@StellarBlue: I'm afraid your assertion that Buran came before the U.S. shuttle is at best wildly inaccurate, and at worst, an attempt at historical revisionism.
Buran was built in response to the U.S. Shuttle program, and copied the general plan form of the U.S. vehicle out of a misunderstanding of the shuttle's primary mission. The Soviet Union was afraid the U.S. would use its vehicle as a nuclear bomber, and as a result, designed their vehicle in kind.
Notice how long the nose gear is? That simple difference is the way this thing was able to take off from ground level unlike the US shuttle. (Besides the jet pods of course)
@mishgun420 you think youre free in USA? your democracy-is ideology like communism. But you havent got iron curtain around your country. You have a cage in your head.
Actually aerodynamically it's way better than the shuttle, it could actually fly is you attach engines to it, the shuttle only glides... like a brick I might add
@NazarovVv After 30 years of flying into space with our STS's, we are finally retiring them. Where is the Buran? How many successful trips to space has it performed? Russia has created many great things to enhance out knowledge of space flight/ travel. The Buran is NOT one of them.
@jonesy97 Sorry I might might have expressed myself wrong there. I do not wish to deny in any way the giant leaps in technology made by space shuttle which is by all means an American invention some 20 years after the first human to fly in space. What I meant was that the Buran was simply better designed aerodynamically even though it was a rip off, and the project didn't fail because of Buran itself but due to political and financing issues. And from today's perspective I'm glad it did
@NazarovVv You say 'the project didn't fail because of Buran itself but due to political and financing issues'. Is it not exactly the same reason why the shuttle was moth balled? I dont belief the Shuttles were too old - some of them had as few as only 12 trips to the ISS. Remember the Shuttles were not flying for a long time.
@StellarBlue1 I seriously adore the way you start insulting despite the fact that I did not say once that the shuttle was bad or a failure. Because it wasn’t, true enough it didn’t live up the NASA’s expectations but it was a major technological advancement. Such a defensive behavior from you could indicate two things, you either doubt its (the shuttle’s) qualities yourself or you are so twisted by the “let’s bash the other” Youtube mentality that you posted without giving it much thought.
Buran would have been awsome to have had fly. With a pair of workhorses like Buran and the shuttle, we would have been years ahead of what we are now. Possibly double the missions, more than double the research, and more than double the progress to this point in time. Oh well, what could have been.
The best thing that came from Buran program is Energia rocket because unlike US shuttle Energia could fly pure cargo missions without the dead weight of the shuttle bringing 100 t of cargo to orbit in single launch. Unfortunately the facilities to build Enegia was left to decay and ressurecting Energia these days would mean starting pretty much from scratch. Were the Energia available ISS could be built in 4 - 5 missions for a fraction of the cost.
Agree. The Energia, in fact the whole Buran package, was a brilliant system, and had a lot of flexibility. I have a lot of respect for the Soyuz system as a rugged, proven and very effective solution for what it does, but for the kind of tasks needed to expand our presence in space we would be a lot better off the Buran for heavy work, with the Soyuz filling in as a literal "shuttle" for crew swaps etc. I don't have much faith in NASAs solutions. ATM, they are taking us backward, not forward.
@LoveMeLoveMyDog80 Why do you say they are taking us backwards when the whole idea of having a large shuttle like the current US ones and the old Buran were simply to obit the earth. It would be impossible to fuel something as large as either the shuttle or Buran to the moon and then have it return with enough fuel to slow itself down to a level that it won't disintegrate on re-entry. I would say that what was before the shuttle was more advanced than the shuttle.
@LoveMeLoveMyDog80 Why do you say they are taking us backwards when the whole idea of having a large shuttle like the current US ones and the old Buran were simply to obit the earth. It would be impossible to fuel something as large as either the shuttle or Buran to the moon and then have it return with enough fuel to slow itself down to a level that it won't disintegrate on re-entry. I would say that what was before the shuttle was more advanced than the shuttle.
