one flight...for the USSR...30 Years for the US space shuttle program...and could there be a more complete... copy...the only difference is the Energia rocket..
It is really amazing! an unmanned control shuttle! Just amazing!!! Sadly, this orbiter was destroyed when Buran's shuttle hangar roof was collapsed... Really sad...
i love russian space program, 'cause they sent the first satellite to space, sputnik, the first human, yuri gagarin, the first probe to another planet: the venera missions, what can i say: I'M SO PROUD OF YOU DEAR RUSSIANS :) / un abrazo desde el fin del mundo, chile.
4 The automated landing took place on a runway at Baikonur Cosmodrome where, despite a lateral wind speed of 61.2 kilometres per hour (38.0 mph), it landed only 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally and 10 metres (33 ft) longitudinally from the target mark. The unmanned flight was the first time that a spacecraft of this size and complexity had been launched, completed maneuvers in orbit, re-entered the atmosphere, and landed under automatic guidance.
3 After boosting itself to a higher orbit and completing two revolutions around the Earth, ODU (engine control system) engines fired automatically to begin the descent into the atmosphere. Exactly 206 minutes into the mission, the Buran orbiter landed, having lost only five of its 38,000 thermal tiles over the course of the flight.
2 Although the program accumulated a several-years delay, Buran remained the only space shuttle to ever perform an unmanned flight in fully automatic mode until 22 April 2010 when the US Air Force launched its Boeing X-37 spaceplane. The automated launch sequence performed as specified, and the Energia rocket lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before the orbiter separated as programmed.
1 Unlike the Space Shuttle, which is propelled by a combination of solid boosters and the Shuttle's own liquid-fuel engines sourcing fuel from a large fuel tank, the Energia-Buran system used only thrust from the rocket's four RD liquid-fuel engines developed by Valentin Glushko. From the very beginning Buran was intended to be used in both fully automatic and manual mode.
i take our space programs over any body's we do it in the open for the world to see. yep we did some copying in the early days but we did "get it done" for the most part we did it in peace "for all man kind." the other guys did not.
The Buran is kind of a copy, but by far improved. It's fully automated, it has a capability to deploy double pay load (what you call the fuel tank is actually the rocket Energya, the most powerful rocket on service today, and fully automated like the Buran) and even the solid rocket boosters (1st stage), can have deployable wings so they can land like airplanes (although not used, its simpler to deploy parachutes)
It was scrapped due to the financial collapse of soviet union, and the change in priorities! The Soyuz rocket is even older than the Buran or the shuttle, and its still used today, even by the americans, since its more effective, payload and cost wise.
The russians still use cork as heat shields, and makes sence, since it cost 1% the ceramic shield and weights less. Why send people or payload in a shuttle if you can send it cheaper by rocket and reentry capsule?
An example of the different way of thinking of russians and americans. In the begining of the space race the americans realized pens would not work in space, since there is no gravity to make the ink flow downwards, so they spent approx. $100.000dollars to develop a pressurized pen... the russians just use pencils! Practicality, my friend, something that always lacked the americans, and mister Korolev had a lot.
@deetjay1 man, the USA is in the shitter, just yesterday, all the gas stations on the main road in mississauga ran out of fuel due to the escalating war in lybia, get real hindu.....
@rviegasdesigner The Soviets used pencils in space because the concept of "ink makes permanent records while graphite does not" escaped them. That's why America uses ink pens in 0 G. Paper "paperwork" in government-related work all require ink for handwritten or hand-signed entries to be considered "official". And your stupid cost cite of $100k is a FALSE yet persistent Urban Legend so GTFO.
It may look like a copy of Shuttle(after all program was started as response to shuttle program) but from engineering point of view Buran was completely different and superior to space shuttles in many ways. For example:
No external fuel tank (Columbia disaster was not possible with Burans)
Crew evac possible at any stage of flight(even take off)
Burans were improved and better version of space shuttles as Russian engineers knew what's bad with such kind of vechile.
Great news: This magnificent beast may soon fly once again! The Russian government is looking into possibly reviving the rocket or devising something based on it by 2016.
It's almost cute how the russians don't even seem embarrassed about having a total lack of imagination. The bad news is that their spy network is actually pretty good made most of their technological advances via theft of intellectual property from the Germans and the U.S. It's a decades-long pattern but I suppose they've decided, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Incredibly, the shuttle landed at an unmanned version.
Shuttle is not controlled from the ground, he flew to the Soviet version of artificial intelligence. During landing, due to side winds, the shuttle itself went to the second run.
I think nobody actually knows what russia is really capable of (Only puttin and his general of army). I mean they hide most of their best weapons and technology. The comparison with the USA is ridiculous, imagine a kid kicking and punching a Giant monster. I'm not russian btw i just dont respect those who talk to much and do so little.
@jasper5554 their philosophy is to throw more people into conflict and to try to beat everyone else. it is fact since peter the great, russia has always tried to catch up and best everyone. im not saying it's bad, but why are they always rushing to beat everyone? they should take time to perfect rather than go trial by error.
@jasper5554 oh yeah zenit rockets are from russia. they came from the ukraine. all the soviets did was radiate the shit out of that place by not taking necessary safeguards to protect the citizens. you take all sorts of shortcuts to become first. safety is your second priority. and who cares if your nuclear arsenal is bigger. you're gonna end up killing everyone off anyway
@jasper5554 yeah and then you send your first astronaut into a shitty test plane only to die. you didnt care about safety or perfection, just to be first. we actually beat you to the moon which was way more impressive. the first people to set foot on another body in space: AMERICANS. SUCK IT. and your country has only been around since 1992. the soviets were another piece of shit country. russia is better.
@chillaxer1993 you may have been to the moon first but what are the chances of you getting to mars first hahaha russia will be the first to mars thanks to obama who has killed the american space program and if the soviet union uses shitty test planes etc why does your delta rockets use soviet built rocket engines and you know what they say the engine is the most important piece of a rocket ROFL that would mean the most important part of the delta rocket is soviet hahahahahaha.
Yeah, that would be the Atlas V, not any of the Delta Family
And the REAL reason the US uses the Russian engines, and turned the Freedom Space Station the ISS, and basically subsidized the entire Russian space program post-collapse is not because they could not do it themselves, but because they wanted to keep the industry alive and not have all the Soviet rocket scientist heading to China, Iran, and North Korea looking for work.
