@echozgus The lander was for one lone cosmonaut but the plan was probably to have bigger landers later on. However, the mistake the Russians made was not developing massive new engines for the N-1 Rocket similar to Saturn rockets but using 32 small engines used in the Sputnik and Vostok Rockets. The N-1 blew up several times or the Russians would have won the race to the Moon. Developing the new engines was the idea of a Russian Scientist named Glushko. But he was overruled by Serigi Korolev.
@bestamerica I'll tell you one thing though. Ireland will be able to get a public commercial company on to Phobos/Mars with every single worthwile nation on Earth joining in. In terms of Russians going to Venus that nation has far more possibility of being terraformed in to a second Earth then Mars which does not have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. But I am guessing all of this information will go over your insignificant head, I feel like I'm sending a message to a Chimpanzee LOL!
@bestamerica You might think that the USSR was the enimy but do not put down Russia. I have been there twice and it is a wonderful country with wonderful people. And if it was not for the Russians now, USA could not even get in to space.
@bestamerica Russians were the best spacecraft makers always, even when the space shuttle was in operation and they still are today, but the Americans were the best at getting to the Moon for one tiny reason that the Soviet Space Program Designers wouldnt create a new engine for the N-1 rocket. Once the USA beat the USSR to the Moon the USSR did not have the guts to take second place. The USA had won the space race because the USSR quit. USSR was/is always the best spacecraft builder however.
@bestamerica Saturn rockets were better then N-1 rockets but it was the USSR's soyuz series of rocket spacecraft that proved they were both far cheaper and way more reliable then the space shuttle. Space shuttle was never launched enough to be cost efficient. The Soyuz was smaller then the space shuttle but the USSR/Russia had a very good series of space stations to go to. Sorry, but the Americans lost that technology competition. Space shuttle is retired, Soyuz is still the best in the world.
spacemooseireland, ' yes keep up america best space shuttle and ISS,,, america own ISS,,, not ussr russia,,, ussr russia have own MIR,,, america have high technology in the future,,, ussr russia have low technology and weakness,,, ussr russia want american high techonolog,,, america dont need it ussr russia own low technology,,, american space shuttle is never retirement / never stop,,, KEEP UP america space shuttle
@bestamerica The way that you are talking I can see that you have all the mental faculties of a cactus. Please go out and buy yourself a brain before you try to have a reasonable conversation about anything involving science, technology or politics. I cant waist my time arguing with a vedgetable, putting you on ignore.
Hey buddy, I'm just curious, what's your problem with Russia? How is it related to YOU?
Your username appears in a lot of Russia-related videos, and you're always making weird, dyslexic, derogatory comments.
Judging by the videos you posted, you're either a loner immigrant that can barely speak any English, or you're actually mentally challenged (and I don't mean to offend you with this last one).
@isuckaman I should not have got angry with you, your just not that bright. I am guessing your about 12 years old and still trying to figure out how the world works, When you grow up you will become a mature human being and be able to act sociably. Until then be a good boy and try not to be so forthright in convictions that you know nothing about.
What movie? Check-out on You-Tube "Next Mars Rover In Action-Animation". Pick it up at the :40 second point. It hasn't happened yet but that's the plan. Now, do you think the Russians have the know how to try something like that?
@isuckaman Tell you what next time you start insulting a nation why don't you go fock yourself up the arse with the corn cob and run around squealing because thats what it looks like your doing now. the LK Lander never happened like dozens of other space programs of history. And why dont you read some hard core history about space programs rather then sit around on your fat arse watching movies for your education. Your probably the type who never leaves his computer except to go to the toilet.
As far as I know the Russians have not landed a craft like shown in this video. NASA has with Surveyor, Apollo, and several Mars probes. I don't know if the Russians have ever put a satellite in orbit around any planet other then earth. In Nov. NASA is scheduled to send a vehicle to Mars called Curiosity. It will use a landing method the Russians can't even dream of.
@isuckaman The lander in this movie is total fiction, get that in to your thick head! Ever heard of studying what you decide to make statements about before you start to insult a nations entire space program. Im disgusted at your simple minded insults and I'm not even Russian. Why dont you look up the Russian Space Agency on Wikipedia and don't come back until you actually know about what your making pathetic accusations about. Russians have the records for first soft landing on Mars and Venus.
