Can Soviet space shuttle save NASA's ageing fleet?

[jettastreetracer]

damn!...why is it that nazis had some great technology...great weapons....most was confiscated by american troops...soviets had great love for the land....i grew up in a rural mountain town in peru ...no police, population 250 no money cuirculation. you bargained everyone literally got a piece of the pie community hospitol education and no fat lazy people. everyone worked their own trade everyone had equal things

[InfiniteMushroom]

@jettastreetracer You were fortunate to have seen unspoiled humanity when you were in rural Peru. The global elites HATE such places. Such places represent untapped wealth to be stolen by fraud and false title. With title in hand, they go to Wall Street where bonds can be secured with such assets. Those bonds then get leveraged 100X in derivatives and the victims get stuck servicing the massive debt. The U.S. introduces the drug trade to help boost the "return on investment."

[peyre1347]

Yes, it's true that the Buran shuttle was ahead of ours in some ways, since it was designed years later. The ability of automated landings isn't as unusual as it sounds, since the Soviets automated much of their spacecraft.

But Buran is old tech now, and if I'm not mistaken, the Russians turned it over to Kazakhstan, so they don't own it any more. Besides, the Space Shuttle is really a failed experiment--capsules are a better means of space travel.

[harris3693]

@peyre1347 the russians still own buran...

[riverlifeva]

no!!! the Buran got trashed when its hangar collapsed.

[v12tommy]

I don't know why that one guy said the US Space Shuttle needs a human to land. The entire flight of a space shuttle can be controlled remotely. The only thing that can't be done remotely is to drop the landing gear, which requires manual control. This would be an extremely simple task to perform remotely, but was done as a safety feature so that the landing gear could not drop while the heat shield was doing its job on re-entry. Everything else is automatic.

[KLRJUNE]

The Soviet Union never went past spam in a can space flight despite the Buran. It would take a fundamental shift in the Russian current space program to revive the Buran and that ain't gonna happen. It's time to let private industry step up and that is just what it is doing. All the doom and gloom crybabies need to quit listening to the MSM who only tell you what they think will rile you, not inform you.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@KLRJUNE Privatized space travel will never be anything but a joy ride for billionaires, satellites for more tawdry entertainment, Big Brother, and spectacular feats of space-based advertising.

The old space paradigm that gave us glory, discovery, and national pride will be replaced by the filthy feel of commerce. A money-grubbing venture full of unsavory characters. The quasi-privatization of space during the Shuttle era gave us nothing but low earth orbit and cosmic levels of waste.

[Realfoxhawk]

@InfiniteMushroom Thats not true, though I don't hold it against you for thinking that because I did as well not that long ago. Across the globe there is a fortune being invested into space related industries. The big difference is that it will be done by private enterprise now working on contract to governments. You probably know about how governments spend thousands on things that businesses would only spend small amounts on. Classic red tape. Private enterprise will cut it and lower costs.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@Realfoxhawk We'll see. The savings by privatization have severe social costs but, those damages never show up on balance sheets. Privatization simply shifts the waste into the pockets of Wall Street instead of bloated bureaucracies. The wreckage to benefits, retirement, etc. are not counted or quantified so, the ostensible increases in efficiency are a false statistic.

Don't forget - the impending collapse of empire is marked by ambitious programs and crony privatization just before the end

[Realfoxhawk]

@InfiniteMushroom A lot of that is true - however as private enterprise in big projects cut costs they open up opportunities to expand those projects in scale which in turn expands the number or provider companies sourcing their needs. Right down the scale that leads to more jobs for people in seemingly unrelated trades like hospitality and retail as employed people have more money to spend and therefore retail/hospitality needs more staff. It is a chain effect.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@Realfoxhawk I don't disagree with the chain effect in your proposition. Our conversation continues to lead back to my original assertion about the NATURE of future space industry. THAT is the focus of my derision towards privatization of space.

Of all the evils that I predict, the most prevalent will be Big Brother global spying, weapons in the service of capitalist imperialism, and other vile projects. In this new space age, national pride and dignity of man are conspicuously absent.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@KLRJUNE Russia can't afford to revive the entire Buran program because of regular extortion payments to the IMF, Goldman Sachs, Bank of England, and other robbers who came in during the 1990's. All of the USSR's state enterprises were broken up and privatized to the Russian-Zionist Mafia. They, in turn, pay their subscription to the plutocracy in London, New York, and Frankfurt.

The U.S. sacrificed NASA to China to keep Wall Street afloat. The U.S. will do some R&D but, China will launch for us

[tim555ism]

@InfiniteMushroom Sad but true . But this can't go on forever.

