Buran Space Shuttle Program

[ixorafy]

If it was too expensive but it can lift extremely heavy stuff into orbit (liquid fuel boosters), why not make it the Russian version of Ariane 5?

[sirpico123]

got canned coz it was way too expensive and ussr was on verge of bankruptcy. us space shuttle has gone the same way @ $1 billion a launch.

[ranlaen]

I think that it was not only for financial reason that the Soviets shelved its shuttle program.They probably build it to rub into NASAs eyes.It is a white elephant,expensive and dangerous.Space Stations with small true shuttles aka rockets between it and earth was the way to space exploration.Look at today and two shuttle disasters later and you will see its true.Space station in orbit, russian rockets still flying,Last Soviet/Russian death was in 1971.

[ModelbuildingTANKS]

@ranlaen Those sad shuttle disasters only happened twice, and it was because of misinspection. Space travel is dangerous in any form, rocket or shuttle. The reason the soviets gave up the shuttle idea was because rockets are more financially sound in the short run. Shuttles cost less to operate in the long run, as they are reusable. There are certainly pros and cons for both, but neither is a "safe" option.

[monokhem]

All you Russians talking trash about the US space shuttle, and about how you knockoff is so much better, It couldn't have been that much better beause you never used it. The US Shuttle program is demonstrably superior.

[snippakid788]

@4illegalalien the Russian economy is currently the strongest in Europe and one of the worlds fastest growing... also government corruption in Russia is no more. Since Putin took office corruption is right next to none. I would know, i work for FSB and Russian ministry of Internal affairs

[Armigo91]

@snippakid788

Ye putin is king.

Medvedev is a nice guy that does his job.

May mother russia prosper forever.

The buran is way better then the STS. Energia could aswell have designed a heavier shuttle with larger payload. They probably kept that as a surprise. But sadly none of them flew.

And we dont need to tell why.

If it did.....speechless.

[The1976spirit]

Buran and Space Shuttle, both they are NOT able to land on railway tracks, not automatically giuded by computers, nor by a human pilot. Curtis Le May´s psychopaths rule everywhere.

Sorry, but if I myself had have been commander in chief of the Apollo 13 mission, I´d executed Fred Hayes because of sabotage. Perhaps Bernie Ecclestone would explain how to make liquid O2 but champagne create a funny bang!

[Dazzacopley]

It's a shame the Buran Program got cancelled, watching a Shuttle and a Buran dock would be epic.

[199leg]

First-ever Shuttle, 1857 of the USSR.

youtube.com/watch?v=R-_T0fT7zH­s

[carloslemusperes]

Please put spanish subtitles, Thanks a lot for this loading about buran history.

[calaiscruiser]

Even though the Russian Soyuz never stopped and continues to fly, the fact that the Americans kept the shuttle program going for 30 years even after two major failures causing loss of life I believe puts them ahead in the space race which technically now doesn't exist as many of the then apposing nations now work together towards space exploration hence the International Space Station. But... the Russian Shuttle was a superior system compared to the American Shuttle. Both awesome but now gone =(

[eristderbeste]

youre right if you say:russia is truth master of space..maybe WAS always and maybe will ?? ill hope its human race..not any special.."nation"

[syeager9]

Don't forget, that US shuttle program was based on the idea of "reusability". Only component that doesn't return to Earth is the fuel tank. So it was assumed that it will be cheaper. But It didn't really work this way for a number of reasons. Russian shuttle was based on disposable rocket. And since Russia doesn't have shuttle and US doesn't have disposable rockets for manned space flights, we can't really say what is better.

[Plutoplatter]

Hey Obama, cut it out. It's obvious you are disguising yourself here as Bahama, to advance your anti-America goals. Since you want to wipe out all hard science programs in our great country to instead to fund ever more welfare, free health care, and cap-and-trade initiatives to win yourself huge new blocs of freeloader voters, at least say it straight. Claiming our great American Space Shuttle is as expensive as Buran would have been and so should be terminated shows the depth of your duplicity.