@chillaxer1993 sorry, but the person who sent the first object into space is the most impressive, and the Germans did it with v2 test missiles, and that achievement is well documented. Debris from that rocket has been floating around earth since 1944. STFU
@retrojazzfish hahaha this is funny. the germans tested their V2's on people. and debris from that rocket would have decayed and re-entered because it was not sent into a very high altitude. so the germans infact used people to test their insidious death machines
@chillaxer1993 you wrote:"why do the russians have to copy everything"
---------------
based on your logics one can say that all american satelites are copies of those Russian, as Russians were the first to launch a satelite (sputnik) into space...the same goes about manned spaceflights...also first man-made vehicles on Moon, Mars and Venice were Russian as well (just google) - so do you still insist on your type of logics?
@chillaxer1993 The Russians don't copy everything. Take Sputnik, the first man in space, the first woman in space as three examples. If you wish to be pedantic, most of the US space program is based upon WW2 German ideas and technology. Ever heard of Wernher von Braun?
Heum, the Russians also got their fair share of Nazi-rocketbuilders you know. Large part of the spacefaring tech we have this day is just based on Nazi tech. And the great ideas of Von Braun and Korolyev
The Russians received a few of the best German rocket program scientists after WWII as well. I believe they got a good jump on the jet program as a war spoil. Russian aircraft has to be given credit for good design. No secret on Wernher von Brohn helping the American space program since that was public information unlike the details of the Soviet program. Only recently has Russia spoken about the failures during their early space program. Both have strong programs.
@youcanhaz Actually you are wrong, the russians got the parts, the americans the scientists, but they didn't succeed reverse engineering the V2 from Von Braun, and a genius rocket scientist called Korolev developed the basis of the russian rocket engine technology, still present today.
The americans are the true copiers, they just took Von Braun, the nazi rocket developer, gave him all the perks and keep using his technology until today.
@HeathLedgersChemist You're right to point out von Braun, without whom the US would surely not have made the moon. He had previously worked on the V2 in Nazi Germany. From what I understand, he had a very strong desire to be in the states following the collapse of Hitler's regime, and even before then, he was a very reluctant participant of Germany's war plans.
Not to say that either the USA or the Russians copy everything, but have you ever heard of Helmut Gröttrup? furthermore the Soviets have had their fair share of tragic accidents, On March 18, 1980 a Vostok rocket exploded on its launch pad during a fueling operation, killing 48 people.
I always wonder what advantages Buran delivered. Buran is not an autonomous space-plane. It is a payload of the Energija-Rocket. So why use it ? Why not simply load Energija itself with the cargo and not use Buran at all ?
Apparently, there's talk in Russia of recomencing a project based on the Buran. I would love to see that. I don't mind who dominates the spaceways, I just want to see humans finaly getting off this planet.
Then Shuttle is copy of what? Airoplane? Which airoplane, US or not?
It's based on airoplane, body is different due to different engine, wings are different as they don't have to maneuver that much but needs low aerodynamic drag.
@zabijaq123 1st of all im not a fat American....im a fitness expert...and 2nd even the russians themseves admitted stealing shuttle, C5, F111, C141, and many other designs...cause they could compete with the American military machine....
@zabijaq123 Are you drunk on vodka?....the US doesnt have to steal designs from russia...we all know its smoke and mirrors...everything russian is crap.....everytime we get a russian weapon we laugh......I know I was in the military and ive seen alot of them....not ever close to our technology.....hey flight russian commercial planes, instead of Boeing.....good luck
@keepadmiring Look it up- There were 5 Buran's, last one was "found" deteriorating (in Central Europe...) & refurbushed to be placed in Museum. Good hunting...
Doesn't look tooooooooooo much like our Space Shuttle does it? I know that form follows function but did the Soviets ever do anything that wasn't helped by our technology?
@49bobbyk first of all, we were the first explorers of space :) and actually, your super-mega-extra-sonice civil liner has left only on the engineering pictures comparing to the Tupolev144 and Concorde :)If you would compare Buran and shuttle, there are a bunch of differences!! Even with cover material. They only looks similar visually. But what about your f-15??? Who stole the technology from simillar Soviet plane? :)
the first "orbiting object" in space was the sputnik, right, but, sorry, the first MAN MADE object in SPACE by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942. The russian and american space program was a punch of german engeneers - on both sides. thats the fact
Doesn't look tooooooooooo much like our Space Shuttle does it? I know that form follows function but did the Soviets ever do anything that wasn't helped by our technology.
@49bobbyk ok,not reasonable to disput right now about it, but US was getting technology fromSoviet as well as oviet from US, its for sure!! Th difference was only about money. Get to soviet same budget as US in that times,I beliv the Soviets would go much farther than US,SOviets had a lot of damages with people,politics and resourses after WAR#2 for that time, what wouldnt be said about US... sorry. But I respect such US product like Boeing Civilliners.
And for the record, I'm not saying that the Russians were too stupid to make a good shuttle, but one thing is certain, the fuels used on the American shuttle produce less greenhouse gases (all the smoke you see when it launches is steam from the sound suppression system). But it was able to be piloted without anyone on board (which is kinda pointless because it would be dead weight) and it was able to hold 5 tons more than the Shuttle at take off & landing (Shuttle = 25 tons, Buran = 30 tons).
@phattieg My understanding is that Energia was an all- hydrogen/oxygen system, unlike the Shuttle. It's the Shuttle's solids which produce nasty pollution, unlike the all-hydrogen Energia. Energia/Buran was a huge technological leap, compared even with US and European launchers and spacecraft. It's too bad that the US and Europe did not join the project when Russia's economy collapsed. Once a project stops, it can't be revived as a rule.
The Soviets had no experience with large solid rocket boosters, but they did have an engine under development at the time that used kerosene and liquid oxygen, which is what it used. They also had very little experience with cryogenic propellants like the ones on the American space shuttle, and also they lacked the ability to make such engines reusable. The lack of reusable engines meant there was no need to carry the main engines aboard the Buran orbiter itself. Source: aerospace[dot]org.
@phattieg Nope, Energia/Buran was all-LOH, not kero. Instead, Russian kero motors have ended up on the US Atlas 5 launcher, and they have an astonishingly long life (perhaps they could be used as reusables).
@awuma You might want to read wikipedia about the fuel used. There was no tank able to hold the LOH fuel (as is the case with the shuttle). This is taken from wikipedia "The boosters used liquid propellant (kerosene/oxygen). The Space Shuttle's boosters use solid propellant." This information can be found at "en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Buran_program".
@phattieg Actually, we're both half-right :-) Look up Wikipedia re "Energia" and you'll see that the boosters were kero (my bad), the core was LOH (hence big central tank). The boosters have developed into the Zenit and the Atlas V motors I mentioned.