Luna 9 survived its landing on the moon by the use of "airbags". It didn't "soft land" using sophisticated radars and computers like most US vehicles do. You can't buy a Russian computer, camera, tv, or any other electronic device because the Russians are still 3rd world class when it comes to electronics. They're still just a midget with a big right hand.
@isuckaman you actually think that airbags alone could cushon a hard landing on our Moon for a sample return? or a lander? look up every single Soviet Lunar lander mission since Luna-1969A. Also NASA uses airbags all the time in Mars Missions and they certainly don't call the NASA landings hard landings. Finally, no one was using computerized spacecraft in the 1960s Computers were as big as houses and a thousand times slower then a cell phone today, Read up on stuff before you get critical.
@spacemooseireland Wrong. Aircraft, spacecraft and rockets had small computers onboard in the 60's. Not very sophisticated or powerful, but still computers.
Not all NASA Mars missions have used airbags. The Viking's for example, used only parachutes and rockets to land.
@YDDES Listen you little twit, when did I ever say that spacecraft and rockets never had computers, or that all nasa missions to Mars used airbags? Jumping at excuses to be ignorant and antisocial seem to be something that turns you on and you are very good at LOL. Go back to school and learn how to read, If you come back and apologize ill even tell you what kind of computers they used on the Apollo Capsule LOL. Sorry fellow but you need to buy a brain.
@spacemooseireland Cut from Your contribution on this thread 3 weeks ago:
"Also NASA uses airbags all the time in Mars Missions and they certainly don't call the NASA landings hard landings. Finally, no one was using computerized spacecraft in the 1960s Computers were as big as houses and a thousand times slower then a cell phone today."
You appearently have a very short memory...
Don't bother to answer. I've no interest talking to people who resort to bad language and namecalling.
@YDDES Bloody hell your right. What I wrote did sound like that. They did have a navigational computer on the Apollo program, it was called a computer and it sounded like I was saying NASA has only used airbags in its entire history on Mars. The Apollo navigation computer was famous for its time and they even used the computer as a basis for fly-by-wire technology. NASA also used rocket landing for Viking, Mars Polar Lander and will use it again in the Mars Scienc Laboratory, my reply is sorry.
As far as I know the Russians have never "soft landed" any kind of craft on the moon or any other body like depicted in this video. The best they've done are "hard landings" where the instruments survived and functioned for only a few minutes.
@isuckaman LOL, what planet are you from, maybe you sucked your own brains out one night. Soviet Luna-9 was the first human made soft landing spacecraft in history on the 3rd of February 1966. USSR did soft landings six times more which included Sample return missions bringing rocks back to Earth and the two Lunokhod Lunar rovers in the 1970s that had missions of 322 days and 146 days (NASA did not do a space rover until 20 years later.) Why don't you go out and buy yourself a new brain LMAO.
@NASAvsPETE Solar flares do not emit gamma rays, Quasi-stellar objects emit gamma rays. Solar flares emit significantly weaker X-rays and UV rays. Additionally, the majority of radiation never exits the flare - as the flares loop back on themselves - encased in the suns ridiculously strong magnetic fields. Those that do escape have negligible effects on the body. You also forget to mention no solar flares occurred during an Apollo mission.
@NASAvsPETE You confuse radiation with radioactivity. Radiation in the belts is not nearly as significant as one might imagine - several angstroms of material would provide sufficient protection. Even unprotected, the radiation would not be able to penetrate any appreciable amount of skin, as a lethal dose would require radiation getting into the bone marrow; which would lead to acute radiation sickness.
Did they ever go through the massive weigh reduction program the LM went through? Ive heard the N1 was very marginal on throw weight to lunar orbit and even a 1 man lander would have been iffy. Maybe no docking tunnel, no experiments etc was the approach to strip weight.
@rossco1966 The entire final stage went into lunar orbit with the lander and Soyuz still attached and 2 cosmonauts aboard. The lander pilot would have spacewalked from the Soyuz orbital module to the lander via hand holds and anchor points on the ships side.hence no docking tunnel. The sections would have detatched and the lander started it's landing run. The docking tunnel was a major plus for the US LM but as with many Russian systems, simple sometimes works well.
I've read that there was no pressurized link between the Russian lander and command module, so the pilot would have to go EVA to get into it.
Pretty cool animation. The Russians could well have beaten us to the Moon if their N-1 had succeeded....one more reminder of what a great machine we had in the Saturn V.