[Plutoplatter]

Sophistry. That is your biggest product, Bahama. Your claims are as usual delusional and neurotic. Claiming that the cost of maintaining the Space Shuttle launch facility makes the per-launch cost of a Shuttle launch to be $1 billion is insane. Besides, the Augustine Commission was a glaringly phony Obama tool intended to kill NASA to free up more money for his precious social programs. Naturally, that Commission claims Shuttle launches are 'expensive'! It is without merit, like you Buran boors.

[Plutoplatter]

Hey Bahama, I sympathize with your wish for only simple arguments. It must be difficult for you to keep up with superior intellects. Actually, a high IQ is not needed to refute your ridiculous logic claiming that Buran was a success because it was a failure. Common sense alone concludes your claim is nothing but lurid, twisted sophistry, the kind of silly stuff that only a neurotic would propound. But let me help you: why not run a fundraiser so you can buy and fly a Buran to prove your claim?

[TheBahamut255]

Plutoplatter. My I.Q. is decent and I have a stable mindset. And unlike you, I don't have to resort to base insults when my opinion is challenged. Plus, you seem to have missed out on one vital detail when using the price aurguement. The majority of the costs of a launch system lies not with launching the launch vehicle in question, but in the maintennence of the launch capability. Therefore a low launch rate results in a high per-launch cost.

[TheBahamut255]

One reason why STS is currently costing close to $1 Billion per launch since it is only going at a rate of about 2 per year. The same as the original predicted flight rate of Energia/Buran. $1 Billion is also the projected per-launch cost of Ares 1/Orion whose capabilities are even less than STS as determined by the Augustine Commission as a result of the predicted low flight rate. Prove you are taking this information into account and I'll drop this particular objection.

[Andreas7773]

Can you put in full film? Remember I watched it on RTR-Planeta

[Moossccooww]

Farewell to the Soviet Union, we remember you, we love thee, thou shalt be in our hearts until we die, not to lie on TV, we always know we know and will know that you were the best, the best country in the world, kindest, most beloved the most moschnaya.Kak sorry for those who do not live in a country like you, they will never understand you and us ... Goodbye ... Sleep in peace

[TheBahamut255]

Plutoplatter. I shall make this as simple as I can. I said that Buran/Energia was the best system to fail to enter service, NOT the best system overall - that prize currently belongs to US-built Saturn V.

The best two currently in service are the Russian Soyuz launch vehicle and US STS. Primarily since these are the best systems that can be afforded by the respective nations at this point.

I recommend encyclopedia astronautica for objective and accurate info on space programmes.

[Plutoplatter]

Temper, temper, Bahama! You Buran buffs have such thin skins. The point here is that you're wrong. Mission scenarios aside, Buran is not ready to fly humans or cargo into space, and never was. Here's one major reason why: Buran never had a life support system either installed or even designed, even to this day. Since cosmonauts can't hold their breath any lomnger than you or me, Buran flights would have been limited to, oh, sayyyy, two minutes at most. Buran: a copycat stunt, and nothing more.

[pianorenamon]

can someone translate to engslih i watn to hear the speck of Shut Buran

[Plutoplatter]

Bahama, are you on drugs? Buran/Energia was a collossal bust, so hyperexpensively and technologically bad that the USSR abandoned them. To add insult to injury, the Russian space agency announced this past September that it too was not interested in reviving Buran/Energia, and instead advocated for our great country America to keep flying our hugely successful Space Shuttle. How embarassing for Buran/Energia and all you pro-Soviet trolls who come in here shouting the praises of Buran/Energia!

[TheBahamut255]

If you had bothered to read my piece at all, you would've realised that I did NOT advocate a revival of the programme at all! Only that a mission scenario needs to exist for it to fill BEFORE they can revive it. And that they heve the means to do so IF THEY WISH TO!

And you're dissin' me as a drugged-up, Soviet troll is highly insultive and I can have you reported for your extremely childish behaviour if you keep it up!

[mattmatt115]

@Plutoplatter Well Energia must have done something right, something a little better than the "great american space shuttle" or whatever rediculous way you put it, because Atlas V is now using a compact version of the engine used on the Zenit booster Troll

Keep sinking into debt and just dissolve please

[thecandidate0607]

So will the russian program be resupplying the ISS until the new us space program is up and running?

