also saw it in Sydney, I have plenty of photos of it and the exhibit, the sticking out bit in the nose wasnt on the one I saw in Sydney.

    2. Re:Buran in Sydney by dbarlett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was in Sydney in August of 2001, read about Buran, and thought "I have to see this." We parked at a casino and spent almost half an hour tracking down the tent where they were keeping it. We were the only people there, and there was a lone ticket-taker/tour guide who left us to watch a Russian/English hurrah-for-Soviet-space-program movie, followed by actually going to see the shuttle. Sitting in the cockpit was an extra $20 (US), IIRC, which I didn't elect to do. Overall an interesting experience.

    3. Re:Buran in Sydney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guide claimed the avionics were heavily borrowed from Russian ICBMs and had even included targeting data for U.S. sites.

      Weren't they worried that Clint Eastwood would steal it and then fly it home just by telling it to take him to Washington DC?

    4. Re:Buran in Sydney by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      We parked at a casino and spent almost half an hour tracking down the tent where they were keeping it.

      Yes, this is OT, but you should have just gone on the ferry, where you can see it from a fair distance away. In Sydney, when you can, take a ferry. It's much easier than going by road.

      I was surprised that there were not many people there when I went, but quite a few people don't like to see these sorts of things I guess.

  37. Will be shown at the Technik Museum at Sinsheim by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article (in german) reports that the Technik Museum Sinsheim has bought the shuttle for an undisclosed six figure sum.

    The Technik Museum Sinsheim already has a Concorde, the Tupolev TU144 (soviet counterpart of the Concorde), and a Porsche 959, "The blue Flame" and a lot of others tech stuff.

    The shuttle will be kept in good company :-)

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
    1. Re:Will be shown at the Technik Museum at Sinsheim by haggar · · Score: 1

      Impressive museum. But, you know what they don't have? The Shuttle. Apparently, according to many in NASA, they should....

      --
      Sigged!
    2. Re:Will be shown at the Technik Museum at Sinsheim by geomon · · Score: 1

      The Technik Museum Sinsheim already has a Concorde, the Tupolev TU144 (soviet counterpart of the Concorde), and a Porsche 959, "The blue Flame" and a lot of others tech stuff.

      Yes, but do they have a Sinclair 1000?

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  38. Probably a fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on the lack of corroborating evidence I'd guess it's a fake, but I can't imagine how they would doctor photos like that. Any gimp experts in the house?

  39. Nie by essreenim · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ze spaze shootel izt shid. uze ze roked.

  40. oh my god. by flacco · · Score: 4, Funny
    Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!

    yeah, then you could go watch spongebob in your footie-pajamas, and drink hi-c from your sippie-cup!

    actually, that sounds kind of fun.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:oh my god. by 5m477m4n · · Score: 0

      yeah, then you could go watch spongebob in your footie-pajamas, and drink hi-c from your sippie-cup!

      Oops, I must have left my webcam on again!

      --

      ---
      Those who can, do
      Those who can't, teach
      Those who don't know how, supervise
  41. Next week's National Enquirer by elflet · · Score: 1

    Headline in the supermarkets next week: "Lost Atlantean shuttle found in the desert. New 'Bermuda Triangle' to blame."

    1. Re:Next week's National Enquirer by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      How about we found a great deserted city on the dark side of the moon. (this was a real article by the way)

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  42. Killing myself by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Maybe some enterprising Russians sold it to someone with a lot of money (hmmm, anyone like that in Bahrain?) and convinced them that they could use it to begin an Islamic space program. Then they towed it out to the desert before anyone found out how gullible and backward they were (or how much money they got taken for).

    Hahaha that was great, I laughed so hard I probably extended my life by a good few minutes!

    Islamic space program :-) it is perfect!

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    1. Re:Killing myself by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Islamic Space Program... Now I know why it's so hard to get anything out of my ISP, they're busy towing shuttles around in the desert.

      Are you sure the terrorists were not using it to train to take over the american shuttle?

      The suspicious looking fellow with the 62 goats needs to be interrogated.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Killing myself by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      The suspicious looking fellow with the 62 goats needs to be interrogated.
      What I find suspicious is how a goat could live that long.

      I really liked the '59 goats with the big tail fins better, though.

    3. Re:Killing myself by freqres · · Score: 1

      Please remember in the future to append .cx to goats whenever you use that term on Slashdot.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
  43. Looks like it's made of Legos. by penginkun · · Score: 1

    The way the heat tiles are laid it looks like it's made of Legos.

    1. Re:Looks like it's made of Legos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARGH!

      It's LEGO. Multiple Lego bricks are NOT called "Legos". Idiot.