Just stinking/thinking. Would I like go on the space shuttle flight? 10 years ago I would say YES without any hesitation. Now I just don't care. Not that I am afraid, I just don't care. But I would take a chance to fly to the moon or mars, if anyone will invite me, But it it will never happen. Child dreams.
What's I find interesting is Russian test program. They had to make retractable landing gear and put the jet engines so it can take off by itself. This kind of screws up the balance. But I guess it can be compensated. US only tested landings in glider mode when shuttle was released from the carrier plane. Also the landing gear don't have any retraction mechanism. They just drop down under the force of gravity.
Lmao russians are and were better, get some information dumbass, NASA is closing its part of space entering, and the russians are the only people who have a shuttle to get into outer space
I agree ! Did u no NASA Spent millions of dollars on some pen that could write in space, and the Russians used a pencil, and it worked ! :D I luv the Russians :D
And i think the american space shuttle in many ways is more advanced than the buran that is my opinion just like you gave yours thank you very much!!!!
@manoman0 Yes, it was really advanced. With a minor difference. It didn't have any life support systems. So it couldn't carry people. US Space Shuttle is fully automated too. It can fly land by itself as well. As far as I know some human intervention was a compromise, so the crew won't feel like test monkeys. The only action space shuttle pilots have to do is to give the command to extend the landing gear, so they won't feel completely useless.
@manoman0 Actually it's true. I read a lot about the shuttle program in the past and it was mentioned many times that human involvement is reduced to the minimum. They only allow pilots to interfere during not critical phases of flight. However, all pilots are trained to land shuttle manually. This only applies to the final stages just before landing.
@manoman0 Moron? I think it's more than that. Sure, moron can fly this thing until the shit hits the fan. And it hit the fan 2 times. Unfortunately there was nothing pilots could do. Pilots can return to base until "no return" is called. They can land the shuttle manually when it deorbits and reach normal atmospheric flight. Otherwise, they are at the mercy of onboard comuters.
Then why did the soviets have to build a space shuttle of thier own for if the americans already had it first to begin with knowing the construction was not a secret???????
At the time...the 80's, the Cold War was still going strong. America was planning not an "International" space station, but an American one...with help from certain NATO countries. The Warsaw Pact was standing ready to build a Soviet space station.
very smart comment dude.... Space race is over for more 30 years.
It is a great video, I didn't knew they have installed additional engines on the orbiters!!! Too bad the mankind did not benefit from more shuttle all these years.
Shuttle was a pinnacle, dude - not the bonus cash that a defense contractor is getting us for taking us back to the sixties. Why go back to the moon? Because George Bush missed it on TV.
The U.S. needs to stay on the top of things.Not let another nation move ahead of us.Then again america has been to the moon 6 times so Mars should be our next mission.Bush just likes his fudge to be packed hard and heavy...lol
With all due respect, I don't believe that Buran is finished. Now that Russia is coming out of its economic depression and cooperating with the European Space Agency, several top engineers within both the Russian and European Space Agency have proposed reviving Buran as a possible future shuttle for the International Space Station. A couple of the shuttles are still salvageable and the Energia rocket is just too efficient to give up on. Unlike Americans, Europeans hate wasting good engineering.
Shuttle is a real "success", names like Atlantis come to mind. No wonder Buran was shut down, we Russians are very careful with the lives of our cosmonauts, unlike the yankos.
Ofcourse, yanks would have no conventional lift capability at all, if they didn't whine and beg to get our RD-180 engines.
SovietJoy-ior, you need medication. You argue for technical superiority of Buran (despite its having no successful, useful fights whatsoever), then you argue for moral superiority of the Soviet Union because the Buran was garbage. With a self-contradicting debating partner like you, who needs crackpots?
also how about than: US Shuttle was disigned to fly about 100 times for each machine while actualy they did about 26 each, lost 2 of them and retire in 2010
Buran has comletely different concept
you should research on it first before you say something
also Buran halted because of political and economical reasons only not because of technical bugs
Actualy-wrong againMarshallJukov.Ohhhh Buran could lift off under it's own power oh and ohhhh Buran did fully automatic flights while shuttle can not.....Simply another defeat for the american space program.Wait what was that how many times did the soviets put a man on the moon it was like 6 times i think......Yeah go ahead and compare that to your Buran any day my russian friend!!!!
