133 successful flights which was on autopilot into orbit all the time for the last 30 years. Thanks to Gyro's for those successful flights, not the Astronauts. Why didn't Enterprise or Columbia go up manless for the 1st time? Because we need Hero's in front of the camera and real lives to motivate people to want to do that too. It's for show! Russians never did things for show, but for competition to show the United States they can do it with or without man present on Buran. Lives are valuable
@fitzpatrickgf lives and valuable in the same sentence as russia. lol. anyways, back to topic, dont really have a lot of info on the Burna but it appears the launch went correctly. So did almost of all Nasas projects too, with exception to Challenger and Columbia, however, god knows what would have happened to the astronauts on Burna, if you would have let it have 100 liftoffs
Why the Russian never use this kind of shuttle anymore?, instead Russia does their space missions with the Soyuz type rocket. I know that Soyuz might be safer but this one looks "conventionally" cool.
I think the US and Russians should join forces and just let the Russians run the space program period. They were very innovative with ideas in engineering and I find it even more amazing they launched it unmanned. I knew for years the US shuttle can be flown unmanned, but it would take away the ego of the astronaut, if the public knew they were just hanging on the for the ride just monitoring systems. They couldn't do anything if something catastraphic took place. 2 US shuttles were proof.
@fitzpatrickgf Seriously? The ego of the astronaut?? Its all well and good to fly a space shuttle into space unmanned, but your missing the point. How do you then carry out activities in space? ie working on the ISS, if you have no crew up there? Buran was unmanned because it was the first *test* flight, the fact that it was just testing the flight, meant they didnt need crew. So basically - your entire point is invalid and short sighted.
@ADEdge The Russians were not going to put the lives of their cosmonauts in danger during the first launch because they were unsure of the outcome. Most of US astronauts know they are going on a suicide mission just like the Astronauts knew during their first launch of Columbia. What if the Rocket Booster O rings failed and the Shuttle Blew up or the Foam from the fuel tank broke off and struck the leading edge of the wing causing a catastrophic failure. Safety for Lives 1st before Ego.
Yes, u mentioned the 2 failures there, but forgot to mention the 133 successful flights (plus the 5 test flights of enterprise). Basic math tells you that the chances of a successful shuttle flight thoughout its history was >98.5%. Understand that and you will see that astronauts would not be thinking that a launch was on par with suicide. Do you think that Russia planned to have 0 crew for ALL of their future launches if Buran went ahead!?
@ADEdge would you go on a flight that had a 1.5% risk of failure? - sure, the shuttle was going into space, still NASA's first job was to make sure the astronauts were safe, and it response the AStronauts would bring back valuable info. Anyways, I would not fl y to, lets say, the U.S if I knew there was a 1.5% risk of death
@maisler Flying overseas is a bit different to flying into space. Its obviously going to be more of a risk flying into space. If your saying that space flight should be as safe as flying overseas then your an idiot, thats just not realistic.
And yes I would go on a shuttle flight with 1.5% risk of failure. I think what your not realising is that these astronauts had balls, and they got their jobs done even tho it was risky and didnt sit around crying over such a fact.
@ADEdge Easy for you talking about balls, saying that you would go into space, I bet you would chicken out. Still, NASA can't be saying that we are willing to sacrifice people for the sake of exploration. Sure the astronauts were aware of risk but that doesn't justify it. The space shuttle was not as safe as the option, of a rocket capsule, which is what is going to be used in the future. THe shuttle had major flaws, and that can not justify the loss of people. You are not as tough as you think
Great idea placing the main engines in the Energia, instead of in the orbiter. I've always wondered why NASA keeps on using those SRBs If they can use LH/LOx during the whole takeoff, like the Buran.
I've also heard that the "Energia Stage" is recovered after launch, somehow, making it an actual fully-reusable launching sistem.
Only the strap-on boosters (1-st stage) were supposed to be reusable (but in the first flights the containers for the recovery parachutes were filled with telemetry equipment). The core (2-nd stage) was designed for single use (even though its engines were allowing several reuse cycles).
o Energiya usa combustível líquido, já o sistema propulsor americano usa foguetes de combustível sólido nos momentos iniciais do lançamento. depois usa oxigenio com hidrogenio (que ficam armazenados naquele grande tanque laranja) que se queimam nos motores do onibus espacial.
acho que esse é o motivo da sua observação, que achei bem interessante.