    2. Re:Looks like it's made of Legos. by penginkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, who pissed in YOUR cheerios, bub?

      Wanker.

    3. Re:Looks like it's made of Legos. by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why does every slashdot story end up as a discussion over the proper plural form of Lego? You say two fish, I say two fishes.

  44. Scene from CE3K by zentinal · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else immediately think of the scene in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" where the Navy patrol planes were found in the middle of the desert?

  45. MOD PARENT: -1 INCOHERENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is he rambling on about?

  46. I think it's obvious by vivarey · · Score: 1

    There's only one logical explanation for this- Russian Time Travel experiments. The timeline is in danger, folks. We need an eclectic group of geeks and scientists to stop this meddling before the Cold War turns into World War III. So who's with me?! Coming Summer 2006 to a theater near you.

    1. Re:I think it's obvious by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Coming Summer 2006 to a theater near you.

      If we have time travel...why wait for it to come out? Lets jump forward and see it *now* ;-)


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:I think it's obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call paradox shenanigens (sp?) on you. If you go foward to watch the movie, how will you still be here to create it? Therefore when you get to the future rather than seeing the movie, you can dig up an old milk carton about your mysterious disappearance.

    3. Re:I think it's obvious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Well, you could possibly have something consistent. It's just that you wouldn't know now. Everything also depends on 'what is possible'.

      For example, you go to the future and see the movie and afterwards while you are walking to your time machine (in order to get back to the present), an old man gives you a box. When you come to the present and open the box, that box contains the original movie. The movie that you saw in the future (say 50 years from now) was this movie in the box. In 50 years from now, this movie will be playing in a theater where a time-traveller (who happens to be you, although you may be dead from a present point of view) will watch the movie.

      This is the closest to a plausible time travel scenario in my opinion. In essence, everything is determined by "fate". The future, present, and past will all be inter-linked, with the future determining the past and so forth. For instance, you taking the film from the future to the past was already pre-determined. The fact that you used time travel to watch a movie in the future means that you will take the film back to the present so that (time-travelling) you can watch it in the future.

      Having said all that, there is still a flaw with this. The film will be in a time loop. It will keep going from the future to the past, completing a cycle (i.e. film will only exist between NOW and 50 years from now; in 52 years, the film won't exist because the time traveller would have taken it to the past at 50 years).

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:I think it's obvious by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      don't bother - it's crap.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  47. Check out "the supermagnifying glass" by Lispy · · Score: 3, Informative

    on the lower right corner of that Bild.de link. ;-)

    Now you can see all those small details Nasa doesnt want you to know about. Geez, this must be the lamest incarnation of digital zoom I ever saw. But then again, Bild is germanies most unreliable newssource anyway so I have to wonder why it was linked to on /.

    1. Re:Check out "the supermagnifying glass" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bild is germanies most unreliable newssource anyway so I have to wonder why it was linked to on /."

      Let me get this straight: Bild is Germany's most unreliable news source *AND* you wonder why /. linked to it?

      All together now..."YOU MUST BE NEW HERE!"

  48. including the landing. by dpilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The shuttle not being able to land was a conscious decision. Opening the landing gear doors is one of those actions that cannot be undone except in the service bay. When the Shuttle was being designed, they were quite frightened about the way computers had to be integrated, and their dependence on them. Hence the fabled 5-way, multiple fail system. The thing was designed to be recoverable from just about *any* computer glitch. But a glitch that opened the doors too early would cause a bad day, with no chance of recovery. They left the decision to open the landing gear up to a human.

    Other than that, the shuttle can land automatically, too.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:including the landing. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10518

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:including the landing. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'd always heard that the doors were the only issue.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:including the landing. by Buran · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no need for the orbiter to be able to close its gear doors in flight because it performs a "dead stick" (unpowered) landing with no opportunity for a go-around. Thus, systems meant to close the doors would be unnecessary dead weight. Instead, systems were designed and fitted that are designed to ensure that the gear goes down, up to and including explosives that will force the gear into the down position. The bay doors and gear are mechanically linked, so that if the door is opened the gear is automatically pulled into position.

      The gear is lowered near the end of the flight, just before touchdown, far later than is done on other aircraft. If you have ever flown on a commercial or private plane, you will know that the aircraft slows down and begins to noticeably rumble when the gear goes down, due to the large amount of drag it creates. Minimizing the amount of time the gear is down maximizes the chance that the pilots can correct for any final-approach anomalies.

      A gear door opening early might be a problem but not unrecoverable unless it opened far too early during descent, and a gear door that opened too late could cause a partial or total belly landing which could possibly (not definitely; it would depend on the situation) cause the unrecoverable loss of the orbiter. But the crew would probably survive, especially since they train for such ditchings.