It was not as sophisticated as the US LEM craft and used some automatic systems from the Luna probes to carry out the approach and landing. I've read that Alexei Leonov would have made the first landing attempt alothough sounds like guesswork. Who had bigger balls than Alexei when it came to perilous missions? lol
@Alembic25 Yeah Aleksei co-wrote a book with David Scott confirming he was going to be the first Russian on the moon. Nobody's got bigger nads, he's an awesome dude.
Leak? they were flown in earth orbit and were tested in maneouvers, engine test life support systems, very similar to what the US did with apollo 9 and apollo 10, but without a soyuz manned spacecraft. And yes it was succesfully flown in orbit the only component of the soviet manned moon program that was succesful. They were flown in orbit as Cosmos 379, 398 and Cosmos 434.
its very low tech when compared to Apollo...its weight was nearly the same as the Lunar module yet it was considerably smaller and far lower tech it every aspect.
I could go on regarding the difference's when comparing Apollo to the Soviet programs but the degree of technology used in Apollo is way beyond typical comprehension let alone trying to describe any aspect in a few paragraphs.
27 books later and there is still so much to learn about 40 plus year old technology.
The extremely high-tech Space Shuttle blew up twice out of 120 times killing 14 people. The Soviet low-tech Buran flew only once completely computer-guided including landing, missing the tiny target mark on landing strip by 3 feet only. It was propelled into space by Energia, the mightiest booster ever, mightier than Saturn V, and unlike the Space Shuttle booster it was versatile and could lift virtually anything.
Believing in your own perfection is a sign of a delusional mind.
Apollo's 15 and Skylab had the same thrust as Energia plus were able to loft more weight into LEO then a rocket designed 20 years after the Saturn.
As far as the Buran itself it was a nice craft for a aerodynamic copy of the shuttle which was by then flying for 6 years.
I only recall the Shuttle blowing up once with the other loss at rentry which does not classify as "blown up" ...your wishful thinking and the old "could have been a contender" argument stray away from historical reality
This has been flagged as spam show
Looks like a copy of our LM.
TNMinuteMan 2 months ago
A lander just for two cosmonauts, and instead of docking the cosmonauts need to do a spacewalk from the command ship to the lunar lander.
echozgus 3 months ago
@echozgus The lander was for one lone cosmonaut but the plan was probably to have bigger landers later on. However, the mistake the Russians made was not developing massive new engines for the N-1 Rocket similar to Saturn rockets but using 32 small engines used in the Sputnik and Vostok Rockets. The N-1 blew up several times or the Russians would have won the race to the Moon. Developing the new engines was the idea of a Russian Scientist named Glushko. But he was overruled by Serigi Korolev.
spacemooseireland 3 months ago
@spacemooseireland cool design :D
echozgus 3 months ago
@spacemooseireland
the reds only knocked up the first only just
alot of their missions failed but the just did'ent tell anyone
salland12 3 months ago
'
hi space,,,
dont use 2 words - YOU / YOURSELF - on me,,,
remember be nice to me,,,
dont criticism me / dont judge me,,,
let explain about this spacecraft and mars,,,
only america can go to mars and come home earth safety,,,
remember ussr russica can go to venus and stay on venus,,,
no return
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica I'll tell you one thing though. Ireland will be able to get a public commercial company on to Phobos/Mars with every single worthwile nation on Earth joining in. In terms of Russians going to Venus that nation has far more possibility of being terraformed in to a second Earth then Mars which does not have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. But I am guessing all of this information will go over your insignificant head, I feel like I'm sending a message to a Chimpanzee LOL!
spacemooseireland 4 months ago
spacemooseireland,
'
that is alright ireland is welcome,,,
europe and asia are welcome join america to outer space,,,
except ussr russia
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica You might think that the USSR was the enimy but do not put down Russia. I have been there twice and it is a wonderful country with wonderful people. And if it was not for the Russians now, USA could not even get in to space.
spacemooseireland 4 months ago
spacemooseireland,
'
america can go outer space without depend on ussr russia,,,
yes america can look up forward and goal,,,
yes ussr russia is a big secret enemy country to america,,,
shame on ussr russia,,,
yes put ussr russia down and not look forward,,,
ussr russia cannot go space without america,,,
why,,,
because ussr russia depend on america best smart technology than russia
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica Why dont you go out and buy yourself a brain.
spacemooseireland 3 months ago
spacemooseireland,
'
nope
bestamerica 3 months ago
The Russians should aim to put the first man on the moon.
