The Caspian Sea Monster

In August of 1967 an American spy satellite took sensational photographs. A huge unknown machine of 100 meters long and about 500 tons of weight, which looked like an aircraft, was flying over the Caspian Sea waters with more than 500 kilometers of speed. Pentagon analysts called this object "the Caspian sea monster". It was constructed to make the Soviet Union a naval superpower. Find out about the history of the Caspian sea monster's construction, checkouts and its rebirth today.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Caspian
• Sea
• Monster
• Russian
• militery
• plane
• naval
• superpower
• Pentagon

[Allexxx96Reloaded]

Stephane Hooker?

[Vova993]

The only joke here, is you.

[MrChristopherCourage]

*Hums Thunderbirds theme*

[warpedapple]

@methaphaze i suck at all of those things..

[mariusbalacl]

Stephan Hooker?? xD

[Konstiin]

could someone explain to me how these wings are different from hydrofoils?

Which have been around since at least 1906.

[azimuth361]

@notgodsemigod You make a good point. The external design similarities are because it's easy to get a look at a test plane. It's much harder to get close to one. Looking at the plans and internal designs involves espionage. Even if you can get a hold of the designs, it's not always possible to get a hold of the technology to make internal systems work or even get a complete set of plans to make those systems work together.

[notgodsemigod]

The Bouran spaceship was so ahead of its time and thus naturally a joint Russian-US team in late 90s, early 2000s had named it as the best way to replace the space shuttle after its decomissionng by the end of the decade (well it was extended this year isn't it?).... so the hangar accident in 2002 came as quite dogdy to say the least (a collapsing roof? hmmm...). Current Russian projects Klipper & PPTS make use of Bouran tech.

[notgodsemigod]

@notgodsemigod The Space Shuttle was tuned around the presence of astronauts. Bouran was designed since the beginning as an unmanned vessel that could also accomodate cosmonauts (though the cosmonaut module was never installed due to the end of the programme). The vessel was sent once to space and descended down to earth fully automatically - and it did it with a nearly 70km side wind only losng 3m from its designed landing course. Absolutely amasing craft.

[notgodsemigod]

... but the Buran was a mature project that produced the finest spaceship ever. Initially Russian engineers wanted a different design but because in the mid-70s the Russian generals insisted to have "the same thing as the Americans were trying to built", they finally chose to... copy the external appearance of the shuttle (funny reason to copy!). However, inside the systems fitted were much much more evolved than the Shuttle - given of course that the programme lasted much longer up to mid-80s.

[notgodsemigod]

Now, the examples of C-141/IL-76, the , the C-5/AN-124, B1/TU-160 you refer are excellent examples. However it is arguable where external similarities end and system differences start. For it is true that in the 2 best known cases, the Concorde/TU-144 and the Shuttle/Buran, the similaries end in the external appearence. While TU-144 was finally proven to be an ambitious but still early prototype rushed into commisioning phase and as such it had no success (high consumption, too much noise etc.).

[notgodsemigod]

@notgodsemigod However, Russians would usually proceed to develop radically different systems, very often superior to American or European ones. As such, losing less time to the initial design phase saved them time so they correctly took American designs built them quickly and passed directly to testing. Americans working in the inverse even if they wanted they could not do the same as often since detailed design would require continuous changes to suit the project.