    4. Re:including the landing. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      This part I knew, I just hadn't gone into your detail. I hadn't realized that until relatively recently, the avionics couldn't do the rest of the landing, excluding the doors.

      The other thing I heard is that the switch to open the doors is completely isolated from the computers, so it must be tripped manually.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:including the landing. by Buran · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. That was put in in large part at the request of the astronauts, who felt that they did not wish to be completely excluded from the loop, and so there should be something a human had to do to prevent the entire system from shutting them out. This is why the US system can't fly unmanned -- autopilot technologies have advanced so that takeoffs and landings no longer absolutely need pilots -- but could be altered relatively easily in the future if it was ever required.

    6. Re:including the landing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think the original poster was more thinking about the possibility of them opening in space because of a computer glitch

  49. Sinsheim Museum by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    By the way, the Wikipedia has a page about the museum in Sinsheim.

  50. Reliable sources of information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that "Bild" is the German equivalent of the US's "National Enquirer" or the UK's "Sunday Sport". These are hardly reliable sources of information!

    Standards are slipping here...

    -KB

  51. Its a Typo by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

    Buran in Bahrain. Someone has dyslexia ... or is it a kids book?

    --
    Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
  52. Let me solve this mystery for you by Kurt+Gray · · Score: 1



    Russian space program = strapped for cash

    Bahrain oil sheik = using treasury notes for kleenex

    Russian space program: "Who wants to buy a shuttle prototype? Some assembly required."

    Bahrain oil sheik: "That would make a cool water pipe!"

    1. Re:Let me solve this mystery for you by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Bhrain has no oil left by the way.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:Let me solve this mystery for you by Kurt+Gray · · Score: 1
  53. Far fetched by IAR80 · · Score: 1

    The story looks very far fetched. I do not just loose a space shuttle. This things cost an arm and a leg. You might abandon one prototype due to lack of funding in a desert junk yard but deffinitely not in Bahrain and also forget about it.

    --
    http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  54. Switches?! by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
    "Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!"

    From the looks of the internal picture, you could assemble better switching crap with hobbiest equipment in the spare room of your basement. I've seen more exciting machinery in 'Back To The Future'-Delorean mock-ups. ;-)

    --
    Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
  55. Perfect commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a perfect mod description. Agreed. What was he rambling about?

  56. Bild Zeitung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get too excited - this is "Bild" - the German equivalent of the Sun or the National Enquirer!

  57. well.. i live in dhahran! by majid_aldo · · Score: 0

    you're probably US military; that's why you deny. i live in neighboring dhahran! give me mod points! is there any confusion in the story?

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  58. Find Treasure! by Plocmstart · · Score: 2

    I'm glad someone's metal detector has finally found their treasure that those ads always promise. ;)

  59. Manual translation of Spiegel article by Apogee · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a manual translation of the article. It may not be very elegant; I didn't have much time ...

    Soviet space shuttle: Curious discovery at the persian gulf

    While shooting footage for the formula 1 race in Bahrain, a TV crew from Düsseldorf by chance stumbled over a rumour about a russian space shuttle, said to be located since some time in that region, without anybody taking an interest in it. A little while later, the Germans were standing in front of a relic of the soviet space shuttle program of the eighties: A vehicle strongly resembling the US shuttles. It may be a prototype version of the space shuttle "Buran" ("Snowstorm".

    With this shuttle project, at times employing up to 30'000 people, the soviets wanted to catch up with the americans in manned space flight. But the project was not under a good sign. Already at its inception in the late seventies it was clear that the Soviet union actually had no use for a re-usable space craft. "Buran", the name of the sole soviet shuttle ever to make it into space, was a pure prestige project - and an extremely expensive one at that.

    November 15 1988, after more than ten years of development, Buran took off for the first and last orbital flight, without crew. This flight ended according to plan after two orbits of the earth. One year later, the iron curtain came down - and with it, the major part of funding for soviet space exploration.

    [CAPTION]: TV producer Maier in the cockpit of the shuttle: Relic from the soviet union

    While the "Buran" shuttle was able to carry more payload than US shuttles and could be controlled remotely, neither its on-board computer nor its life support system ever worked satisfactory. The space ship was decomissioned, and was destroyed in May 2002, when the ceiling of a hangar in the Baikonur space center crashed. A second shuttle named "Ptitchka" ("Little bird"), which was completed in 1990, was never used: The program was stopped officially in 1993.

    Besides the two soviet shuttles that were ready to fly, there were said to be three more, unfinished, shuttles, and a series of test versions. Today, one is being used as a restaurant in Moscow, another was sold by Russia to Sydney as an exhibition piece for the 2000 olympic games. "Ptitchka" is said to be in Baikonur still.