@awuma I don't know about that, you might want to re-read it, because the big tank was for the "boosters" as well as the "main engines". The info I found on wikipedia mentioned nothing about LOH, or any oxygen related fuels being used, as mentioned before, because the Russians had no experience with LOH engines at the time it was made, and that was mentioned in the article.
@awuma Oh, and the big tank is directly connected to the "boosters", unlike the US shuttle, which has 3 separate pieces. And with the shuttle, the solid rocket boosters were segmented because of the way they are delivered. The trip from the manufacturer forced them to segment them due to constraints with the trip. But in Russia, their country is more interconnected, so the trip never goes over water (if I remember correctly, this is why the SRB's are segmented)
@phattieg Even when it flew, the LOX/LH2 aspect was widely publicized (which is why I thought it was all-LH2). Look up "Energia" with Google and go to the the English-language wikipedia entry. There is even a page on the RD-0120 LOX/LH2 main engines. It really is too bad that Energia was cancelled, but it does appear that its technology lives on, though scaled down.
@zebooka I don't think so...just look at it, you can't say it doesn't look like US space shuttles. Just take a look at the new Russian stealth fighters, the damn thing looks just like f-22 Raptors.
Hey, Tuckyman, temper, temper! That your points stink shouldn't result in profanity. You closet communists know swearing causes warts...like the one on the tip of your nose. Anyway, it was incumbent on the Soviets to prove Buran went into orbit. These video clips don't prove any such thing. The launch clip is far too short and the landing clip clearly shows a landing of some sort at the wrong time; that is, around noon. So, where's real proof? Perhaps your nose wart is blocking the view of it?
Maybe a shame, but probably not. The Soyuz rocket is ancient, small, but incredibly reliable rocket system. It has been around since the pre Apollo area and continues to be used pretty much identical today. When the Shuttles retire, we will be sending our Astronauts into orbit in Russia by the Soyuz system.
Love the Shuttles, watch them lift off from my front yard here in Daytona Fl, but I have to respect the everlasting Soyuz.
These video clips do not affirm Buran made it into orbit. Proof: the landing shadowing is nearly overhead, indicating 12 noon. Two orbits at 90 minutes each, plus another 30 minutes for the landing glide, puts the launch at about 8:30 AM. But launch took place that morning in darkness. So the very latest launch could have occurred was 6:30 AM. This two-hour gap indicates the Soviets lied. Likely Buran failed to reach orbit, and the landing video is of a routine airplane-dropped landing test.
You're fucking retarded, you know that right? You're gonna base your whole conspiracy-theory argument on a low-quality YouTube video? Because you see a shadow under a landing space shuttle? Baikonur is in the Northern hemisphere, the sun is NEVER directly overhead, and noon is not necessarily when it's at it's highest. How do you know in what direction it's landing? You assume it's heading due North? What time does the sunrise in mid-November in Kazakhstan? You have no clue, you dumb fuck.
@Danz359 Шаттл, на самом деле садится на полной автоматике. Некоторые функции ручного управления, как выпуск шасси, дается пилотам по запросу астронавнов. :)
She doesn't beat the Shuttle other than the power of Energia. US orbiters can do everything unmanned too, but haven't taken that option. Given Buran came back badly damaged and was unlikely she'd never fly again with a bent airframe, it wasn't a massive success. The tradegy of the roof collapsing killed the program, but there's no way they'd bring it back as there's too much money involved.
@Tim733733 Actually Tim. The Buran was a much better spacecraft than the Shuttle. It used Zenit boosters instead of solids which makes it much safer during the initial boost phase if something goes wrong. Energia could throw 100mT to orbit and the stack could launch without an orbiter to haul cargo. It could lift the entire mass of the ISS in only 3 launches which is much better than the 30 Space Shuttle missions going at $1 billion a pop.
@rjholling that, and since it had no engines in the shuttle itself (except the thrusters for maneuvering), it had more space. and, of course, it can fly with NO PILOT, which is useful for space station supply runs. Let's see Discovery do that. (:
@macfanofgi Just because something can get autonomously launched into space and low orbit doesn't mean it's "useful for space station supply runs". Just like Discovery, this Buran would have needed human control for the delicate maneuvering required for a space dock. Tell us, if Soviet orbiter AI was so "good", how come Soyuz craft weren't all "automatic" to ferry cosmonauts to and from Salyut and Mir? :P
@rjholling Sir how can you know that it was better than shuttle when just 1 unmanned orbiter ever ran (+models)? From history lessons in Challenger & Columbia, orbiters are different vehicles now than they used to be, even in the 80's. I don't know about your assessment that Buran could carry 30x the payload of shuttle. Most of the early RFP's show a need for a cargo variant to be drawn up, mated to stack and they have these designs. If you're interested in this stuff, Jenkins 100 Mission book.
@awesomeapproved You are right, awesome.. Nothing but cheap talk. The American shuttle was a success, whereas the Russian shuttle..oh right... they went out of business.
@StellarBlue1 But only because the collapse of CCCP. ;) Buran can bring up 4 times more weight than space shuttle, and able to land with 10 ton more. Its heat protection can take more heat than space shuttle. Fully automatic. Also Its engines can be stopped anytime. Wonder if Chalanger had this... Buran also equiped with ejection system. CCCP had run out of cash. But it does not means that it was not a total succes.
@william899332 amen. they talk big shit, but the Russian "shuttle" was never in service..that is why it is so darn good...a perfect record..0. , zero, none, nada. The Buran and Soviet Union on the trash heap of History....
@rjholling You sir, are talking out of your ass. Easy to say the Buran was "a much better spacecraft" than the American shuttle. Those are pretty big, fat words to eat for a "Better Spacecraft" that was never, ever, even put into service. I am not American, but they deserve the credit for a "Successful, complete, shuttle system". It worked, and it worked for years. Where is this Buran?? Gone with the wind and the Soviet Union....
How so? It only logged three hours and had no pilots on board. Add the fact that russia never followed thru with this project only shows that it failed.
Russia did not follow through with the project because it was too costly as their economy was exponentially hurtling downhill after the worst event of the 20th century, the collapse of the Soviet Union.
@EpiDemic117 I dont think so,It was super powerful country(iunion) but badly about it was that it was lead by few persons,enslaving people and bringing illusion of freedom.
00:53 Boob stickers :P
CodeGreen47 3 weeks ago
one flight...for the USSR...30 Years for the US space shuttle program...and could there be a more complete... copy...the only difference is the Energia rocket..
ffej980 1 month ago
They re-engineered a piece of shite.