QBJ88 4 months ago
@QBJ88 they don´t have money one of the reasons they lost the space race.
echozgus 3 months ago
'
nah nah,,,
america was the best top spacecraft than ussr russia
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica Russians were the best spacecraft makers always, even when the space shuttle was in operation and they still are today, but the Americans were the best at getting to the Moon for one tiny reason that the Soviet Space Program Designers wouldnt create a new engine for the N-1 rocket. Once the USA beat the USSR to the Moon the USSR did not have the guts to take second place. The USA had won the space race because the USSR quit. USSR was/is always the best spacecraft builder however.
spacemooseireland 4 months ago
spacemooseireland,
'
hi space,
american saturn V was the best largest top wonderful rocket than ussr russia N-1,,,
keep up american always winner for spacecrafts and longer life spacecrafts than ussr russia,,,
i rather america can going to the mars first, not ussr russia,,,
ussr russia can going to the venus
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica Saturn rockets were better then N-1 rockets but it was the USSR's soyuz series of rocket spacecraft that proved they were both far cheaper and way more reliable then the space shuttle. Space shuttle was never launched enough to be cost efficient. The Soyuz was smaller then the space shuttle but the USSR/Russia had a very good series of space stations to go to. Sorry, but the Americans lost that technology competition. Space shuttle is retired, Soyuz is still the best in the world.
spacemooseireland 4 months ago
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica The way that you are talking I can see that you have all the mental faculties of a cactus. Please go out and buy yourself a brain before you try to have a reasonable conversation about anything involving science, technology or politics. I cant waist my time arguing with a vedgetable, putting you on ignore.
spacemooseireland 4 months ago
@bestamerica
Hey buddy, I'm just curious, what's your problem with Russia? How is it related to YOU?
Your username appears in a lot of Russia-related videos, and you're always making weird, dyslexic, derogatory comments.
Judging by the videos you posted, you're either a loner immigrant that can barely speak any English, or you're actually mentally challenged (and I don't mean to offend you with this last one).
Also, cut your fucking nails, that's disgusting.
Abanamat85 3 months ago
God bless you.
isuckaman 7 months ago
As far as insulting a nation.
THE U S HAS NEVER LANDED A MAN ON MARS.
Did I just insult the U S?
isuckaman 7 months ago
@isuckaman I should not have got angry with you, your just not that bright. I am guessing your about 12 years old and still trying to figure out how the world works, When you grow up you will become a mature human being and be able to act sociably. Until then be a good boy and try not to be so forthright in convictions that you know nothing about.
spacemooseireland 7 months ago
@isuckaman-Well, neither did Russia.
Problem, moron?
dalek14mc 5 months ago
@isuckaman= No. I don't give a rat's butt about Mars.
vigo894 5 months ago
So as far as we know the Russians haven't done what the US did over 40 years ago.
isuckaman 7 months ago
What movie? Check-out on You-Tube "Next Mars Rover In Action-Animation". Pick it up at the :40 second point. It hasn't happened yet but that's the plan. Now, do you think the Russians have the know how to try something like that?
isuckaman 7 months ago
@isuckaman Tell you what next time you start insulting a nation why don't you go fock yourself up the arse with the corn cob and run around squealing because thats what it looks like your doing now. the LK Lander never happened like dozens of other space programs of history. And why dont you read some hard core history about space programs rather then sit around on your fat arse watching movies for your education. Your probably the type who never leaves his computer except to go to the toilet.
spacemooseireland 7 months ago
As far as I know the Russians have not landed a craft like shown in this video. NASA has with Surveyor, Apollo, and several Mars probes. I don't know if the Russians have ever put a satellite in orbit around any planet other then earth. In Nov. NASA is scheduled to send a vehicle to Mars called Curiosity. It will use a landing method the Russians can't even dream of.
isuckaman 7 months ago
@isuckaman The lander in this movie is total fiction, get that in to your thick head! Ever heard of studying what you decide to make statements about before you start to insult a nations entire space program. Im disgusted at your simple minded insults and I'm not even Russian. Why dont you look up the Russian Space Agency on Wikipedia and don't come back until you actually know about what your making pathetic accusations about. Russians have the records for first soft landing on Mars and Venus.