    It is not clear which model was found at the persian gulf by the TV crew from Düsseldorf. Nobody knows, how this museum piece ended up there. According to TV producer Chris Maier, this could be the model once located in Sydney. This notion is supported by the fact that the shuttle supposedly performed 25 atmospheric test flights. Various reports claim that the Russians delivered the aerodynamic test plane "Buran OK-GLI" to Australia, which was used to test the automatic landing system of the space shuttles. For this reason, the shuttle was the only test variant equipped with engines.

    "We need to get confirmation on which version this is", concedes Maier. However, the shuttle has already attracted a potential buyer: According to Volker Hartmann, a member of the TV crew, German enterpreneur Kai Niedermeier, who is doing business in the gulf states, wants to do a world tour with the space shuttle - and auction parts of its hull on the internet.

  60. Summary of the cockpit dialogue that day by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A poorly translated summary of the dialogue regarding the shuttle's untimely disappearance...

    Slava: Zutroy, what is red light?
    Zutroy: Red light is bad.
    Slava: Was it last vector?
    Zutroy: Last vector, yes. Last vector is bad.
    Slava: Light is bad, vector is bad, what is good?
    Zutroy: Chance of hit desert is good.
    Slava: Pass the Stolchinaya.
    Zutroy: Yes, Stochinaya also good.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Summary of the cockpit dialogue that day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's perposterous! Zutroy here is as American as Apple Pie.

  61. I think this is authentic by DHalcyon · · Score: 1

    I live in germany, and guess what is in our local Newspaper? Seems like the Technik Museum Sinsheim, a Museum a few kilomters from where I live, bought this thing. (Since they also have a Concorde, I think they quite do have the possibilities to do so.)

  62. Re:it goes back in time awhile........ by gadget+junkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ....to the fifties and sixties, when the US was building prototype lifting bodies, primarily for the military aspect: http://www.astronautix.com/project/nasgbody.htm.

    see also this: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm.
    by the time the soviet union was developing the buran, these designs were well known in their basic terms; they might as well have obtained some classified data by the usual avenues.

    THe key issue tough, and one that plagues the shuttle as well to this day, is the thermal shock of reentry and the cumbersome combination of tiles that covers the whole surface. in the article, it is stated that this, apart from the sensor tecnhology required, was the major anticipated obstacle to a full development of the Dynasoar military lifting body.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
  63. In Maoist China... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Confucius say "Ack..." *dies*. Because Confucianism is counter-revolutionary superstition!

  64. Popups - apologies! by Leomania · · Score: 1

    Folks, so sorry about the popups; I had no idea as I'm using Firefox and they just didn't happen to me. I'd have mentioned it had I known.

    - Leo

    --
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  65. Is the Russian gov making good money? by wikinerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this story is true, then it may be possible that the Russian government is making good money by selling its old space shuttles to rich oil businessmen! :-)

    1. Re:Is the Russian gov making good money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link to the Russian Government website was just sooo informative. I'm so glad you took the time to tell us that "Ladies and gentlemen! Now you are at the Web-site of the Russian Federation administrative bodies."

    2. Re:Is the Russian gov making good money? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      A link found from that link has something unusual and I wanted to see whether somebody will discover it.

  66. Global domination plot.. by regjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey Rocky, whatch me pull a Russian Space Shuttle out of my hat! Boris & Natasha would not be pleased... Next weeks episode: Moon over Buran OR This thing was using DOS 3.2?

    --
    Indecision may, or may not be my problem! -- Jimmy Buffett
  67. revolutionary WIKIPEDIA! (Re:Funny...) by perler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and look, isn't that great that the story mentioned some minutes ago here and published some hours ago in spiegel-online.de is already mentioned in wikipedia? this beast is revolutionary..

    PAT

    1. Re:revolutionary WIKIPEDIA! (Re:Funny...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and look, isn't that great that the story mentioned some minutes ago here and published some hours ago in spiegel-online.de is already mentioned in wikipedia?

      No.

      This story is UNVERIFIED. Wikipedia puts unverified facts into its documents? Good bye wikipedia.

  68. it's only a model... by brainspank · · Score: 1

    I call BS. the shuttle in the first picture is obviously made of LEGO's.

    --
    It's only a model.
    1. Re:it's only a model... by Stickney · · Score: 1

      What else would the Russians use?

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  69. Location of the Buran's by Oriumpor · · Score: 2, Informative

    One is on display as a park for children.

    One is under a pile of rubble

    One has been sold to the Germans.

    And one is still missing.