Ilicium 2 months ago
It is really amazing! an unmanned control shuttle! Just amazing!!! Sadly, this orbiter was destroyed when Buran's shuttle hangar roof was collapsed... Really sad...
Shipocute 2 months ago
What FOOL are you! If this is buran, I am Napoleon Bonaparte! This is the first Space Shuttle!
KweedetNiet 2 months ago
@KweedetNiet
Actually, notice at 0:46 -- there's no rocket engines (like SSME) on the back. For sure this is Buran.
CryptoQuick 2 months ago
@KweedetNiet I guess you are Napoleon. Look at the nose and tail sections. Very Diffrent designs.
TheAlexlamont 1 month ago
While it does look so much the same if it ain't broke don't fix it.
JackDander 3 months ago
But I though German WW2 rocket technology was based on American rocket scientist Robert Goddard's research. Correct me if I'm wrong!
timelike01 3 months ago
i love russian space program, 'cause they sent the first satellite to space, sputnik, the first human, yuri gagarin, the first probe to another planet: the venera missions, what can i say: I'M SO PROUD OF YOU DEAR RUSSIANS :) / un abrazo desde el fin del mundo, chile.
spiritneverdie1 4 months ago 4
If only it had a man on it...then it would've been more recognized and well-known.
Icmer2CP 4 months ago
@Icmer2CP the fact that it orbited and landed without a man aboard makes it more amazing than all the US shuttle missions.
korgri 4 months ago 6
sad end of the Buran, destroyed in 2002
deathontheroad666 5 months ago
The computer loading a Buran was more lower than Pentium 1. With my computer I can conquest the earth!
jointhempire 5 months ago
@jointhempire computer is not the main thing the main software that runs on it
Skyteyl 3 months ago
4 The automated landing took place on a runway at Baikonur Cosmodrome where, despite a lateral wind speed of 61.2 kilometres per hour (38.0 mph), it landed only 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally and 10 metres (33 ft) longitudinally from the target mark. The unmanned flight was the first time that a spacecraft of this size and complexity had been launched, completed maneuvers in orbit, re-entered the atmosphere, and landed under automatic guidance.
SCH1987R 5 months ago
3 After boosting itself to a higher orbit and completing two revolutions around the Earth, ODU (engine control system) engines fired automatically to begin the descent into the atmosphere. Exactly 206 minutes into the mission, the Buran orbiter landed, having lost only five of its 38,000 thermal tiles over the course of the flight.
SCH1987R 5 months ago
2 Although the program accumulated a several-years delay, Buran remained the only space shuttle to ever perform an unmanned flight in fully automatic mode until 22 April 2010 when the US Air Force launched its Boeing X-37 spaceplane. The automated launch sequence performed as specified, and the Energia rocket lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before the orbiter separated as programmed.
SCH1987R 5 months ago
1 Unlike the Space Shuttle, which is propelled by a combination of solid boosters and the Shuttle's own liquid-fuel engines sourcing fuel from a large fuel tank, the Energia-Buran system used only thrust from the rocket's four RD liquid-fuel engines developed by Valentin Glushko. From the very beginning Buran was intended to be used in both fully automatic and manual mode.
SCH1987R 5 months ago
Love to meet the traitor who sold them the plans. Put his/her ass in prison and feed them "bursht" for the rest of it's life.
matrix49A 5 months ago
i take our space programs over any body's we do it in the open for the world to see. yep we did some copying in the early days but we did "get it done" for the most part we did it in peace "for all man kind." the other guys did not.
earth2006 5 months ago
Looks just like the 30 year old, now retired US shuttles...Clever folks those Russians...
deetjay1 6 months ago
@deetjay1 Is it clever folks those Russians or is it good copy cats those Russians? Me thinks the latter.
oomblikkies 5 months ago
The Buran is kind of a copy, but by far improved. It's fully automated, it has a capability to deploy double pay load (what you call the fuel tank is actually the rocket Energya, the most powerful rocket on service today, and fully automated like the Buran) and even the solid rocket boosters (1st stage), can have deployable wings so they can land like airplanes (although not used, its simpler to deploy parachutes)
rviegasdesigner 6 months ago
@rviegasdesigner
Ok, so why was it scrapped...?
deetjay1 5 months ago
Comment removed
rviegasdesigner 5 months ago
It was scrapped due to the financial collapse of soviet union, and the change in priorities! The Soyuz rocket is even older than the Buran or the shuttle, and its still used today, even by the americans, since its more effective, payload and cost wise.
The russians still use cork as heat shields, and makes sence, since it cost 1% the ceramic shield and weights less. Why send people or payload in a shuttle if you can send it cheaper by rocket and reentry capsule?
rviegasdesigner 5 months ago
An example of the different way of thinking of russians and americans. In the begining of the space race the americans realized pens would not work in space, since there is no gravity to make the ink flow downwards, so they spent approx. $100.000dollars to develop a pressurized pen... the russians just use pencils! Practicality, my friend, something that always lacked the americans, and mister Korolev had a lot.
rviegasdesigner 5 months ago 2
@rviegasdesigner
Yep...The Soviets were SO "practical" they went bankrupt...What? They couldn't afford "pencils" in space? LOL!
deetjay1 5 months ago
@deetjay1 man, the USA is in the shitter, just yesterday, all the gas stations on the main road in mississauga ran out of fuel due to the escalating war in lybia, get real hindu.....
harris3693 5 months ago
@harris3693
I'm a loyal American...How 'bout you Commie Lover...?
deetjay1 5 months ago
@rviegasdesigner The Soviets used pencils in space because the concept of "ink makes permanent records while graphite does not" escaped them. That's why America uses ink pens in 0 G. Paper "paperwork" in government-related work all require ink for handwritten or hand-signed entries to be considered "official". And your stupid cost cite of $100k is a FALSE yet persistent Urban Legend so GTFO.
RingSight91 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RingSight91 'The Soviets used pencils in space because the concept of "ink makes permanent records while graphite does not" escaped them'
you have your head so deep in your arse it's not even funny.
NosferatuAaacaado 5 months ago
It may look like a copy of Shuttle(after all program was started as response to shuttle program) but from engineering point of view Buran was completely different and superior to space shuttles in many ways. For example:
No external fuel tank (Columbia disaster was not possible with Burans)
Crew evac possible at any stage of flight(even take off)
Burans were improved and better version of space shuttles as Russian engineers knew what's bad with such kind of vechile.
Arwiiss 6 months ago 5
@Arwiiss Isn't that big huge white thing on the back the external fuel tank?