Answer is simple - Americans NEVER was on the moon - plain and simple - there is tonnes of reasons - and it is not about fake videos and photoes. It is mostly about parameters of Saturn V and faulty F1 engine - that ALWAYS exploded at full throttle. Do you know what it means? As for moon - we sent drones - this is cheaper and more effective - who pictures dark side first? Who made moon-maps? If you compare SCIENTIFIC heritage of our moon missions - you will be surprised.
@MarshallJukov I just saw this reply. Shuttle actually can take off and land automatically. I know, I worked on its flight software. Buran was in fact a copy of the Shuttle; I studied it.
@zebooka Buran was an almost identical copy of Shuttle's aerodynamic shape. Rather than compute the best geometry, they just took NASA's work. But the rest of Buran was better than Shuttle in almost every respect. Half the cost, safer engines, better computers, heavier payload.
@Odo987 I have to say that russians are better in aerodynamics. I don't believe they copied NASA's work. There are many differences, which are making Buran superior to NASA shuttle. You can see on buran.ru website.
@ZangLangVang And sometimes (actually most times) the solutions to common problems are very much convergent. And both the Americans and the Russians would have faced very similar problems to each other when undertaking space travel, so its not surprising that things look similar.
@Odo987 The Buran aerodynamics are not copied from the Shuttle. In fact the whole process of Buran aerodynamic design was approached in a different manner, as we see here with the descent testing. The looks are superficially similar as form follows function (see TU-144 and Concorde), but the two craft are very different in both design philosophy and execution.
I agree, in the USA spaceships there should be a german flag, Von Brawn, and many other germans did the hard work, and then the USA took the credits. Personally I liked more the russian technology, they just made things simplier, less complicated and just made it worked.
Buran should have an American flag on the tail since the shuttle design and idea is originally from the USA. Russia also reaped the benefits of WWII with German technology. Most modern Russian fighter jets are based on old 70's and 80's US design. get your facts correct commie comrade.
less complicated? They made the soyus spacecraft. One of the most complicated spacecraft exept apollo. Almost 30 engines! The russians had big problems when they developed it. Many of the test launch were firecrackers. Soyus: 30 two steps
If the russians had put this Buran in service the accidents would be greater. And apollo fire that occured in the capsule is better than the hole spacecraft blowing up with the same results.
russians are more mechanical minded people than americans it is not a surprise they made the first human space travel americans are good on copying and experimenting things specially from germans(the biggest benefit of the W.W.II was the technology they achieved from germans but they are not good engineers as russians or germans and even itallians and french
Was that Buran or one of the sister ships?? I know they had at least 2 "test ships" for jet powered flight tests (one of the test ships is in Gorky Park and you can see the other one on Google Earth right near the hanger with the collopse roof)
@Zoomer30 You know, NASA really had balls to send the first manned shuttle out to space. Never tested. It just says something about the confidence in their technology. And it didn't fail. Russians would never do something like this. They would rather send a couple of dogs there first, or fly unmanned.
@Zoomer30 In Baykonoor you can see space ship 1.02 that was finished by 95% and was going to make automatic docking with space station Mir. (it never happened). There were several test ships built and five for space flights (one complete, second 95%, third by half (2.01 version you can go to wiki and check it - it is in Moscow too like 0.01 test ship) and others were only started).
Both wrong: Soviet N1 was the most powerful as far as I know: 30 NK-33 engines on the first stage. Total: 6120 tons of thrust, equal to 60016.7kN, almost twice as the 33360 kN of thrust for Von Braun's Saturn V.
The rocket failed after launch on it's 4 attempts, but it is the most powerfull rocket that has ever lifted off.