  70. Notice the throttle levers? by reality-bytes · · Score: 1


    If memory serves (and I can't be bothered to look it up), an atmospheric test variant of the Buran was fitted with Turbojet engines so it could actually climb or extend its glide during testing.

    Does anyone else know more on this as I recall an image of a Buran with these 'outboard' jet-engines fitted.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:Notice the throttle levers? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Yup. That 'Aero-Buran' was put on display in Sydney. It has four jet engines fitted to the tail where the US shuttle has the OMS pods. It's still there due to funding problems, similar to the way this one was stranded in Bahrain. There are a number of full-size test articles that were built and used for varying purposes in support of the first all-up flight (and only, sadly) which was in 1988.

  71. It was also reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    that they found a little kid near by who lifted a car with his two hands.

  72. Warp speed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!

    Me too. Especially once I found the switch that turns on their top secret warp drive.

  73. Backup? by ggvaidya · · Score: 1
    The HUMANS were the backup on this one. This baby could land by herself. Also from the official website: The main differences between the space aeroplane Buran and Suttle-orbiter are follows:
    1. the automatic landing of Buran from orbit onto airdrome;
    2. the absence ot the main rocket engine on the orbital aeroplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tonns of payload against 30 tonns for Space Shuttle;
    3. the hight lift-drag ratio of the space aeroplane Buran is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle;
    4. the space aeroplane Buran returned 20 tonns of payloads against 15 tonns for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an aerodrome;
    5. the cutting lay-out pattern of thermoprotection tiles of Buran is optimal and longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. The tile belts of the Buran fuselage and fin have an optimal position.
  74. Re:The shape is the same by number6x · · Score: 5, Informative

    The shape is the same, but not too much else.

    The American (US and Canada) shuttle had integrated engines. Fuel fed from the big external tank into those engines during lift off. Buran was not designed with those engines. Buran was to use a modified Energia rocket to lift into space. This is a major design difference that does not show in the shots here.

    This design by the soviets lowered the cost of developing their shuttle, and would give Buran more cargo space and load capacity. However the soviet design would need new engines for each launch. The American design reuses the engines for several launches.

    The Soviets could have copied the general shape of the shuttle in order to implement a known working aerodynamic design. This is not the same thing the first poster is saying. They could have spent money developing a completely new working aerodynamic design, but chose to copy instead of innovate. The USSR wasn't exactly swimming in cash during this period, so I can see why they chose the cheaper route.

  75. Where'd it come from? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Informative

    My father (who's been deployed several times in the last couple years =/ ) sent me pics of the shuttle over a year ago. He says it's in some sort of salvage yard, visible from the harbor. Sold for scrap when the USSR fell or some such. So I'm not sure, but that's what I've been told.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  76. In other news... by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ashton Kutcherkov, was found face down in the sand near by. Upon questioning, her replied with heavy vodka breath, "Dude! Where's my Buran?"

    --
    Just because you can, does not mean you should.
  77. Confirmed or not? by laard · · Score: 1

    At least the fate of one of the four Buran prototypes is now confirmed." There is not much confirmation on this, outside of a few pictures... let the reader beware Confirmed or not? Make up your mind.

    --
    --- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
  78. See one up close for yourself... by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

    Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!

    I doubt that they'll let you sit in it, but you can see the American space shuttle Enterprise for yourself at the McDonnell Space Hangar facility of the Smithsonian Institute's National Air and Space Museum. It's out near Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia.

    Enterprise was parked out at Dulles for a while, and it too seemed to be abandoned, but in retrospect it seems likely that it was just waiting during the construction of its new home.

  79. Where is Dan Rather? by warpSpeed · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I'll wait for CBS to confirm the story before I believe it. Where is Dan "whats the frequency kennith" Rather when you need him?

  80. Close Encounters by dcsmith · · Score: 1

    Anyone seen Steven Spielberg around? This sounds strangely like the opening of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

    --
    This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
  81. Flip the swiches by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
    Boy, what I would give to be able to sit in that seat and flip those switches!

    This is what happens when you flip the switches.

    1. Re:Flip the swiches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any details on this incident, or is it a joke?

    2. Re:Flip the swiches by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Subtle Hint: FDR's don't run when there's no power coming from the engines.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    3. Re:Flip the swiches by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      More details here:
      http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_n.w._ brakes. html

      Actually the reality is not far off the cleaners joke. It was a couple of mechanics who managed to fire up one of the engines during maintenance.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  82. WMD tie in by monkeyfarm · · Score: 0, Troll

    So a frickin' space shuttle can remain hidden for years and years (which was not actually "hidden") in the desert, but people expect to be able to find WMD 's in an even BIGGER desert that actually WERE _HIDDEN_ in a few months... I just don't get it.