[Nefariusi]

Could anyone please translate this (to spanish would be to much to ask) to english. I´m really interested in what they could say. Thank you in advance

[TheBahamut255]

Plutoplatter, face reality for once. The Buran/Energia system was the greatest superbooster setup to never achieve operational status. Primarily due to financial constraints. The collapsed Russian Economy simply could not afford any superbooster at the time.

Today, however, they have the means to revive Energia. IF they can find a mission scenario for it. i.e. Manned Lunar Base.

[mattmatt115]

@TheBahamut255 It never happend because... NO MONEY Cant play in space with no more money

Buran/Energia is just another waste of a collossal achievement, seen many of them in the last 50 years.

This thing could have moved alot of tonnage into orbit, but.. good ol' gorbachev and his cronies rather "reform", erm.. DESTROY the Union instead! Much like Obama is doing today!

[MightySaturn5]

1968 April 4 - Soviet view on Saturn V The second successful launch of the Saturn V stunned the Soviet engineers. They could not believe the variety and volume of data telemetered back in real-time to the launch centre. They viewed with jealousy the launch room set-up at Cape Canaveral - where each engineering speciality could sit in their own comfortable chair, viewing data as the booster ascended on a computer screen.

[Plutoplatter]

Sergei, your attempt to label the Soviets' meager moon program achievements as superior to the grand success of our American efforts is, well, lunacy. Anyone is a crackpot like you who argues that the half a kilogram of soil from one single solitary spot on the Moon and returned to Earth by that one single unmanned Soviet lander was better than the over 400 kilograms obtained from six different locations on the moon by our Apollo missions. We even landed a geologist to help find the best rocks.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Just because the lunar program was no essential propaganda tool for Russia after all its main achievements in cosmonautics, Russia sent robots to the moon which gather much more usefull scientific information than the American cosmonauts walking with a flag. The weight (1 or 100 kg) of the moon rock is of no importance for the science. And up to now all Russian cosmonauts consider the cancellation of the N1 program to be a big foolishness.

Tell your fables to American kids, Plutto!

[Plutoplatter]

The cosmonauts indeed were opposed to flying the Soviet moonships. The N-1 booster rocket was an exploding failure, and the one-man lander had a landing rocket fuel control system so crude that it had only hand-cranked plumbing valves for throttles. None other than Alexyev Leonov, the first Soviet to walk in space, and who was tapped to be that first Soviet man to land on the Moon, refused the moon flight, as well did the other cosmonauts. No wonder....it would have been a suicide mission.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Your American Space Shuttles have no emergency life-saving capabilities because the American government disregards American cosmonauts lives.

All Russian cosmonauts were against cancellation of the N1 program. And the stupid Plutto may ask them himself about it.

[SergeiPilipenko]

The 1st Russian Lunokhod started its way on the Moon on November, 17 1970. The Lunokhod-1 covered 10 km 540 m in 154 days. It made 500 ground tests, 25.000 photographs, 200 panoramic sights. In 1972-76, Luna-20, Luna-24 and Lunokhod-2 continued research of the Moon. For the 1st time in history the Moon was reached by Luna-2 on September 14, 1959. The Luna-2 delivered a State Emblem of Russia on the Moon. The Russian Lunar robots delivered Lunar ground to the Earth as well.

[Plutoplatter]

Yes, the Lunakhods did all that....after the Apollo landings had already started and the first of an eventual 850 pounds of Moon rocks were already on Earth being studied. The Lunakhods arrived too late to be of any usefulness to the Soviets as either propaganda tools or as serious contributors to space science. And, only one Soviet rocket brought Moon material to Earth, something like one or two pounds worth, and long after Apollo had already brought back lots more. So what was the point?

[SergeiPilipenko]

Invent your idiotic fantasies for Hollywood, Pluto! It would be better if the American cosmonauts revolt against Shuttles which have no life-saving system at all. The first Russian robot made an automatic soft landing on the moon and made the first panorama of the moon surface on February 3, 1966. Just our cosmonauts were against cancellation of the N1 program.