[tim555ism]

@InfiniteMushroom And that would also mean USSR were the good guys and not evil.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@tim555ism I don't think the USSR was the good guys BUT, they were certainly not the bad guys we made them out to be. I'd say the good guys were the non-aligned nations that didn't want to be in either camp.

[mjptrapster]

@InfiniteMushroom Indeed. I'm young enough not to remember the Cold War. I've met several Russian's who are some of the most generous people I've ever met. The PR machine was a diffcult thing to get past.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@mjptrapster I've noticed the fine qualities of people who lived under socialist systems that didn't indulge their every whim. Systems that simply provided what was needed without crass commercialism or dehumanizing submission to enjoy the fruits of a modern society. "Americanization" was once a good thing but, is a derision now. All around we see the awful boorishness that flourishes like mold and mildew in the rotted American society. I guess it's even worse in the U.K. now.

[InfiniteMushroom]

A Wall Street Sales Tax could've saved NASA and financed America's comeback from decades of decay. America is DOOMED and our Power Elites have seen to that end. That's why they've offshored 46,000 factories of all kinds and let our manned space program be the last thing to be auctioned off.

America is fat, stupid, naked, and about to be raped and looted by the banksters. Argentina 2001 was the beta test for the real horror that awaits us. It'll take 10,000 Robespierres on steroids to save us

[MrYousafBajwa]

no Buran is a piece of shit and never worked properly....

[InfiniteMushroom]

@MrYousafBajwa The Buran launched, orbited, and returned entirely by robot control and it worked fine. Political chaos grounded it.

Have you forgotten the endless problems the U.S. Space shuttle had? Even the engineers who put it together complained about the compromises and inherent problems. It took decades to get the bugs out and make it work right. Just in time for America's Power Elite to auction off our manned space program to Russia. SpaceX will be nothing but a joy ride for billionaires

[SoCalSummerSquad]

@InfiniteMushroom It worked fine on the first try. Keep in mind its exact resemblance to the space shuttle on the outside, while the interior mechanics are drastically different. Obviously, the Soviets didnt reach their look through the summation of their design. No, they designed it around looking like the American shuttle. I haent researched this too thoroughly, mostly because of translation, but Im sure money, fuel efficiency, ability to perform tasks, and other things need to be considered.

[KeepMyIllusion]

the Buran programme cannot save NASA because it's very expensive. Even expensive than NASA's space shuttle.

[alexduitsman]

The Britts. Did we not save there butts twice? And France and half of Europe really owe the USA. They wre took the F**k over. Had to call the Yankees.

[Galvaner]

The USSR has copied the out-of-date American technics.

Bombers it is necessary to make more.

The capitalism world would be horrified.

[harris3693]

Why would the russians help the yankees? americans suck there dick!!!

[andrewm153351]

To everyone on this video---

Russiatoday is a PROPAGANDA machine. Im not usually a conspiracy theorist but this is not a conspiracy. They even say on their homepage

"The channel is government-funded"

They try to say their show's view isn't government controlled, but you can clearly tell by all of the stories about the u.s. that it is. Nearly every single story about the u.s. is about either how russia is better, or how the u.s. is bad.

Trust me, just look at all of their silly videos

[Cartmanvb]

@andrewm153351 :@@@@@@@@@@@ FUCK YOUUUUUUUUU

if russia today is propaganda,then WTF is CNN orBBC,russa today didn't lead any country in to war,some thing CNN do every day,before iraq war all the CNN was doing is talking about weapons of mass destruction,and after the war,they didnt found any of that kind of weapons,so what you are saying yankee doesnt make any sense,go and FUCK YOURSELF!!!!!!!

[andrewm153351]

@Cartmanvb

hahaha you are sooooo stupid. The reason why russiatoday is more propaganda is because they HAVE to say negative things about the u.s. in EVERY single story that they do.

CNN and BBC don't' constantly talk about russia in a bad way.

And please send me a link showing that the rockets we use today are from USSR. because what i have read has said differently.

So let me get this straight...are you ACTUALLY saying that the russian space agency is better than NASA???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Cartmanvb]

@andrewm153351 and about the space shuttles,hahahah  clearly dont know anything,today nasa uses rocket engines,developed in the USSR,in the 80's,and about the budget russian space agency is smaler then nasa,but they are more efficient,the fact is that NASA people work for money,while Russian space agency people work for their motherland,and they dont need money to be better than NASA!!!!!