spacemooseireland 7 months ago
Luna 9 survived its landing on the moon by the use of "airbags". It didn't "soft land" using sophisticated radars and computers like most US vehicles do. You can't buy a Russian computer, camera, tv, or any other electronic device because the Russians are still 3rd world class when it comes to electronics. They're still just a midget with a big right hand.
isuckaman 7 months ago
@isuckaman you actually think that airbags alone could cushon a hard landing on our Moon for a sample return? or a lander? look up every single Soviet Lunar lander mission since Luna-1969A. Also NASA uses airbags all the time in Mars Missions and they certainly don't call the NASA landings hard landings. Finally, no one was using computerized spacecraft in the 1960s Computers were as big as houses and a thousand times slower then a cell phone today, Read up on stuff before you get critical.
spacemooseireland 7 months ago
@spacemooseireland Wrong. Aircraft, spacecraft and rockets had small computers onboard in the 60's. Not very sophisticated or powerful, but still computers.
Not all NASA Mars missions have used airbags. The Viking's for example, used only parachutes and rockets to land.
YDDES 6 months ago
@YDDES Listen you little twit, when did I ever say that spacecraft and rockets never had computers, or that all nasa missions to Mars used airbags? Jumping at excuses to be ignorant and antisocial seem to be something that turns you on and you are very good at LOL. Go back to school and learn how to read, If you come back and apologize ill even tell you what kind of computers they used on the Apollo Capsule LOL. Sorry fellow but you need to buy a brain.
spacemooseireland 6 months ago
@spacemooseireland Cut from Your contribution on this thread 3 weeks ago:
"Also NASA uses airbags all the time in Mars Missions and they certainly don't call the NASA landings hard landings. Finally, no one was using computerized spacecraft in the 1960s Computers were as big as houses and a thousand times slower then a cell phone today."
You appearently have a very short memory...
Don't bother to answer. I've no interest talking to people who resort to bad language and namecalling.
YDDES 6 months ago
@YDDES Bloody hell your right. What I wrote did sound like that. They did have a navigational computer on the Apollo program, it was called a computer and it sounded like I was saying NASA has only used airbags in its entire history on Mars. The Apollo navigation computer was famous for its time and they even used the computer as a basis for fly-by-wire technology. NASA also used rocket landing for Viking, Mars Polar Lander and will use it again in the Mars Scienc Laboratory, my reply is sorry.
spacemooseireland 6 months ago
As far as I know the Russians have never "soft landed" any kind of craft on the moon or any other body like depicted in this video. The best they've done are "hard landings" where the instruments survived and functioned for only a few minutes.
isuckaman 7 months ago
@isuckaman LOL, what planet are you from, maybe you sucked your own brains out one night. Soviet Luna-9 was the first human made soft landing spacecraft in history on the 3rd of February 1966. USSR did soft landings six times more which included Sample return missions bringing rocks back to Earth and the two Lunokhod Lunar rovers in the 1970s that had missions of 322 days and 146 days (NASA did not do a space rover until 20 years later.) Why don't you go out and buy yourself a new brain LMAO.
spacemooseireland 7 months ago
@isuckaman How long did the Soviet Lunochods and the sample return missions survive on the Moon? "A few minutes"?
Search for facts!
YDDES 6 months ago
@NASAvsPETE The fact you believe radiation could "fry" someone just about sums up your understanding on the subject.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@NASAvsPETE Solar flares do not emit gamma rays, Quasi-stellar objects emit gamma rays. Solar flares emit significantly weaker X-rays and UV rays. Additionally, the majority of radiation never exits the flare - as the flares loop back on themselves - encased in the suns ridiculously strong magnetic fields. Those that do escape have negligible effects on the body. You also forget to mention no solar flares occurred during an Apollo mission.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@NASAvsPETE You confuse radiation with radioactivity. Radiation in the belts is not nearly as significant as one might imagine - several angstroms of material would provide sufficient protection. Even unprotected, the radiation would not be able to penetrate any appreciable amount of skin, as a lethal dose would require radiation getting into the bone marrow; which would lead to acute radiation sickness.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
Awesome animation, really good depiction. Make more videos like this.
HerculesSpock 11 months ago
Awesome animation, really good depiction
HerculesSpock 11 months ago
Oh no, I saw that on the Apollo 18 movie trailer!
CaptainNomura 1 year ago
The Russos have done a whole lot of adventures in space, they just don't brag about it a whole lot...They keep to themselves.