    --
    What I don't know I just fake...
  83. WTF...? by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... cause when I think how many people are gonna read about this, and how many of those will just be flat out believers of whatever bull-crap story blah blah...

    This is exactly what happened when americans elected Bush to be president... blah blah...

    That's some baaaaad-ass acid you've been hittin' dude. I'm curious though...what are your thoughts on the Apollo missions?

  84. Buran in Bahrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    here :
    http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/978

    News briefs: June 15-16
    Posted: Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 6:27 AM ET (1027 GMT)

    A test model of the Buran space shuttle will be featured during a festival this summer in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, RIA Novosti reported this weekend. The Buran will be the centerpiece of an exhibit on Russian achievements in space exploration. The Buran had previously been in Sydney, Australia for an exhibit that eventually closed because of a lack of visitors.

  85. Flip the switches all you want... by dodongo · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Buran never flew a manned mission. The computers handled all the test flights.

  86. Formula 1 by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Egads. Babelfish translations are so bad they are funny. I had never tried to use it before. Just reading Der Spiegel in German reveals that the Dusseldorf TV station guys weren't particularly looking for the Buran shuttle. They were covering something to do with Formula 1 racing in Bahrain. I think it was a sort of 'Hey, you cats wanna see something cool' kinda trip on the part of the Sheik.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  87. Old news by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

    I think that joke's been done here before.

    --

    I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  88. Soviet Spys in NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some background information on why Soviet space exploration was so advanced.

    Stalin had spies in the USAF and Civilian contracting sector even before Japan surrendered in '45. And thus, many of the brilliant aeronautical ideas developed by American and German scientists (German Scientists came to America after the war) were transmitted to the Soviets almost before they were even on paper. And that is how the Soviets were able to suprise the US with their sudden leap in fighter and bomber technologies (until 1980 when almost 100% of russian spys were found and expelled or killed), on par and sometimes better then our own planes. The Soviets had the benefit of hindsight, with their stolen/espionaged documents, and thus were able to not just create the planes but add improvements of their own.

    There would never have been a cold war without Stalins spies in America. But even that was not enough at the outset. In order for Stalin to prevent what he thought would be an American invasion after the war, he had to make a most audacious grab before the war ended to ensure his armies met the Americans and British on even terms. In 1942 Rosevelt commissioned the bombing of Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor. After the initial surprise bombing of Tokyo, 3 airplanes had to be ditched in Northern China. The Russians seized those planes, and that is how the cold war began. They cloned them, calling them TU-4's. Now that Stalin had LRBs or Long Range Bombers, he was capable of striking the US.

    Before accurate nuclear missiles were developed, B-29's and TU-4's roamed the skies night and day with atomic and then nuclear payloads. These were the true walls between the USSR and the USA.

    Almost everything the USSR developed from 1945 until 1985 was the direct result of espionage. But that doesnt mean the Russians are stupid. The first fighter they developed free of anything American was in 1995, the S-37 Air Superiority Fighter which is still in service today. The S-37 upgrades found today are widely regarded as the best non-stealth fighter planes in the world. Along with the new MiG 29's the Russians field an extremely competent airforce.

    But with all the problems in Russia right now, and no more stolen documents to glean information from, they wont be able to keep up in the air race anymore. The newest planes in America are stealth fighters that blow away anything imaginable. Stealth planes can drop bombs and dog-fight, and they can be on you before your radar senses them. One of the real terrors to imagine is what would happen if a terrorist nation got their hands on a stealth plane. They could bomb a dozen cities with nukes in just a few minutes time.

    All this info is available in a google search.

    1. Re:Soviet Spys in NASA by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      ......Aaaaaaah, dunno.

      Bear in mid that they might have stopped copying, but as any high schooler should know, copying is a mug's game.
      And how many western aircrafts know how to do This?

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    2. Re:Soviet Spys in NASA by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      The three Aircraft left in China were B-25s from the Doolittle Raid

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  89. In Soviet Russia..... by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, space shuttle prototypes find lost you!!

    --
    If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
  90. Of Course It Looks Like the US Space Shuttle by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    I was told by a Russian friend that it was literally a replica. Except for one crucial part... the heat tiles. They never got that right and when it landed it was covered in blackened soot. Never to fly again.

  91. It WASN'T remote control by melted · · Score: 2, Informative

    It flew up there and returned all by itself, on autopilot. No one else managed to pull this off ever since.

  92. they didn't lose it by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123011 &cid=10339831

  93. I dunno.... by 5m477m4n · · Score: 0

    From the pictures it almost looks like it was made out of Legos...