[Cartmanvb]

@andrewm153351 the russian rocket engine RD-180 was used,on atlas V,see wikipedia NASA will produce engines like ENERGIA's(Russian space agency) RD-180 in about 10 years hahahah,and you said nasa is better haha...you see yankee russians work for their motherland and they dont need money to be the best while nasa works for money,and fix your black background,I clicked somewhere and i send invitation,MISTAKE!!! and what did RUSSIA TODAY say about the USA that isn't true????

[andrewm153351]

@Cartmanvb

haha i unlike YOU have a life, and am not on youtube 24 hours a day.

First of all, the ONLY reason why we bought the engine was because it was CHEAP. Not because it was better. Its because we were on a BUDGET so we decided to buy cheaper less quality russian made products.

hahaha money has EVERYTHING to do with it. If your space agency doesn't have a lot of  money, WHAT CAN YOU DO? how will you buy products???

NASA literally has over 10x more money than the russian space agency.

[Cartmanvb]

@andrewm153351 and did you know that the RD-170is the world's most powerful rocket engine, designed and produced in the USSR???and you say NASA is better,HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH don' talk shit when you don't know nothing!!hahhahah

[andrewm153351]

also, russians have "the biggest rocket engine"(only by a little) but THATS NOT A GOOD THING.

WE have the largest ever LAUNCH platform using MULTIPLE engines.

And who has the most successful space discoveries under their belt? USA.

We landed on the moon, something that russians to this day don't have the money or power to do.

And thats just the beginning of our superior space discoveries.

Who has the best universities? USA

Who has the most Nobel prizes? USA

Who has the most money? USA

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, Saying USA have the best Universities would be up for debate.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

??? Really? because according to studies that were done in both SPAIN and CHINA show that the u.s. has over 50% of the world's top 500 universities.

The u.s. also has 8 out of the top 10, harvard being 1st of course.

Would you like the url?

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, According to QS, America has 6 Universities in the top 10 of 2009, Harvard is 1st and University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) 2nd.

[andrewm153351]

Even if what you are saying is true, are you LISTENING to what you are saying?

You're saying that ONE country has over HALF of the top ten highest ranking universities in THE WORLD.

Oh, and your source says nothing about the top 500.

Either way, this source that i will give you is from the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. And it shows the U.S. having 8 universities in the top 10

online-universities. us/top500universities. htm

(remove the spaces)

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, First that is one university in China doing that, the source I had was a international wide survey with facts and statistics. I am no way in saying American Universities are bad, actually I am looking into studying over there but what I am saying is that saying American Universities are the best since that refers to all of them and it is incredibly arguable.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

how can you POSSIBLY say that universities in the u.s. being the best is arguable when we have over HALF of the top 10 highest ranking universities even in YOUR own source??? How is that arguable?

And by the way, this next source that i will send shows the u.s. having all of the top 26!!!!

Let me guess...it's wrong right....

webometrics. info/top8000. asp

(remove the spaces)

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, because you are saying that every University in the US is the best in the world which is considerably wrong!! Get over the fact that America isn't in the lead for everything!!

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

??? See now you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that EVERY university in the u.s. is superior?!?!?

But what you can't deny is the fact that we lead the way in universities. There is no denying that. Just like we have more olympic gold medals than any other country. Just like we have more Nobel prizes than any other country. Just like we have the greater military than any other country.

Just face it. We rule the world bitch.

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, Thankyou, I have just shown every person watching this video how arrogant and big headed you are, typical under-educated American. You don't lead the way in Universities, America has some outstanding Universities but so do ther countries, your best Universities havent always been in the top so therefore arent the best, you military arent the best, defeat after defeat show that and the only thing I'll admit for America being the best is in leading the way in Space Exploration.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

wow how can you say this? What defeats after defeats has the u.s. had???

Vietnam? vietnam was not a military failure. In fact the kill ratio was about 20-1 in American favor. There were rarely ANY battles that we lost in vietnam. But im sure your history textbooks don't tell you that part.

And HOW CAN YOU SAY OUR UNIVERSITIES AREN'T THE BEST?

Ever since universities have been RATED ours have been in the top of the list.

EVEN IN YOUR OWN SOURCE THAT YOU POSTED!!!

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, WOW how can you say that? I guarantee that you do not have any evidence saying ever since Universities have been around America has been top since even before there were civilised people in America, Britain already had Universities so you are wrong again.

It is in different years, It all changes, you cant take that fact that other countries have good universities, some better than yours.

Vietnam was a lose, so was seminole.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

Like i already explained to you, vietnam was not a MILITARY failure. How can you call a 20-1 kill ratio and practically no major battles lost a military failure??? The u.s. pulled out of vietnam because the American PEOPLE were tired of the war and tired of dying for another country. Even the North Vietnamese general later said that they were days away from surrendering and didn't know why we gave up. URL?