Hmmm... According to wikipedia, n1's (H1) payload was to be (never succeeded) 90ton (metric I assume) to the orbit of 200km (per ru.wikipedia) or 75000kg to LEO in general (per english version).
sources vary, of course, but the most favorable comparison for the Saturn V gives N1 about 10000kN of advantage, while the most favorable for N1 gives it almost 40000kN of advantage) Too bad that korolev died before completing the design...
[THIS WAS FIRST] Hey, you might want to check this site out:w3.russianspaceweb com/n1.html very good information on N1 Rocket and most of soviet and Russian projects. I would say that payload is not an accurate way to determine the power of the engines of a rocket. In fact, the force that pushes it up can be verified, and in every document you read you can find that lift-off thrust was much more on the N1 than on the Saturn V
There's explanation: latitude of Kennedy spce center is ~25 while Baikonur is at ~45. I didn't calclulate, but this makes big difference in payload per trust ratio.
Very good point: as you go near the ecuator you need much less force to push up a rocket. It is remarkable that the russians not only did almost all the "first" of space exploration, but they did it harder than their USA (german to be accurate) counterpart.
Yes the Russians have a better Space Shuttle than the Americans. I wish they would continued the Buran prgram from 1988, it was and is still the most powerful rocket ever built and the American's haven't even come close to it.
I love the Buran shuttle, it was designed to do what no other space ship could do and the Russian's know how just to make things work, better than the American's as I am an American and I think our NASA space program stinks.
The americans have a better shuttle than the Buran and the russians still have not even come close to it.Also you are no american you peice of shit no american talks shit about his own country ever you loser!!!!!!!!
Actually the Buran has several design characteristics that made it better (Safer) then the US shuttle. One that it was made completely out of Titanium which meant that it did not need heat tiles. It also was capable of having it's complete re-entry and landing sequence controlled by computer.
See you still had to say the russians had a better design than the americans did.Are you some rocket expert?.The american space shuttle is better far better end of story you are starting to bore the hell out of me!!!!!
The funny thing is... You don't even realize that your responding to someone completely different then to whom you originally got into a pissing match with.
I bet your just some old geezer that has nothing else better to do then to sit and wave the American flag for no other reason then to get attention.
If you dish it out you best be prepared to get it back otherwise do not start your own pissing match with me how do you think im gonna respond when someone calls me an idiot or a geezer with nothing else better to do that kind of bullshit pisses me off and in kind i will respond back to you and tell you how it is otherwise don't respond to comments if you can't deal with the truth!!!!!!!!!!
What the fuck is your problem then?????.I for one do not like people talking shit about america just like you would not like people talking shit about russia it fucking pisses me off in a major way and i do not fucking like the bullshit mud slinging back and forth it is getting so fucking old.I do not need professional help it is you that needs to be on meds i just defend myself so what the fuck is your problem then?????
Your just defending yourself. LOL!!! You wouldn't have to defend yourself if you didn't put yourself in this position by opening your mouth.. I don't know WHO you think your actually responding to any more. For one.. I am NOT Russian, and I couldn't give a shit one way of the other what anyone says about ANY country, as long as they can back it up with facts.
All's I was doing was pointing out aspects of the Buron Shuttle that where technically superior to the US space shuttle.
@bphendri Technically superior is a long shot answer. There are many aspects to it. Russian shuttle was launched by the completely disposable rocket. So there is no real benefit, besides the ability to bring the shit, like American spy satellites back to Russia. US Shuttle program was based on the maximal reusability and money savings. But I should say that it never really worked. On the long run, the cost of the space shuttle flights exceeded the most conservative estimates.
It is YOU who got their panties in a wrinkle and started spewing nonsenseical rhetoric just because you precieved the statements to be against America.