KaTzaNdSTuFf 6 months ago
@KaTzaNdSTuFf Nope, that's just the rocket which brings Buran into orbit.
dziltener 6 months ago
Music in this clip: Space - Magic Fly
michalulman 6 months ago
Great news: This magnificent beast may soon fly once again! The Russian government is looking into possibly reviving the rocket or devising something based on it by 2016.
A86 6 months ago 2
ⓣⓗⓤⓜⓟⓢⓤⓟⓘⓕⓨⓞⓤ©ⓐⓝⓡⓔⓐⓓⓣⓗⓘⓢ
thaier007 6 months ago
The most powerful rocket ever made, no matter if you love or hate Russia that is a sight to behold
NazarovVv 7 months ago
A YOUTUBE VIDEO "UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy"
contains information regarding life beyond earth, statements from
presidents, astronauts, politicians, military, + credible news
footage. The compilation is in regards to life beyond Earth
along with it's current and ongoing presence which is being
hidden from the masses + more.
Futurecop2012E 7 months ago
It's almost cute how the russians don't even seem embarrassed about having a total lack of imagination. The bad news is that their spy network is actually pretty good made most of their technological advances via theft of intellectual property from the Germans and the U.S. It's a decades-long pattern but I suppose they've decided, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Leftfield755 7 months ago
if only Rossiya and Americana can work together, i think that they will bring masses travel to the space sooner!
peterFans 8 months ago
in soviet russia rockets launch you...
adlerzwei 8 months ago
Incredibly, the shuttle landed at an unmanned version.
Shuttle is not controlled from the ground, he flew to the Soviet version of artificial intelligence. During landing, due to side winds, the shuttle itself went to the second run.
MrSrgj 8 months ago 18
Yeah but did this shuttle save the world from a meteor the size of Texas? Didn't think so.
Raajur 8 months ago 3
I agree, i wish it worked it would be much more useful than the current shuttle
spacegeek5 9 months ago
Buran was named in memory of Gagarins death;it is called Snowstorm and he died in a snowstorm...
TheArbiter6695 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuckin' copycats!
elzupelzu 9 months ago
@elzupelzu fuckin stupid !!!!!!
namenone133 9 months ago
@namenone133 Haha!
elzupelzu 9 months ago
Go Russians! Russians > Americans anydayyy.
Hellstenen 10 months ago
@Hellstenen Russians better then Americans! Maybe if they made the shit first for once.
johng669 9 months ago
@johng669 Their culture and attitude is more appealing too.
In my opinion.
Hellstenen 9 months ago
whats that music clip??
ghareebchicago 10 months ago
@ghareebchicago Space - Magic Fly
gxlxn 9 months ago
in a 1v1 this could kick the space shuttle's ass
alexsuchapimp 10 months ago
I think nobody actually knows what russia is really capable of (Only puttin and his general of army). I mean they hide most of their best weapons and technology. The comparison with the USA is ridiculous, imagine a kid kicking and punching a Giant monster. I'm not russian btw i just dont respect those who talk to much and do so little.
speechpessi 10 months ago
@jasper5554 their philosophy is to throw more people into conflict and to try to beat everyone else. it is fact since peter the great, russia has always tried to catch up and best everyone. im not saying it's bad, but why are they always rushing to beat everyone? they should take time to perfect rather than go trial by error.
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
@jasper5554 oh yeah zenit rockets are from russia. they came from the ukraine. all the soviets did was radiate the shit out of that place by not taking necessary safeguards to protect the citizens. you take all sorts of shortcuts to become first. safety is your second priority. and who cares if your nuclear arsenal is bigger. you're gonna end up killing everyone off anyway
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
@jasper5554 yeah and then you send your first astronaut into a shitty test plane only to die. you didnt care about safety or perfection, just to be first. we actually beat you to the moon which was way more impressive. the first people to set foot on another body in space: AMERICANS. SUCK IT. and your country has only been around since 1992. the soviets were another piece of shit country. russia is better.
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
@chillaxer1993 you may have been to the moon first but what are the chances of you getting to mars first hahaha russia will be the first to mars thanks to obama who has killed the american space program and if the soviet union uses shitty test planes etc why does your delta rockets use soviet built rocket engines and you know what they say the engine is the most important piece of a rocket ROFL that would mean the most important part of the delta rocket is soviet hahahahahaha.
Jimbob8971 11 months ago
@Jimbob8971
Yeah, that would be the Atlas V, not any of the Delta Family
And the REAL reason the US uses the Russian engines, and turned the Freedom Space Station the ISS, and basically subsidized the entire Russian space program post-collapse is not because they could not do it themselves, but because they wanted to keep the industry alive and not have all the Soviet rocket scientist heading to China, Iran, and North Korea looking for work.
2007ASpaceOdyssey 10 months ago
@chillaxer1993 sorry, but the person who sent the first object into space is the most impressive, and the Germans did it with v2 test missiles, and that achievement is well documented. Debris from that rocket has been floating around earth since 1944. STFU
retrojazzfish 10 months ago
@retrojazzfish hahaha this is funny. the germans tested their V2's on people. and debris from that rocket would have decayed and re-entered because it was not sent into a very high altitude. so the germans infact used people to test their insidious death machines
chillaxer1993 10 months ago
@jasper5554 yeah, first PEOPLE. robots dont really mean anything. it's easier to send a robot into a hostile environment rather than sending people.
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
Question is if the burans rockets are much better, why hasn't the us got rid of their srb's surely it would make sense?
Lovely shuttle shame it made only the one flight.
huxley309 1 year ago
The Soviets, to their credit, did not further pursue the space shuttle. HUGE waste of money and a design that was flawed from its inception.
RyeOnHam 1 year ago
why do the russians have to copy everything
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
@chillaxer1993 you wrote:"why do the russians have to copy everything"
---------------
based on your logics one can say that all american satelites are copies of those Russian, as Russians were the first to launch a satelite (sputnik) into space...the same goes about manned spaceflights...also first man-made vehicles on Moon, Mars and Venice were Russian as well (just google) - so do you still insist on your type of logics?
arlik100 1 year ago 3
@chillaxer1993 The Russians don't copy everything. Take Sputnik, the first man in space, the first woman in space as three examples. If you wish to be pedantic, most of the US space program is based upon WW2 German ideas and technology. Ever heard of Wernher von Braun?
HeathLedgersChemist 8 months ago 89
@HeathLedgersChemist
Heum, the Russians also got their fair share of Nazi-rocketbuilders you know. Large part of the spacefaring tech we have this day is just based on Nazi tech. And the great ideas of Von Braun and Korolyev
612io 8 months ago
@612io Absolutely agree with you. My comment was neither pro Soviet nor Anti American. I was attempting to get people to actually think.