And what are you talking about when you say seminole???

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, Sorry, I meant Somalia.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

haha somalia was a couple of Americans against THOUSANDS of somalians, and we still were able to get away and we still killed way more of them than they did of us.

And thats ONE time. Do i need to list all of the military VICTORIES that the u.s. has had???

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, Victories that you have had being helped, you have never won a war by yourself!!

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

??? the mere fact that we get other countries to pitch in to our dirty work shows how powerful we are. Why do all the work yourself when you can get other people to do it for you? Its pretty simple and clever when you think about it.

No matter what you say, you can't deny the fact that the u.s. has the strongest military force in the world.

[spodface12]

@andrewm153351 Problem is with the Strongest military do you mean firepower or men as i would think either china/ russia with their extensive intercontentental balstic missile tech and there abundance of nuke's would be able to get rid of most of that army, so im on both sides, training dont count for much when ure getting bombed or crap, but on fighting each other on ground i would agree training is better.

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm15335, Whatever I say is fact, America may have one of the biggest military but not the best, it's like the war Britain had with the Zulu's, 269 British soldiers versus 3,000 Zulu and we beat them because British Soldiers are one of the best trained soldiers in the world, so what im tryin to say is that numbers dont count for shit if your going up against better trained people.

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

Yes, but the "Zulu's" didn't have superior technology on their side.

The u.s. has superior technology AND superior numbers which makes it the most feared military on earth.

So let me get this straight....you're ACTUALLY saying that britain would beat the u.s. in a war because it has "better training"???

LOLOLOLOLOL

[andrewm153351]

@TheMitchy93

And no, we don't have just one of the biggest militaries. We have the STRONGEST military meaning that no other military would be able to defeat us on their own. That means STRONGEST.

haha you bring up the ZULUS??? HAHAHAHA what a joke. the zulus are a fucking TRIBE. How can you compare a TRIBE to a large military with the most sophisticated military equipment in the world, along with a HUGE amount of people(USA)????

LOLOL you really crack me up.

[TheMitchy93]

@andrewm153351, HAHA, you think your the strongest, stop watching them American Army ads, you are the biggest and all this technology you think is the best well Japan and China are defeating your technology, making there own technology better, and as for Zulu's at the time the tribe was thousands of times bigger than the few soldiers we had there and guns had just been invented.haha strongest..

[POPJack1717]

@TheMitchy93 Actually you're wrong. Number ALWAYS beats quality. Now lets say 20,000 or 100,000 zulus went up against those same british. Now who do you think would win then? I know quality is good and might could hold off against a decent amount of Zulus but eveuntually the huge number would overwhelm the quality of the british soldiers.

[TheMitchy93]

@POPJack1717, Most battles Britain has gone into Britain has been outnumbered by hundreds even thousands yet we have won. You may be right with your idea of 100,000 zulu's but I would rather have 100 great trained men then have 1000 men that can't aim or shoot properly (not saying American troops are that bad cause their not) I re-read my earlier comments and they sound really harsh and that isn't how I meant to come across.

[POPJack1717]

@TheMitchy93 I see your philosophy and I respect it because our american military doesn't really have a huge military compared to North Korea or china for example but our quality, technology advantage and BETTER training make our military more deadlier. An honestly we would defeat both militaries even though their armies are ALOT larger so yeah I understand where you're coming from. But on the same note, HUGE numbers will always overcome quality if know what i mean. But yeah i understand you.

[POPJack1717]

@Cartmanvb Im not going to lie, russia has always been better at rocket technology compared to the usa but the usa has the BETTER program all together.

[Cartmanvb]

@POPJack1717 russian people has brains,that american people will never have,

and all that people that work in NASA work for money,you think they will work if you don't finance them???

while russian people work for their motherland,they are not motivated buy money...

as soon as USA loses her economic power,you will see what will become of your country,blacks will stay with blacks irish with irish,scots with scots ,mexicans with mexicans,

while russia has the unity that USA will never have

[POPJack1717]

@Cartmanvb Yeah you're right about us americans working for money but honestly we all are not like that. Take me for example, for a ENTIRE year i worked a job hard as i could, I did overtime and came in on days i was sick. I put my 100% into that job because i thought alot of that job an it meant alot to me but do you know how much i was making?? $2.50 per hour!!! An also youre rite about how racially divided america is, its ashame to see that we can't get past race and just be ONE people.

[Cartmanvb]

@andrewm153351 hahaha what happen to your "better than russian"nasa?????

why are you silent???