    --

    ---
    Those who can, do
    Those who can't, teach
    Those who don't know how, supervise
  94. Re:Is this the one that overran the runway way bac by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Actually, IIRC it wasn't a taxi test of the shuttle. It was mounted on the back of a Bison bomber and the bomber went off the runway. They had timed this so that no US spy sats would be overhead. (Timing outdoor operations to avoid surveillance is a common thing in military programs). Getting stuck pushed them out of that time window, and they were photographed.

    This is the same as how the US uses a modified 747 to move the US shuttle.

  95. hard man? by X10 · · Score: 0

    Why is the guy who's called Volker Hartmann in the Spiegel original, called "Volker hard man" in the English translation?

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
  96. Here I am! I'm not lost! by Buran · · Score: 1

    And yes, this name was indeed selected because of the Soviet shuttle. Whenever I am asked about it, I point people here:

    Buran

    Shuttle Buran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  97. Not funny to the OSI guys! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    In an old defense industry job I had, they still had cold war era security warnings around the buildings. They were printed two-tone on posterboard with war propaganda cartoons and obnoxious fonts...

    This type of "visual aid" did not go away with the "cold war", and neither did the security paranoia that spawned them. As a current DoD employee, I can tell you that OP and COMSEC are alive and well, as is compartmentalized project security. There are some things where I work that you just don't talk about, and if you do, even to joke, you will very likely be interviewing with a security guy. Fortunately I don't work with any of that crap.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  98. Blue Flame was disassembled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the blue flame was dis-assembled in the mid 80s bye IIT. I have a few pieces of it in my basement.

  99. Re:The shape is the same by Buran · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Soviet system places the main engines on the Energia booster because the system is powerful enough to do this. That reduces some complexity in the orbiter due to it not having to carry the main propulsion system and it also increases the maximum payload capacity. The Buran orbiter only carries the engines required for achieving the final orbit, on-orbit maneuvering, and retrofire (for the US system, these are the OMS and RCS engines -- two OMS engines and 44 RCS jets.)

    See Buran - In Depth History for more info.

  100. Re:Buran in Sydney - addendum by dbarlett · · Score: 1

    Read a little further down the discussion, and I can definitely confirm that there were MiG engines attached to tail fin of the shuttle, and the literature there identified it as the atmospheric test article.

  101. Re:Funny... but not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  102. On the inside.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw it there in the desert with my own eyes. I was even in the partially wrecked capsule. I flipped one of the switches and heard a scruffy voice stating "Let's Rock". I brushed the sand from the dash and to my surpise was a 13 in color screen. On that screen was nothing other then Duke Nukem forever. I followed the wires and the unit that was running the game did not look familiar to me, it looked like a plastic computer case glued together, it had a partially scratched off label that said "Phantom". Shortly after I exited the capsule, some dude with a jetpack shot an RPG into the capsule and destoyed it.

  103. Re:Iraqi space program by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    [Insert snooty remark about Bahrain not being Iraq]

    He should have kept it in his palace and used it as his escape pod when the bombs dropped "Bwahahaha you may take Iraq, but i'll be back George W, i'll be back!" - I can see 3 years on, the US will have found 2 oil-tanker ships in the middle of the desert, 3 russian space probes, Darwins missing link and a McDonalds, but no WMDs ;)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  104. sig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I like my golf courses like my women - lush, flat and full of holes."

    so you like the flatchested whores who are bullet riddled?

  105. This isn' news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These Germans are jackasses! That shuttle has been there for years. It's not like they suddenly 'discovered' it. What a crock of shit. Every Bahrainy / expat living in the country knows about it.

  106. Ooooh, you're a bad boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --"A Saudi bought the shuttle, but forgot it in the desert"--

    Overheard 10 years ago in the desert: "That silly Osama. He has way too much money, I mean look. The fool bought a Space Shuttle for Allah's sake! What in Hades is he gonna do with that?"

  107. Re:Funny... but not true by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1
    Not exactly not true - if you read the Snopes article, it says:

    This is one of those items that -- although wrong in many of its details -- isn't exactly false in an overall sense and is perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."

    So, it really is true overall although some of the reasons are someone stretched (not unlike a Michael Moore movie)

  108. Legal Struggle Over MiGs by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    This story is plausible. I recall a potential legal struggle over MiGs at the Paris Airshow several years ago. Creditors of Russia looking to recoup their money got an order to hold a state-of-the-art MiG which was in Paris for the show. The Paris Airshow, wanting to keep good relations with the Russians so that they would see MiGs in the future, quietly passed word that the MiG was on the verge of being impounded. Minutes before the creditors showed up, the Russian pilot jumped in the jet and roared back to Russia. Pretty dramatic, and apparently no one was able to stop it.