HeathLedgersChemist 8 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist
The Russians received a few of the best German rocket program scientists after WWII as well. I believe they got a good jump on the jet program as a war spoil. Russian aircraft has to be given credit for good design. No secret on Wernher von Brohn helping the American space program since that was public information unlike the details of the Soviet program. Only recently has Russia spoken about the failures during their early space program. Both have strong programs.
cyclops5276 6 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist
The Russians stole a lot of German scientists too.
youcanhaz 6 months ago
@youcanhaz You have missed the point entirely.
My argument was simply that the Russians simply do not copy everything, and that Americans do not hold some 'moral high ground' on ideas.
I was attempting to get people to think outside of the patriotic box. Obviously a futile endeavour.
HeathLedgersChemist 6 months ago
@youcanhaz Actually you are wrong, the russians got the parts, the americans the scientists, but they didn't succeed reverse engineering the V2 from Von Braun, and a genius rocket scientist called Korolev developed the basis of the russian rocket engine technology, still present today.
The americans are the true copiers, they just took Von Braun, the nazi rocket developer, gave him all the perks and keep using his technology until today.
rviegasdesigner 6 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist And a good portion of german rocket technology was stolen from Robert Goddard an American.
danwild6 5 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist First woman doesn't count; no difference technologically.
ManEatingSharks 5 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist You're right to point out von Braun, without whom the US would surely not have made the moon. He had previously worked on the V2 in Nazi Germany. From what I understand, he had a very strong desire to be in the states following the collapse of Hitler's regime, and even before then, he was a very reluctant participant of Germany's war plans.
strato172 3 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist AND the Russians haven't lost two vehicles and 14 crew in the last 30 years....
dannon2010 2 months ago
@HeathLedgersChemist
Not to say that either the USA or the Russians copy everything, but have you ever heard of Helmut Gröttrup? furthermore the Soviets have had their fair share of tragic accidents, On March 18, 1980 a Vostok rocket exploded on its launch pad during a fueling operation, killing 48 people.
marmaladekamikaze 2 months ago
I always wonder what advantages Buran delivered. Buran is not an autonomous space-plane. It is a payload of the Energija-Rocket. So why use it ? Why not simply load Energija itself with the cargo and not use Buran at all ?
Rubashow 1 year ago
Shame they gave up on it. It had a lot more payload capacity than the U.S. shuttle (though it was a little smaller).
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
Apparently, there's talk in Russia of recomencing a project based on the Buran. I would love to see that. I don't mind who dominates the spaceways, I just want to see humans finaly getting off this planet.
unifiedreality 1 year ago 2
actually Im a retired military officer from Boston...with a master degree in constitutional law..but and Arizona farm sounds inviting...
yankee22167 1 year ago
THEY STOLE THE AMERICAN SPACE SHUTTLE AND JUST PUT TINY MODIFICATIONS TO IT!
the747videoer 1 year ago
@the747videoer Yeah like ENTIRE FLIGHT SYSTEM AUTOMATION you dummie.
Try "improvements" instead of "modifications"
Racerjames666 1 year ago
Why does everything russian look american...lol...humm?
yankee22167 1 year ago
@yankee22167
Cause you're US fatf*ck moron.
Then Shuttle is copy of what? Airoplane? Which airoplane, US or not?
It's based on airoplane, body is different due to different engine, wings are different as they don't have to maneuver that much but needs low aerodynamic drag.
zabijaq123 1 year ago
@zabijaq123 1st of all im not a fat American....im a fitness expert...and 2nd even the russians themseves admitted stealing shuttle, C5, F111, C141, and many other designs...cause they could compete with the American military machine....
yankee22167 1 year ago
@yankee22167
Stealing Shuttle? Taking partial inspiration of design (which is obvious for such concept) is stealing?
If I remember correctly it was MIG-25 that was stolen by US.
zabijaq123 1 year ago
@zabijaq123 Are you drunk on vodka?....the US doesnt have to steal designs from russia...we all know its smoke and mirrors...everything russian is crap.....everytime we get a russian weapon we laugh......I know I was in the military and ive seen alot of them....not ever close to our technology.....hey flight russian commercial planes, instead of Boeing.....good luck
yankee22167 1 year ago
@yankee22167
Bet you're "smart" farmer from Arisona with two information sources - Fox news & church.
It's clear you're never been in military.
I give you free advice, start with buying atlas.
zabijaq123 1 year ago
Unfortunate that the Soviets blewed it up.
tsns1 1 year ago
@tsns1 "Unfortunate the hangar it lived in fell down" more like. Gotta give em credit where credit is due
Racerjames666 1 year ago
Comment removed
tsns1 1 year ago
I was hoping for the AN 225......
JuggernautSoda 1 year ago
What is the difference between American Shuttle and Russian Shuttle, size wise, performance wise etc etc...... Does anyone knows about it?
keepadmiring 1 year ago
@keepadmiring Probably in terms of life support systems that were going to be placed in it
harris3693 1 year ago
@keepadmiring Look it up- There were 5 Buran's, last one was "found" deteriorating (in Central Europe...) & refurbushed to be placed in Museum. Good hunting...
tsns1 1 year ago
I love the Borat music!!!!!!! Kazakstan forever!!!
brentsrx7 1 year ago
russia -good with rocket and plane.. not so good with music and camera
pvtdangles 1 year ago 35
@pvtdangles lol its the 80s men!
juanlmesl 1 year ago
@pvtdangles who cares about that, everyone has there strengths and weaknesses, like americans are great with cars but bad with computers.
harris3693 5 months ago
Doesn't look tooooooooooo much like our Space Shuttle does it? I know that form follows function but did the Soviets ever do anything that wasn't helped by our technology?
49bobbyk 1 year ago
@49bobbyk first of all, we were the first explorers of space :) and actually, your super-mega-extra-sonice civil liner has left only on the engineering pictures comparing to the Tupolev144 and Concorde :)If you would compare Buran and shuttle, there are a bunch of differences!! Even with cover material. They only looks similar visually. But what about your f-15??? Who stole the technology from simillar Soviet plane? :)
Dzyuba3101 1 year ago
@Dzyuba3101
the first "orbiting object" in space was the sputnik, right, but, sorry, the first MAN MADE object in SPACE by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942. The russian and american space program was a punch of german engeneers - on both sides. thats the fact
rgf77 1 year ago
@rgf77: V2 made first SUBORBITAL launch. By all definitions, suborbital orbit which is less than 100km its NOT space.