Stop drinking the kool-aid for just a moment, and go out and buy a clue. It's people like you that gives the United States such a low opinion in the world.
i love america was the first space shuttle on a 747 jumbo jet place is the best in the world..i am NOT interesting ussr russia buran shuttle on a plane..ussr russia is always COPY COPY STEAL STEAL from america alot..ussr russia is very cheat, very shame, and NOT to learning at all..fromLT. russian planes are better than USA planes. Russia - GO!!! AMERICA PLANE IS BETTER THAT USSR RUSSIA..G4331. May God bless the Soviet Torah! NAH..GOD IS NOT BLESS USSR RUSSIA SOVIET..GOD LOVE THE WORLD, PERIOD
Did you use an English translator? Cause thats fairly broken English...
And, LT, the new Russian Tank is going to be better then American Tanks, but planes? Maybe in the 70s... But, no, not anymore. The American Military, Airforce, and Navy is FAR superior. Our nuclear arsenal may be smaller as well, but the majority of it is based in submarines, which means a Russian first strike could not destroy our launch positions, so... We have a superior Nuclear strike program as well.
Ok, so you think that the Russians don't have missiles on nuclear submarines? Haha! That's the reason you loose your wars, because you under-estimate your enemy. Take a look: In the late 70's they had the Typhoon class submarine, each one carrying 20 SLBM with 10 independent nuclear warhead each. As to the year 2000 the Russian navy operated 2.272 nuclear warheads on 26 strategic nuclear subs... It is well known that Russian missiles are the most advanced on the world. Check your facts(continues
(continuation) Oh, and on the aircraft topic, the only thing americans could be proud of was stealth, unlucky, the Russians had come out with a system based on plasma that can pull most of their actual aircraft out of any radar without the restrictions of shaped and material based stealth technology. Just wait to see the upcoming Burei class submarine, carrying 12 bulava SLBM. Not to mention the new warhead tested (may 29) on a RS-24 missile (continues)
Wow the Bulava is some high tech SLBM it has failed on several test launches if i was a russian it be something not to be so proud of would you agree!!!!!!!
(final part) capable of targeting indepently 10 different targets, maneuver on reentry and carry decoys. Unstoppable for any ABM shield in existence or to come for the next 20 years at least. Consider also that the first anti ballistic missile successfully tested was a soviet one, back in 1961... 23 years later the americans could test their first ABM weapon in 1984... hahaha facts sweet facts I love facts (singing, of course) well I wouldn't want to be on the USA when the war starts. Muahahaha!
I would not want to be on the russian side when war starts for them.Facts facts facts boy do i love facts....Muahahaha.You are not very educated are you asshole!!!!!!!
It doesn't thats a TEST version. This version only has jet engines on it, so they can get up high and turn off the engines to practice landing for the real one.
@StellarBlue: I'm afraid your assertion that Buran came before the U.S. shuttle is at best wildly inaccurate, and at worst, an attempt at historical revisionism.
Buran was built in response to the U.S. Shuttle program, and copied the general plan form of the U.S. vehicle out of a misunderstanding of the shuttle's primary mission. The Soviet Union was afraid the U.S. would use its vehicle as a nuclear bomber, and as a result, designed their vehicle in kind.
Avindair 4 months ago
Notice how long the nose gear is? That simple difference is the way this thing was able to take off from ground level unlike the US shuttle. (Besides the jet pods of course)
greenseaships 5 months ago
If that program was to be well funded the ISS would be twice its current size.
meteor4163 7 months ago
In Soviet Russia bricks are flying=)
Cannabis47 8 months ago
@Cannabis47 in soviet russia people like r used as slave labor for slandering the good name of communism :)
mishgun420 8 months ago
@mishgun420 you think youre free in USA? your democracy-is ideology like communism. But you havent got iron curtain around your country. You have a cage in your head.