[Plutoplatter]

Sergei, honestly, you YouTube trolls should stick to your meds. Our American Space Shuttles do have emergency life-saving capabilities, certainly better than the stillborn Buran ever hoped to offer. Besides, Buran lacked any life support system, so what were the cosmonauts supposed to do, hold their breath? Yes, the Soviets did land a static lander on the Moon before us, but it lasted only, what, ten minutes? And you can bet your hammer and sickle the cosmonauts revolted against the N-1, too.

[Plutoplatter]

One reason the Soviet manned moon program was dropped was because the cosmonauts revolted over the highly-dangerous crudity of the equipment. For example, the landing engine of their lunar lander was to be throttled by hand-cranked plumbing valves, like the kind you have in your own basement! No himan could have operated them with any hope of achieving the requisite coordination and precision to make a soft landing. Imagine being asked to fly such a deathtrap. The cosmonauts said no.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Unfortunately, the Russian engineers were compelled to realize that stupidity of the government, to build an unnecessary, useless, ineffective, but very expensive Buran space ship, for which there is no practical tasks both in Russia and abroad, when Russia has both heavy rockets for transporting any cargo and very reliable rockets for transporting men into space at a low price, and whereas the Russian lunar program was closed whimsically without any economical or technical reason.

[otoevst]

Did it end up hauling mail between Moscow and Almaty just like the TU-144? ;)

[Plutoplatter]

Hi Otoevst, that's pretty funny! Buran indeed is in the mail service, though. It currently is a nice coop for homing pigeons in Gorky Park.

[Plutoplatter]

Well, whose fault is that? America's? Or might it be the consequence of the thieving, murderous, thuggish, freedom-supporessing Soviet Union leadership or its current incarnation in the guise of the the KGB diehard Putin?

[captaincoupon]

True, very true. G-d willing those ppl will be liberated from those oppressors, G-d willing.

[weejamx]

Seriously stop making these dualitic comments about US and Russians rocket technology, Its just that this bird, almost ready, was not able to fly at last. It was a great ship! Its some kind of sad, no?

[Plutoplatter]

WeeJax, Buran was far from ready for operations. With no life support system installed or even yet designed, it was utterlyt incapable of carrying cosmonauts. Plus, the thermal protection tiles and blankets came off too easily, raising the risk of a reentry disaster. The time and cost to overcome these shortcomings proved too great for the patience and meager financial resources of the Soviet leadership. Plus, there was no propaganda value, since the Space Shuttle already beat Buran into space.

[jvarela965]

Boris Yeltsin was one of Buran's earliest critics but said in later years he erred in not dropping Space Station Mir which in 1992 was past it's life span and finishing the Buran Program.

[Elcapitan59]

Oh I'm sorry lettucemonster, Buran did fly in space-- FOR 3 HOURS!! HAHAA what a joke..

[Silmacar]

Not so much of a joke - if you consider that the flight was entirely on automated controls. Too bad that it was never used for a mission with payload: this way we're still stuck with the Shuttle - which claimed the lives of 14 astronauts so far.

[Haltung]

Tell me, child, where is the joke?

[snippakid788]

RUSSIA IS THE TRUE MASTER OF SPACE

[bestamerica]

snippakid788,

RUSSIA IS THE TRUE MASTER OF SPACE

america jpl / nasa is the best spacecraft for outer space than ussr russia

[265Spike]

moron, just becauce it was too powerfull and too expensive it has never flown.

[SteveMcCann88]

Yeah if this thing is so superior, then why has it never flown? Junk just like the rest of the stuff they make.

[lettucemonster]

It did fly you moron, in 1988

[nxn8690]

It's cool that Russians move Buran to the launch pad & then erect it, unlike US counter part. I find it ironic that NASA ppl are smart enough to build the space shuttles & the same time they are stupid to come up with the way; erecting the shuttle first & then moving it to the launch pad. It's like a building a house at the brick factory first & then bring it to at where the house is suppose to be.