  109. You can own a Buran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For two million Euros:

    http://www.barnstormers.com

    and search on "Buran"

  110. This feel familer ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

    Close Encounters Of the Thrid Kind anyone ?

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
  111. suicide bomb us from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're gonna suicice bomb us from space those filthy ragheads!

  112. It just happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was deployed in the Saudi desert during Gulf War I, and there were times when we were to all appearances in the middle of no-where.

    No matter how far into the desert we went you could always find some random piece of crap out in the sand.

    I found a tennis shoe and a coffee percolator. I think the shoe fell from an airplane, I have no idea where the percolator came from. Now and then I still wonder where the other shoe is.

    1. Re:It just happens... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      You can't spend your life waiting for the other shoe to drop.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  113. didn't need to steal anything... by bani · · Score: 1

    ...much of the shuttle info was publically openly available, not classified.

    if anyone "talked", it was nasa administrators who were publishing the information openly for anyone who wanted copies.

  114. SSME's by bani · · Score: 1

    If anything was folly it was making the reusable shuttle in the first place when a cheaper conventional discardable design would have been better.

  115. Re:The shape is the same by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    "The American design reuses the engines for several launches"

    More realistically, it refurbishes the engines after every launch: it's debatable as to whether it would have been cheaper to have built expendable engines in the first place. Certainly they've never even come close to the original goal of 50-ish missions between overhauls.

  116. Re:Funny... but not true by khallow · · Score: 1

    What part isn't true? I read the Snopes article and he doesn't actually refute anything, but merely indicates that history was much more complicated than the story goes.

  117. lol... hilarious... one of the best comeback jokes :) ... Both jokes were funny :)

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  118. Sitting in the seat by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

    I haven't sat in that seat, but I *have* had my picture taken in the pilot's seat of the US shuttle Endeavour.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  119. Salt in DC by fm6 · · Score: 1

    DC is not exactly the best example of "small place, therefore it's hard to keep a secret"!

  120. Re:Is this the one that overran the runway way bac by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

    So it happened? Pix please.

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  121. Re: O SB Q by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

    Leutenant: I don't know, they must have hyper-jets on that thing!
    Dark Helmet: And what do we got on this thing, a cuisenart?

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  122. Buran is lost in translation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Google translation reads:

    "Volker hard man (54) from foam castle, Chris G. Maier (32) from Duesseldorf and Kai Niedermeier (39) from Solingen met the Kronprinzen sheikh Salman in the island state Bahrain are Hamad aluminium-Khalifa (34)."

    sounds like a scenario for a porn movie..

  123. Yes, Buran in Bahrain by chanad · · Score: 1

    Hi I'm not sure if someone here has mentioned this already, but the Buran was in Bahrain a few years ago as part of some exhibition. I live in Bahrain, and I went and had a look during the exhibition and it was great! But I had no idea that it is still lying around on the island. I'll definitely go out looking for it in the desert and will share the photos with you folks on my blog: http://chanadbahraini.blogspot.com Let's hope that I manage to find it in the heat. Cheers, Chan'ad

  124. Buran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ALl quite a boring story really:

    "A GIANT Russian spacecraft is lying in pieces in a Bahrain yard - while two foreign companies argue over who owns it. The shuttle craft Buran was brought here in June 2002 as one of the Bahrain Summer Festival attractions.

    Visitors were able to climb inside the spacecraft, once the pride of the Soviet space programme, as it stood on land at the Manama seafront.

    Once the festival was over it should have been dismantled and shipped to Thailand as a tourist attraction.

    But it is still in the Sitra storage yard of Bahrain company Pico, which brought it here for the festival.

    "NPO Molniya, the company which we negotiated with to bring the spacecraft and another Russian company both claim ownership of Buran," Pico chairman Khalid Juman told the GDN.

    First, a case was filed by a Bahrain-based foreign company at Bahrain's civil courts in October 2002, to order NPO Molniya to remove the craft from the Manama dock area.

    NPO had allegedly delayed meeting the terms of a contract with the foreign company to dismantle the spacecraft and ship it to Thailand, where it was set to go on display later that month.

    Early last year it was dismantled into four pieces - the hull, two wings and the tail section - and moved to Pico's storage area.

    Mr Juman said a ruling was still pending in the case over the ownership of the craft, also being dealt with in Bahrain's courts.

    The German daily newspaper Bild recently reported that an offer had been made by a German businessman to purchase the spacecraft for approximately $1 million (BD378,000).

    Before coming to Bahrain, Buran was shipped to Australia in 2000 to become a tourist attraction, but failed to earn enough money to keep it open.

    The Buran flew only once, in 1988, as an unmanned mission. "