The US shuttle uses solid fuel. The Soviets preferred liquid fuel. There is one small advantage: if a booster is faulty, they can shut it off to prevent a blowout. With solid fuels, you can't do anything but wait for it to burn up completely. Sadly, Buran is gone. The storage hangar collapsed a few years ago, destroying the shuttle.
I've made some researches, and discovered that burand didn't hava any engines for take of. In fack she was considered a cargo for the Energiya rocket system.
In my opinion Buran was mutch beter then the US space shuttle.
in a shape of a plane, so could fly in the surface, with delta wings so could fly over the sound barrier, with ceramic coat to support re-entry in the atmosphere without burn, with a big compartment so could carry satellites and wide payloads.
it's not about the aspect, it's just logical shape.
but inside, its very different, with some better aspects.
Nice Videos! Come and visit the International Space Agency (ISA) youtube site. Just click on this user to go to the ISA youtube site! Ad-Astra! To The Stars! In Peace For All Mankind!
133 successful flights which was on autopilot into orbit all the time for the last 30 years. Thanks to Gyro's for those successful flights, not the Astronauts. Why didn't Enterprise or Columbia go up manless for the 1st time? Because we need Hero's in front of the camera and real lives to motivate people to want to do that too. It's for show! Russians never did things for show, but for competition to show the United States they can do it with or without man present on Buran. Lives are valuable
fitzpatrickgf 1 month ago
@fitzpatrickgf lives and valuable in the same sentence as russia. lol. anyways, back to topic, dont really have a lot of info on the Burna but it appears the launch went correctly. So did almost of all Nasas projects too, with exception to Challenger and Columbia, however, god knows what would have happened to the astronauts on Burna, if you would have let it have 100 liftoffs
maisler 6 days ago
Comment removed
fitzpatrickgf 5 days ago
ikr the space shuttles look so much better than the old fashion ones
CaptainSn0wMan 1 month ago
Why the Russian never use this kind of shuttle anymore?, instead Russia does their space missions with the Soyuz type rocket. I know that Soyuz might be safer but this one looks "conventionally" cool.
Izkzmach 2 months ago
I think the US and Russians should join forces and just let the Russians run the space program period. They were very innovative with ideas in engineering and I find it even more amazing they launched it unmanned. I knew for years the US shuttle can be flown unmanned, but it would take away the ego of the astronaut, if the public knew they were just hanging on the for the ride just monitoring systems. They couldn't do anything if something catastraphic took place. 2 US shuttles were proof.
fitzpatrickgf 6 months ago
@fitzpatrickgf Seriously? The ego of the astronaut?? Its all well and good to fly a space shuttle into space unmanned, but your missing the point. How do you then carry out activities in space? ie working on the ISS, if you have no crew up there? Buran was unmanned because it was the first *test* flight, the fact that it was just testing the flight, meant they didnt need crew. So basically - your entire point is invalid and short sighted.
ADEdge 1 month ago
@ADEdge The Russians were not going to put the lives of their cosmonauts in danger during the first launch because they were unsure of the outcome. Most of US astronauts know they are going on a suicide mission just like the Astronauts knew during their first launch of Columbia. What if the Rocket Booster O rings failed and the Shuttle Blew up or the Foam from the fuel tank broke off and struck the leading edge of the wing causing a catastrophic failure. Safety for Lives 1st before Ego.
fitzpatrickgf 1 month ago
@fitzpatrickgf Again, seriously??
Yes, u mentioned the 2 failures there, but forgot to mention the 133 successful flights (plus the 5 test flights of enterprise). Basic math tells you that the chances of a successful shuttle flight thoughout its history was >98.5%. Understand that and you will see that astronauts would not be thinking that a launch was on par with suicide. Do you think that Russia planned to have 0 crew for ALL of their future launches if Buran went ahead!?
ADEdge 1 month ago
@ADEdge would you go on a flight that had a 1.5% risk of failure? - sure, the shuttle was going into space, still NASA's first job was to make sure the astronauts were safe, and it response the AStronauts would bring back valuable info. Anyways, I would not fl y to, lets say, the U.S if I knew there was a 1.5% risk of death
maisler 6 days ago
@maisler Flying overseas is a bit different to flying into space. Its obviously going to be more of a risk flying into space. If your saying that space flight should be as safe as flying overseas then your an idiot, thats just not realistic.