[wagnerologist1984]

The Shuttle program isnt shutting down, its evolving "cheaper, faster, better", they'll fold and hold the shuttles for futire use unlike the USSR leaving them to rust. The whole point in the shuttle is a scientific platform and reuseable craft, with the ISS theres no need for them anymore. With the loss of the spectacle of shuttle launch we'll be compensated with the sight of men on the moon and mars! so cheer up!

[lettucemonster]

The USSR didn't leave Buran to rust - the USSR vanished and Russia didn't want to pay for Buran anymore. Its a shame the west didn't step in to fund such an interesting project.

[Oso1G]

They built 13 shuttles and their is possible talks for the 2015 Russia's Mar's mission will need a heavy payload rocket system, which Buran Energia is the most advanced powerful rocket system in the world

Mars mission ? Superior USA put viking lander on Mars in 1970's LOLOLOLOL

[hardToSignUpHere]

most funny people called it a flying brick, also an iron and a suitcase with wings :) because and many did not beleive it could fly

other stuff is boring like about how the two ministries could not get along share how does what like the other industry was less capable than the space one of building a such a vessel etc. and that fighter pilots tested and that this rocket called energy takes it to the orbit in comparison to shuttle where it flies on its on most of the way.

[Kvartet]

beautiful and powerfull Energia Buran

[oxforduniversity]

The Russian Space shuttle isn't closed, the Russian gov't will not close the Buran project. They built 13 shuttles and their is possible talks for the 2015 Russia's Mar's mission will need a heavy payload rocket system, which Buran Energia is the most advanced powerful rocket system in the world. So there is a 10 year hold to reuse the shuttles again. Only one was destroyed but 3 are able to fly orbit if the time comes.

Russia has regained it's Superpower status so the money is there to build.

[Ohgimmeabreakwillya]

They might have got some "inspiration" by the American Shuttle but there is no doubt that Buran was superior from both the propulsion and aerodynamic points of view.

[nakazatoGTR]

buran has more drag thn us shuttle system.

[Ohgimmeabreakwillya]

far from having it. Anyway the aerodynamic efficency, as to say the relation between the Lift and drag coefficient (Cl/Cd) was higher for the Buran.

[vsovereign]

question: did Buran fly completely unmanned or was it remote-controlled a la UAV's ?

I think it's cool if it flies relying solely on its onboard computer. God, the mainframe computer would've been enormous!

[SovietWarrior]

Buran landed fully automatic, something the inferior yank engineers will never be able to repeat, since Shuttle program will shut down in a few years.

[flammenwerfer6]

Soviet Warrior? What the fuck is that all about? Ah, I see, a Communist/Bolshevik piece of shit, bragging on about Shit Russki technology... It was good to see the Communist Eastern Hordes of Neanderthal retards leaving our Glorious Fatherland! It would be a perfect world without any Commie Criminal Gangster Shit infesting it!

[Sakh10]

moron, what do you know about russians space programm? Debil

[Ronsmytheiii]

Oh course Buran was so damaged by reentry it could not have been flown again. The soviet Shuttle was a great machine, as well is the STS. Dont flame another system simply because another country built it, I personally admire all space vehicles (except the Falcon 1 right now, more ambivalent till it gains a proven record.)

[teambronski]

I love how everyones saying how great the Buran Shuttle was, meanwhile it was almost completely untested. I am not saying it couldn't have been great, but what I am say9ing is we will never know because it was not tested,. End of story.

[kila731]

why the fuck is did russia copied USA shuttle cuz that looks alot like the US sts shuttle fuckin copiers russi has more deaths in space programs and dindt set foot on the moon :p

[juancarlosbascu]

The Buran Space Shuttle is so good and most secure in comparison of US. STS. Also the Energia rocket have the capacibility of send payloads in the moon surface, for examplace the Soyuz capsule or other.

