Hacker News Reader

Comment by embedded_hiker | Hacker News Reader

That is apparently the reason the USSR made the Buran space shuttle. They couldn't figure out what the US needed that capability for. Turns out, we didn't either, at least for military applications.

View on HN

Arguably the Buran was more advanced than the shuttle (it completed one solo flight, orbiting twice and auto-landing), but they never got a chance to do anything else with it.

The space shuttle could be used to steal satellites. I don't think it was ever used in this role or in the related role bringing any satellite back down but it was in the mission profile.

I wonder if there were any missions where a foreign spy satellite was captured inspected in orbit then sent on it's way?

My best guess for the continuing air force interest in a shuttle like platform (the x-37) is for exactly this reason. not bombs but satellite capture.

Spy satellites are usually in very high inclination orbits, particularly polar orbits, so they can sweep out different parts of the earth as the earth rotates under them. From what I understand the Shuttle's very large wings were meant to give it a sufficient glide ratio / cross-range capability to reach a landing strip when returning from a polar orbit, where most spy satellites would be. But the Shuttle was never sent into a polar orbit, so it's safe to assume that sort of mission was never performed.

Why would you need more range returning from a polar orbit? The point of a polar orbit is to make more land features available under the orbit. Shouldn't this give a more flexable deorbit profile?

edit, I actually read the posted message. The requirement was for a once around then land. so consider my question unasked. Salutes

Yep, once around then landing. I think they didn't want to hang around in orbit after doing something that sketchy. I think this sort of capability / mission profile spooked the Soviets; it seemed like a capability that would be useful to an orbital bomber.

> Shuttle's very large wings

Surprisingly, the first result from the search returns [0]

[0] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/28243/could-space-...

> Turns out, we didn't either, at least for military applications

The military purposes for the Shuttle were primarily servicing and refuelling the KH-11 satellites and launching other NRO payloads that couldn't ride a normal launcher.

The cargo bay and cross-range landing performance specifications were derived from those mission requirements.

Put a bunch of nukes in the cargo bay and you have a good idea what the shuttle could be used for.

Or you could just put nukes in missiles that can go in the ground, on planes, in artillery, on ships, or on submarines?

A space shuttle gives zero warning when it starts a bombing run. Which is why the USSR build one of their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com