PS It looks like scientific education is really really bad in your country.
woodielist 1 year ago
Doesn't look tooooooooooo much like our Space Shuttle does it? I know that form follows function but did the Soviets ever do anything that wasn't helped by our technology.
49bobbyk 1 year ago
@49bobbyk ok,not reasonable to disput right now about it, but US was getting technology fromSoviet as well as oviet from US, its for sure!! Th difference was only about money. Get to soviet same budget as US in that times,I beliv the Soviets would go much farther than US,SOviets had a lot of damages with people,politics and resourses after WAR#2 for that time, what wouldnt be said about US... sorry. But I respect such US product like Boeing Civilliners.
Dzyuba3101 1 year ago
15th november 1988, while american shuttles just began to fly after challenger tragedy.
GhostCosmonaut 1 year ago
ロシアのスペースシャトルみたいなのがあることを知ったのは小学生だったと思う。
まぁ、打ち上げとかシャトルの構造とかはスペースシャトルとはまったく違いますからね。
shinomoritaka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
スペースシャトルのロシア版なんだけど、こっちはロケットに全部まかせちゃっているので、シャトルにはロケット機構はついてない。
シャトルがロケットにぶら下がってるだけなんですよね。
shinomoritaka 1 year ago
Comment removed
shinomoritaka 1 year ago
And for the record, I'm not saying that the Russians were too stupid to make a good shuttle, but one thing is certain, the fuels used on the American shuttle produce less greenhouse gases (all the smoke you see when it launches is steam from the sound suppression system). But it was able to be piloted without anyone on board (which is kinda pointless because it would be dead weight) and it was able to hold 5 tons more than the Shuttle at take off & landing (Shuttle = 25 tons, Buran = 30 tons).
phattieg 1 year ago
@phattieg My understanding is that Energia was an all- hydrogen/oxygen system, unlike the Shuttle. It's the Shuttle's solids which produce nasty pollution, unlike the all-hydrogen Energia. Energia/Buran was a huge technological leap, compared even with US and European launchers and spacecraft. It's too bad that the US and Europe did not join the project when Russia's economy collapsed. Once a project stops, it can't be revived as a rule.
awuma 1 year ago
The Soviets had no experience with large solid rocket boosters, but they did have an engine under development at the time that used kerosene and liquid oxygen, which is what it used. They also had very little experience with cryogenic propellants like the ones on the American space shuttle, and also they lacked the ability to make such engines reusable. The lack of reusable engines meant there was no need to carry the main engines aboard the Buran orbiter itself. Source: aerospace[dot]org.
phattieg 1 year ago
@phattieg Nope, Energia/Buran was all-LOH, not kero. Instead, Russian kero motors have ended up on the US Atlas 5 launcher, and they have an astonishingly long life (perhaps they could be used as reusables).
awuma 1 year ago
@awuma You might want to read wikipedia about the fuel used. There was no tank able to hold the LOH fuel (as is the case with the shuttle). This is taken from wikipedia "The boosters used liquid propellant (kerosene/oxygen). The Space Shuttle's boosters use solid propellant." This information can be found at "en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Buran_program".
phattieg 1 year ago
@phattieg Actually, we're both half-right :-) Look up Wikipedia re "Energia" and you'll see that the boosters were kero (my bad), the core was LOH (hence big central tank). The boosters have developed into the Zenit and the Atlas V motors I mentioned.
awuma 1 year ago
@awuma I don't know about that, you might want to re-read it, because the big tank was for the "boosters" as well as the "main engines". The info I found on wikipedia mentioned nothing about LOH, or any oxygen related fuels being used, as mentioned before, because the Russians had no experience with LOH engines at the time it was made, and that was mentioned in the article.
phattieg 1 year ago
@awuma Oh, and the big tank is directly connected to the "boosters", unlike the US shuttle, which has 3 separate pieces. And with the shuttle, the solid rocket boosters were segmented because of the way they are delivered. The trip from the manufacturer forced them to segment them due to constraints with the trip. But in Russia, their country is more interconnected, so the trip never goes over water (if I remember correctly, this is why the SRB's are segmented)
phattieg 1 year ago
@phattieg Even when it flew, the LOX/LH2 aspect was widely publicized (which is why I thought it was all-LH2). Look up "Energia" with Google and go to the the English-language wikipedia entry. There is even a page on the RD-0120 LOX/LH2 main engines. It really is too bad that Energia was cancelled, but it does appear that its technology lives on, though scaled down.
awuma 1 year ago
in soviet russia, shuttle fly you
theCookieMonster9999 1 year ago
Energia=the world ever strongest machine (even the american Saturn-5). But now Russia can't continue the soviet projects legacy
italokid80 1 year ago
i heard they contracted with Rockwell to make this,
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
The Fail (ed) shuttle.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101 It was very nice spacecraft.
kosiak10851 1 year ago
It was very nice spacecraft. It's sad to not use it again.
AhmetAlegoz 1 year ago
What an original idea!
sidewalkpilot 1 year ago
Russia autopilot is good !
interflug 1 year ago 3
So did the Russians copy the blueprints bolt by bolt of America's space shuttles?
propbraker 1 year ago
@propbraker basically.
350z350zify 1 year ago
@propbraker Hardly. While they may look the same, the technology is vastly different on the inside.
Anonymous5125 1 year ago 3
@propbraker No. It is like saying that all planes are the same.
zebooka 1 year ago
@zebooka I don't think so...just look at it, you can't say it doesn't look like US space shuttles. Just take a look at the new Russian stealth fighters, the damn thing looks just like f-22 Raptors.
propbraker 1 year ago
@propbraker not really. Not just the U.S. had the idea of a reusable so to speak spaceship.
DrunkenDriverStudios 1 year ago
heyh there! Great video! Does anyone know what music that is? sounds cool!
TheNkonkolo 1 year ago
Hey, Tuckyman, temper, temper! That your points stink shouldn't result in profanity. You closet communists know swearing causes warts...like the one on the tip of your nose. Anyway, it was incumbent on the Soviets to prove Buran went into orbit. These video clips don't prove any such thing. The launch clip is far too short and the landing clip clearly shows a landing of some sort at the wrong time; that is, around noon. So, where's real proof? Perhaps your nose wart is blocking the view of it?