And yes I would go on a shuttle flight with 1.5% risk of failure. I think what your not realising is that these astronauts had balls, and they got their jobs done even tho it was risky and didnt sit around crying over such a fact.
ADEdge 5 days ago
@ADEdge Easy for you talking about balls, saying that you would go into space, I bet you would chicken out. Still, NASA can't be saying that we are willing to sacrifice people for the sake of exploration. Sure the astronauts were aware of risk but that doesn't justify it. The space shuttle was not as safe as the option, of a rocket capsule, which is what is going to be used in the future. THe shuttle had major flaws, and that can not justify the loss of people. You are not as tough as you think
maisler 5 days ago
Great idea placing the main engines in the Energia, instead of in the orbiter. I've always wondered why NASA keeps on using those SRBs If they can use LH/LOx during the whole takeoff, like the Buran.
I've also heard that the "Energia Stage" is recovered after launch, somehow, making it an actual fully-reusable launching sistem.
Is that true?
eMobster 2 years ago
The Energia was projected to be fully reusable, but due to cuts in founds, never got the reusable version finished.
Nasa's rocket engines are reusable, the fuel tank is disposed to burn in the atmosphere.
Andersonbmx 2 years ago
Only the strap-on boosters (1-st stage) were supposed to be reusable (but in the first flights the containers for the recovery parachutes were filled with telemetry equipment). The core (2-nd stage) was designed for single use (even though its engines were allowing several reuse cycles).
gadinaaa 2 years ago
amazing power !
DERZWERGE11 3 years ago
cool
britishareawesome69 3 years ago
Russians use a diferent rocket fuel? Whi it doesn't make smoke after the lift-off.
Os Russos usam um combustível diferente? Por que os foquetes deles não fazem tanta fumaça depois da decolagem?
cristianomaddog 3 years ago
o Energiya usa combustível líquido, já o sistema propulsor americano usa foguetes de combustível sólido nos momentos iniciais do lançamento. depois usa oxigenio com hidrogenio (que ficam armazenados naquele grande tanque laranja) que se queimam nos motores do onibus espacial.
acho que esse é o motivo da sua observação, que achei bem interessante.
Andersonbmx 3 years ago
Certo.
Ele usa combustível liquido nos foguetes laterais então. Isso porque ele não tem motores principais como o americano certo?
cristianomaddog 3 years ago
The US shuttle uses solid fuel. The Soviets preferred liquid fuel. There is one small advantage: if a booster is faulty, they can shut it off to prevent a blowout. With solid fuels, you can't do anything but wait for it to burn up completely. Sadly, Buran is gone. The storage hangar collapsed a few years ago, destroying the shuttle.
starlionblue 2 years ago
Thats verry sad.
I've made some researches, and discovered that burand didn't hava any engines for take of. In fack she was considered a cargo for the Energiya rocket system.
In my opinion Buran was mutch beter then the US space shuttle.
cristianomaddog 2 years ago
@cristianomaddog the SRBS on the US shuttle burn what is essentially rubber, hence the smoke (think tire smoke).
A lot of the initial "smoke" at launch can also be steam from the water sound / fire / both supression system.
Fuelling for launchers varies wildly. Smoke or no Smoke, you can bet your arse there is fire :)
edocronian 1 year ago
@edocronian Thanks for the information! Never thought that all that initial "smoke" (or steam right?) was due the supression system.
About the fire, I defenetly agree with you! :D
cristianomaddog 1 year ago
They copied from the American model.
spacerazer 3 years ago
no, they did someting logical.
in a shape of a plane, so could fly in the surface, with delta wings so could fly over the sound barrier, with ceramic coat to support re-entry in the atmosphere without burn, with a big compartment so could carry satellites and wide payloads.
it's not about the aspect, it's just logical shape.
but inside, its very different, with some better aspects.
Andersonbmx 3 years ago 12
@spacerazer ofc they copied it but they had to due to the size and weight of the new pieces they had to add to the space station
CaptainSn0wMan 1 month ago
Nice Videos! Come and visit the International Space Agency (ISA) youtube site. Just click on this user to go to the ISA youtube site! Ad-Astra! To The Stars! In Peace For All Mankind!
isadashhqdotcom 3 years ago
What a beautiful spacecraft!
For mother Russia!
barbamonde 4 years ago 12