Heterogenius1 1 year ago
Cool, it has a steam punk look.
ma049 1 year ago
thankfully, the commies never made it to the moon.
uzimodem 1 year ago
@uzimodem Yea and thankfully you had germans to made your rockets .
BGSlopy 1 year ago
@BGSlopy :better germans then them damn marxist communist murdering thugs.
uzimodem 1 year ago
@uzimodem Ha ha im happy to see the propaganda on the west side of Berlin wall worked as well as ours if not even better.
BGSlopy 1 year ago
@BGSlopy :what propoganda?
uzimodem 1 year ago
Did they ever go through the massive weigh reduction program the LM went through? Ive heard the N1 was very marginal on throw weight to lunar orbit and even a 1 man lander would have been iffy. Maybe no docking tunnel, no experiments etc was the approach to strip weight.
rossco1966 1 year ago
@rossco1966 The entire final stage went into lunar orbit with the lander and Soyuz still attached and 2 cosmonauts aboard. The lander pilot would have spacewalked from the Soyuz orbital module to the lander via hand holds and anchor points on the ships side.hence no docking tunnel. The sections would have detatched and the lander started it's landing run. The docking tunnel was a major plus for the US LM but as with many Russian systems, simple sometimes works well.
Alembic25 1 year ago
I wonder if they would've found proletariat aliens on the Moon.
URProductions 2 years ago
I've read that there was no pressurized link between the Russian lander and command module, so the pilot would have to go EVA to get into it.
Pretty cool animation. The Russians could well have beaten us to the Moon if their N-1 had succeeded....one more reminder of what a great machine we had in the Saturn V.
mpopham1 2 years ago
It was not as sophisticated as the US LEM craft and used some automatic systems from the Luna probes to carry out the approach and landing. I've read that Alexei Leonov would have made the first landing attempt alothough sounds like guesswork. Who had bigger balls than Alexei when it came to perilous missions? lol
Alembic25 2 years ago
@Alembic25 Yeah Aleksei co-wrote a book with David Scott confirming he was going to be the first Russian on the moon. Nobody's got bigger nads, he's an awesome dude.
curea229 1 year ago
Looks far more robust than the gruman LM,It looks as though it could land on any planet.
fiesta1100 2 years ago
LOUD ass telephone at the end..seriously..tis no sounds on the moon so stfu up phone
DEATHxValor 2 years ago
The LK lander was flown by the russians three times in orbit and it was very succesful.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 2
successful?...you mean it didn't leak....that's about as successful as it could possibly ever get
MightySaturn5 2 years ago
Leak? they were flown in earth orbit and were tested in maneouvers, engine test life support systems, very similar to what the US did with apollo 9 and apollo 10, but without a soyuz manned spacecraft. And yes it was succesfully flown in orbit the only component of the soviet manned moon program that was succesful. They were flown in orbit as Cosmos 379, 398 and Cosmos 434.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 2
its very low tech when compared to Apollo...its weight was nearly the same as the Lunar module yet it was considerably smaller and far lower tech it every aspect.
I could go on regarding the difference's when comparing Apollo to the Soviet programs but the degree of technology used in Apollo is way beyond typical comprehension let alone trying to describe any aspect in a few paragraphs.
27 books later and there is still so much to learn about 40 plus year old technology.
MightySaturn5 2 years ago 2
MightySaturn5
The extremely high-tech Space Shuttle blew up twice out of 120 times killing 14 people. The Soviet low-tech Buran flew only once completely computer-guided including landing, missing the tiny target mark on landing strip by 3 feet only. It was propelled into space by Energia, the mightiest booster ever, mightier than Saturn V, and unlike the Space Shuttle booster it was versatile and could lift virtually anything.
Believing in your own perfection is a sign of a delusional mind.
bfmlc 2 years ago
Apollo's 15 and Skylab had the same thrust as Energia plus were able to loft more weight into LEO then a rocket designed 20 years after the Saturn.
As far as the Buran itself it was a nice craft for a aerodynamic copy of the shuttle which was by then flying for 6 years.
I only recall the Shuttle blowing up once with the other loss at rentry which does not classify as "blown up" ...your wishful thinking and the old "could have been a contender" argument stray away from historical reality
MightySaturn5 2 years ago
Excellent animation!
satweavers 3 years ago 8
cool animation. :)
sedna69a 3 years ago 2
I read that Alexei Leonov would have been the first man on the moon if they'd made it.
Arcmate 3 years ago 13