Plutoplatter 1 year ago
Comment removed
Plutoplatter 1 year ago
Maybe a shame, but probably not. The Soyuz rocket is ancient, small, but incredibly reliable rocket system. It has been around since the pre Apollo area and continues to be used pretty much identical today. When the Shuttles retire, we will be sending our Astronauts into orbit in Russia by the Soyuz system.
Love the Shuttles, watch them lift off from my front yard here in Daytona Fl, but I have to respect the everlasting Soyuz.
vulpixgrant 1 year ago 2
It's a shame that Buran project was abandoned. Itw ould be a great leap forward to have 2 countries with spaceplane capabilities.
Arkanista 1 year ago 3
Biggest UAV in the world.
inf11 1 year ago 35
These video clips do not affirm Buran made it into orbit. Proof: the landing shadowing is nearly overhead, indicating 12 noon. Two orbits at 90 minutes each, plus another 30 minutes for the landing glide, puts the launch at about 8:30 AM. But launch took place that morning in darkness. So the very latest launch could have occurred was 6:30 AM. This two-hour gap indicates the Soviets lied. Likely Buran failed to reach orbit, and the landing video is of a routine airplane-dropped landing test.
Plutoplatter 1 year ago
You're fucking retarded, you know that right? You're gonna base your whole conspiracy-theory argument on a low-quality YouTube video? Because you see a shadow under a landing space shuttle? Baikonur is in the Northern hemisphere, the sun is NEVER directly overhead, and noon is not necessarily when it's at it's highest. How do you know in what direction it's landing? You assume it's heading due North? What time does the sunrise in mid-November in Kazakhstan? You have no clue, you dumb fuck.
TuckmanJiggityJones 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sovietski shuttle weak. CCCP weak.
bigbobbydahmer 1 year ago
Comment removed
ptkovsky 1 year ago
bigbobbydahmer, может и "weak", зато он сам сел на полной автоматике с минимальным отклонением. Шаттл этого никогда не делал.
Danz359 1 year ago
@Danz359 Шаттл, на самом деле садится на полной автоматике. Некоторые функции ручного управления, как выпуск шасси, дается пилотам по запросу астронавнов. :)
syeager9 1 year ago
ほっとにブランには今一度宇宙開発で
再開して欲しいですよね
MTTAU 1 year ago
It run on ferment potato.
cincye 2 years ago
pretty crazy...I never knew it existed...
wareagle7298 2 years ago
Beats the American Space Shuttle by a lot, hope they revitalize the program.
slobhinav 2 years ago
She doesn't beat the Shuttle other than the power of Energia. US orbiters can do everything unmanned too, but haven't taken that option. Given Buran came back badly damaged and was unlikely she'd never fly again with a bent airframe, it wasn't a massive success. The tradegy of the roof collapsing killed the program, but there's no way they'd bring it back as there's too much money involved.
Tim733733 2 years ago
@Tim733733 Actually Tim. The Buran was a much better spacecraft than the Shuttle. It used Zenit boosters instead of solids which makes it much safer during the initial boost phase if something goes wrong. Energia could throw 100mT to orbit and the stack could launch without an orbiter to haul cargo. It could lift the entire mass of the ISS in only 3 launches which is much better than the 30 Space Shuttle missions going at $1 billion a pop.
rjholling 1 year ago 46
@rjholling sorry friend but that is not correct information. It used Kerosine and oxygen gas mix in the main tank
Lifeisincredible911 1 year ago
@rjholling that, and since it had no engines in the shuttle itself (except the thrusters for maneuvering), it had more space. and, of course, it can fly with NO PILOT, which is useful for space station supply runs. Let's see Discovery do that. (:
macfanofgi 9 months ago
@macfanofgi Just because something can get autonomously launched into space and low orbit doesn't mean it's "useful for space station supply runs". Just like Discovery, this Buran would have needed human control for the delicate maneuvering required for a space dock. Tell us, if Soviet orbiter AI was so "good", how come Soyuz craft weren't all "automatic" to ferry cosmonauts to and from Salyut and Mir? :P
RingSight91 5 months ago
@rjholling Sir how can you know that it was better than shuttle when just 1 unmanned orbiter ever ran (+models)? From history lessons in Challenger & Columbia, orbiters are different vehicles now than they used to be, even in the 80's. I don't know about your assessment that Buran could carry 30x the payload of shuttle. Most of the early RFP's show a need for a cargo variant to be drawn up, mated to stack and they have these designs. If you're interested in this stuff, Jenkins 100 Mission book.
awesomeapproved 9 months ago 3
@awesomeapproved You are right, awesome.. Nothing but cheap talk. The American shuttle was a success, whereas the Russian shuttle..oh right... they went out of business.
StellarBlue1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Modellpecs 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StellarBlue1 But only because the collapse of CCCP. ;) Buran can bring up 4 times more weight than space shuttle, and able to land with 10 ton more. Its heat protection can take more heat than space shuttle. Fully automatic. Also Its engines can be stopped anytime. Wonder if Chalanger had this... Buran also equiped with ejection system. CCCP had run out of cash. But it does not means that it was not a total succes.
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@rjholling if its so amazing why isnt it used
william899332 9 months ago
@william899332 amen. they talk big shit, but the Russian "shuttle" was never in service..that is why it is so darn good...a perfect record..0. , zero, none, nada. The Buran and Soviet Union on the trash heap of History....
StellarBlue1 8 months ago
@rjholling really? o.O :)
nomad18psycho 9 months ago
@rjholling You sir, are talking out of your ass. Easy to say the Buran was "a much better spacecraft" than the American shuttle. Those are pretty big, fat words to eat for a "Better Spacecraft" that was never, ever, even put into service. I am not American, but they deserve the credit for a "Successful, complete, shuttle system". It worked, and it worked for years. Where is this Buran?? Gone with the wind and the Soviet Union....
StellarBlue1 8 months ago 4
How so? It only logged three hours and had no pilots on board. Add the fact that russia never followed thru with this project only shows that it failed.
fiveoscar 1 year ago
Russia did not follow through with the project because it was too costly as their economy was exponentially hurtling downhill after the worst event of the 20th century, the collapse of the Soviet Union.
slobhinav 1 year ago
I agree that's ONE of the reasons.
fiveoscar 1 year ago
@slobhinav No... that was a great breakthrough when the USSR colapsed. Now russia is finally a free supernation.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 I dont think so,It was super powerful country(iunion) but badly about it was that it was lead by few persons,enslaving people and bringing illusion of freedom.
Artegr4 1 year ago
@slobhinav Nop,Im kinda russian and i think shuttle is better
Artegr4 1 year ago
@Artegr4 then you are able to compare eggs to apples.
bunhuelito 1 year ago