[andrewm153351]

wow. just more SILLY propaganda from Russian government-funded russiatoday.

PURE PROPAGANDA.

The u.s. has ALWAYS had superior technology to soviet-russia. To compare NASA to the russian space agency would be just stupid. The budget for NASA alone 7x more than the budget for the russian space agency.

The only reason why we would use old soviet tech instead of our own would be to save money.

[Hodson2000]

The Buran may LOOK like the US Shuttle, but its a totally different animal. There was never ANY chance of a Soviet Shuttle filling in for one of the NASA vehicles...This is pure fantasy...

[jabajabamaster]

Why don't they just build a new space shuttle based on the existing ones? Buran has been stored outside for 20 years, I can't imagine that it will be cheaper to restore those.

[oxforduniversity]

I love it, I love it, I love it, bring back the Buran, the most advanced space system on Earth! The Russian's know what to do and they can do it better than the Americans can. I am an American and I fully support the Russians to take over the US space progran which they will, Russia is a Superpower again.

[threeboys42]

You guys are trashing the shuttle, yet only the Russians can seem to kill people it space, or blow up on the pad.

[ReDDDgo]

russia-vs-usa . ucoz . com

[lfstweak420]

I think they should just give this idea up ENTIRELY. The Space Shuttle programme is something which had killed many astronauts in the USA, and is unable to perform much of what many other rockets of earlier era are able to do alone. Plus, it's soo much more expensive that America can't afford to send more than 3 flights per year. Rockets rulez!

[EpiDemic117]

We need to design a true space craft that doesn't need rocket boosters. Something that can take off just like a plain then enter earth orbit.

[jerkyturkey007]

@EpiDemic117 If I'm not mistaken we cannot make a plane that flies horizontally achieve escape velocity, much less carry any kind of payload. Unless they come up with some new design it's not possible.

[EpiDemic117]

@jerkyturkey007 They have to. That is exactly what i was stating. Like what someone else said. Trying to resurrect this shuttle is a big mistake. IT's now dated 80's technology. Nasa to will have to retire the space shuttle and have something more new in replacement.

[MrRein1988]

The Buran is a completely different machine.

It can be operated remotely. (All the way from launch to landing). it can do huge maneuvers during re-entry (unlike the Shuttle) - because it still has lots of fuel (it uses Energia booster rocket to get to the orbit while Shuttle uses it's own engines) - And it can be operated during a bad weather (which was shown during it's only flight, the weather was stormy but landing was still perfect).

[jvarela965]

Buran was destroyed in 2002 when hangar collapsed. This report is an example of the biased news reporting under Putin. Buran failed because Soviet Computer chip technology was so primitive. Buran's sister Shuttle PICHIKA lives on 93% done but the whole Buran program was a total failure. Even the cosmonauts at the time said ithe Energia booster alone could do all the work and the Shuttle was redundant.

[MrRein1988]

Buran never failed u moron, it successfully landed during a stormy weather.

It did it's only mission and it was a success.

[jvarela965]

Because Soviet Computer Chip technology at the time was so primitive it could do the automated solo mission or have life support but not both. The Program was a failure because it was simply a project beyond the technological abilities of the USSR at the time that is why when Buran flew it was years after the NASA Shuttles were flying. I was a college Student in Florida in the 80's and Buran's problems at the time were major news. Soviet/Russian rockets could do Buran's job alone.

[zbdot73]

@jvarela965 Taking what u see on TV as gospel is not a good idea. Basically at the time the USSR was in a major financial mess ~ that combined with the fact that the leadership didn't want to risk a cosmonauts death lead to it's only fight being unmanned. The cosmonauts at the time wrote to the political leadership asking to be on the flight. At the time the launch the buran's computer systems were far in advance of what was on the space shuttle ~ as attested by it's fully automated flight.

[jvarela965]

I have a 1994 Popular Science Magazine where they interviewed Buran engineers, they all said it could either fly or have life support not both because Soviet computer technology was primitive compared to so called Western technology.

[EpiDemic117]

That still doesn't even mean it being a success if it landed or not. I could name right off the bat how many successful missions the space shuttle has done. And how many important satellites and orbiters it has launched. the pace shuttle in general was far more successful, Not because what it is. But because what it has done.

[fordlaserfreak]

I don't really know if it would be possible to revive it. It was wrecked in that roof collapse years ago, plus it spend too much time exposed to weather as well.

IMHO I just think NASA should press on with their new Space Program where they're going back to disposable rockets.

They seem to have done a pretty good job on the Apollo mission with the "use it once and throw it away" mantra.

[151L107]

Is this REALLY possible to revive the Russian shuttle?