You know what I mean: We went angular, the Soviets (and Russians after them) went blobby. We built things that looked like odd crystals and dixie cups, they built things that looked like a glassblower hiccuped. Obviously, both designs basically work, and they all do the same jobs in much the same fashion, so why the dimorphism? Was it completely arbitrary or were there different constraints in play on the different sides?
Great question! My WAG is that early American designs were the result of a utilitarian hurry-up-and-catch-up engineering process, borrowing already available parts to create their spacecraft. The early Soviet spacecraft look like they were made-to-order with a clear eye to what might look good on a postage stamp. Both styles worked for the respective space agencies and they used them as the basis for future designs.
I have a suspicion is has to do with the factions of German scientists that wound up either in the Soviet Union or the USA, and how they meshed/blended with the existing scientists there. The mighty Saturn 5 Rocket was founded on the early research under the V-1 and V-2 program of Nazi Germany. It surely gets more complicated, but there’s a start. The Soviets didn’t get quite the same type of prestigious German scientists as the United States.
.
BTW, I think a good way to wrap your head around the design differences is to think of an ice cream cone. The Soviets designed their spacecraft like scoops of ice cream while the Americans designed them to look like the cone.
I think that falls short of approaching “why?” …
I know the Germans had a huge influence on rocket design but how involved were they in the design of the spacecraft that made it all the way into space. The difference between Soviet and American rockets is different than the difference between their spacecraft. The only significant visible difference in the rockets is that the Russian rockets had (have) the nozzles arrayed like a skirt where the American nozzles were mostly directly under the rocket cylinder.
See post #2
Huh? The designs that made it into space were indeed rooted in the rockets of German design. They didn’t suddenly stop around 1963 and change the design/shape. It held true as an evolution.
I never understood why the Russians had such a penchant for painting their spacecraft (and rockets) such an unpleasant, hideous, sickly green color!
I’m not talking about rockets. I’m talking about the things that ride on top of them and actually fly in space. I think the OP is too.
The answer lies in the capabilities of the spacecraft:
It seems that while the Soviets were “ahead” in rocket heavy-lift technology, their overall engineering was somewhat behind the US, which makes sense given that the US had adapted the Air Force’s Man In Space Soonest project for Project Mercury.
While we’re on the topic of rockets, it’s worth noting that the first American spacecraft, Explorer 1 was built out of a scaled down rocket stage (maybe this is what’s confusing Philster). The first Soviet spacecraft, Sputnik, on the other hand, was a relatively unique design that looks like it sprung wholely from it’s designer’s head. Sputnik looks as alien as the environment it traveled through. Explorer looked like part of a rocket. It’s not surprising that America’s first space station was built out of a section of a rocket…
Oh, I don’t know …
I am more inclined to ask:
Q) Why do Soviet spacecraft look a lot like American designs?
”The Buran spacecraft (Snowstorm or Blizzard), is a Russian (Soviet) orbital vehicle analogous in function to the US Space Shuttle and developed by Chief Designer Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy of Energia rocket corporation. …”
Airman Doors, USAF: That is very interesting.
My first thought was that the problem with that explanation is that the spherical design was adopted by the Soviets for their earliest spacecraft that were never intended for reentry (or, at least, not intended to survive it.) Perhaps that’s the key to them beating the US in manned flight; they anticipated the need for a design that could survive reentry from the very start. Just looking at Explorer or Vanguard, it’s obvious those craft could never survive reentry. I believe a Sputnik eventually did with a canine payload.
One significant difference is that the early Soviet designs had electronics that were air-cooled, and would overheat in a vacuum, so they put everything in a sealed, pressurized container. Fans would circulate the air inside, transferring heat from the electronics to the outer shell. Early American designs on the other hand had unpressurized electronics bays. Heat was dealt with through liquid cooling loops, with electronics modules connected to cold plates and heat carried by pumped coolant to external radiators. This may partially explain why Soviet designs tended to be spherical, to hold pressure with minimum weight, while American designs were more varied in shape.
AndrewL: That is also very interesting.
That is the color of chromate corrosion inhibiting primer used on aluminum. Paint on top adds weight, though it can help with thermal performance, so may not be wasted weight.
I can’t agree with that. From a purely aesthetic perspective, the American craft (with the exception of the LEM) are much prettier than the Soviet ones.
My WAG: The earliest Russian orbital rockets (based on the R7 missile) had higher carrying capacity than the Redstone and Atlas missiles that were used for the Mercury program. The Russians could afford the extra weight of a shroud around an irregularly-shaped Vostok spacecraft, while the Mercury capsule had to be cone-shaped to save weight.
Then the Gemini capsules basically inherited the shape of the Mercury, etc.