Buran is a major sautomaticaly spacecraft ver built and not use crew for launch, the US space shuttle if need

[kila730]

that idea is copied from the US the moon is over 240,000 miles away how the fuck will it get their and with no landing module. russia has the most technical problems with space shuttles US and russia has the same capacity US has a space laboratory in its space shuttle and has a robotic arm US shuttle and russia are the same size so they carry the same capacity. our computer in our space shuttle are more advance our shuttle has a docking port

[juancarlosbascu]

The Buran Space Shuttle also has a docking port, and first that US Shuttle, because was for Mir space station.

Is true that idea is copied from US, but the soviet spacecraft was more powerfull, more payloads and more altittude.

You found information in the Web and then repply plis

Thanks for your answers

[kila730]

US sts shuttle also has a docking port

ok russia and US are allies so why are we teasing

US shuttles are good

russian shuttles are good too

we are even so lets stop besides i dind;t found it on the web i learned it from reading books thanx for your reply :)

[stevehawking]

kila730 shut the hell up

[kila730]

then shut the fuck up you are the most random people to walk up to me and say that, you don't have the balls.

[stevehawking]

sorry kila i probably replied to your original post which no one seems to like anyway.

let's not forget most of the US rocket technology was acquired from foreign lands after WWII anyway.

[kila730]

of course no one will like it because im in this territory if u hate it then leave.oh yeah dosent really matter about rocket technology of where it comes from its about improving it.

[Plutoplatter]

Hey, SteveSquawking, it's true that we tested captured V-2s, as so did the Soviets. To claim we got most of our rocket technology from foreign lands is ridiculous. Remember which nation tested the first liquid fuel rocket? It was America, by Robert Goddard to be precise. It is other nations that acquired rocket feasibility from us. And our current rockets are original designs, not merely larger copies of 'foreign rockets'. It is America that rocks the rocket world, now and into the future.

[weejamx]

stevehawking is right, many germans work in the NASA space program, remember that US got many difficulties at the beginning of the program. and many germans scientist worked with NASA. Not thhat Us could not devellop the technology itself, but they took these scientist to devellop it faster.

[Plutoplatter]

WeeJam, every new rocket has developmental problems. Of course the German WW2 scientists helped, at least at first, with the next generation of rockets back then...for both the Soviet Union and America. Since then, the incredible Space Shuttle Main Engine, the impressive RS-68, etc. were American designs made wholly by Americans. What matters now is what nation or nations have developed the engineering brainpower to lead the rocketry future. Despite Obama, America still rocks the missile world.

[weejamx]

I totally agree with you. I was just talking about the beginning of the NASA program. the first first rockets. not all the other technology who followed!

[beaverliqour]

exactly. If the race is to improve humanity who cares who has the better equipment. Maybe if we worked together we could build great things.

[Silmacar]

The whole ISS thingy is a good example of that.

[TonyFirelli]

@juancarlosbascu And automatic landing ^^ witch I think is cool how it the computer landed the shuttle smoothly...

[CapitanoGUC]

@juancarlosbascu but why has this buran programm stopped, then ????

[tziuriky86]

@CapitanoGUC

Mate, the whole soviet economic block was destroyed in favour of the western block, no more cash could be spent on space programs like this.

[CapitanoGUC]

@tziuriky86 hehehe - like the spacshutle program today, right ??? :-D - but today russia is fine - why can´t the pick it up again. - they even could rent it out to other nations and make money that way ...:-D

[tziuriky86]

@CapitanoGUC Yes indeed. Russia today has no debt and a growing economy. Just take a look at wikipedia, there's a list of future missions, starting from 2011 there will be new missions to Mars, to Venus and some cool interesting moon missions, including permanent lunar bases. Let's wait and see in the name of science. :)

[kz4eva]

@juancarlosbascu блин ты идиот вообще у нас была программа совместно с сша кароч вы америкоты бесите.. ппц тупые нет реально

[Jeff12798]

@juancarlosbascu Sir, You just torched kila730's ass!!

[oxforduniversity]

I have good news though, the Buran will fly again, remember Russia built 13 space shuttles and Russia has the money to fly them again. It is possible in the next 10 years the Buran will be flewn to carry counterparts for the Russian Mars mission.

[vsovereign]

I would be grateful if you can provide reference on this claim. In english please, I don't speak russian =)