Cannabis47 8 months ago
Actually aerodynamically it's way better than the shuttle, it could actually fly is you attach engines to it, the shuttle only glides... like a brick I might add
NazarovVv 8 months ago
@NazarovVv After 30 years of flying into space with our STS's, we are finally retiring them. Where is the Buran? How many successful trips to space has it performed? Russia has created many great things to enhance out knowledge of space flight/ travel. The Buran is NOT one of them.
jonesy97 8 months ago
@jonesy97 Sorry I might might have expressed myself wrong there. I do not wish to deny in any way the giant leaps in technology made by space shuttle which is by all means an American invention some 20 years after the first human to fly in space. What I meant was that the Buran was simply better designed aerodynamically even though it was a rip off, and the project didn't fail because of Buran itself but due to political and financing issues. And from today's perspective I'm glad it did
NazarovVv 8 months ago
@NazarovVv You say 'the project didn't fail because of Buran itself but due to political and financing issues'. Is it not exactly the same reason why the shuttle was moth balled? I dont belief the Shuttles were too old - some of them had as few as only 12 trips to the ISS. Remember the Shuttles were not flying for a long time.
oomblikkies 6 months ago
Comment removed
StellarBlue1 5 months ago
@StellarBlue1 I seriously adore the way you start insulting despite the fact that I did not say once that the shuttle was bad or a failure. Because it wasn’t, true enough it didn’t live up the NASA’s expectations but it was a major technological advancement. Such a defensive behavior from you could indicate two things, you either doubt its (the shuttle’s) qualities yourself or you are so twisted by the “let’s bash the other” Youtube mentality that you posted without giving it much thought.
NazarovVv 5 months ago
Comment removed
StellarBlue1 5 months ago
Comment removed
StellarBlue1 9 months ago
@StellarBlue1 Are you JOKING?!? The Buran came before the American Space Shuttle you ignorant bafoon!
ScientificExploits 5 months ago
@ScientificExploits You are off by seven years, so you're kind of the bafoon.
agnostoman 5 months ago
Comment removed
StellarBlue1 5 months ago
@ScientificExploits Yes, the Buran was indeed a response to the Space Shuttle. Exploits, you are mistaken.
CosmicDamian 5 months ago
this could have been so good dropted a bollock there russia
701shep 9 months ago
Now that's something I've never seen before....
pelicane136 11 months ago
Buran would have been awsome to have had fly. With a pair of workhorses like Buran and the shuttle, we would have been years ahead of what we are now. Possibly double the missions, more than double the research, and more than double the progress to this point in time. Oh well, what could have been.
mattmk84 1 year ago 4
The best thing that came from Buran program is Energia rocket because unlike US shuttle Energia could fly pure cargo missions without the dead weight of the shuttle bringing 100 t of cargo to orbit in single launch. Unfortunately the facilities to build Enegia was left to decay and ressurecting Energia these days would mean starting pretty much from scratch. Were the Energia available ISS could be built in 4 - 5 missions for a fraction of the cost.
SkyyCaptainn 1 year ago 4
Agree. The Energia, in fact the whole Buran package, was a brilliant system, and had a lot of flexibility. I have a lot of respect for the Soyuz system as a rugged, proven and very effective solution for what it does, but for the kind of tasks needed to expand our presence in space we would be a lot better off the Buran for heavy work, with the Soyuz filling in as a literal "shuttle" for crew swaps etc. I don't have much faith in NASAs solutions. ATM, they are taking us backward, not forward.
LoveMeLoveMyDog80 1 year ago
@LoveMeLoveMyDog80 Why do you say they are taking us backwards when the whole idea of having a large shuttle like the current US ones and the old Buran were simply to obit the earth. It would be impossible to fuel something as large as either the shuttle or Buran to the moon and then have it return with enough fuel to slow itself down to a level that it won't disintegrate on re-entry. I would say that what was before the shuttle was more advanced than the shuttle.
silversynth 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoveMeLoveMyDog80 Why do you say they are taking us backwards when the whole idea of having a large shuttle like the current US ones and the old Buran were simply to obit the earth. It would be impossible to fuel something as large as either the shuttle or Buran to the moon and then have it return with enough fuel to slow itself down to a level that it won't disintegrate on re-entry. I would say that what was before the shuttle was more advanced than the shuttle.
silversynth 10 months ago
@SkyyCaptainn That is something of a recurring theme in the Soviet successor states.
LoveMeLoveMyDog80 10 months ago
Just stinking/thinking. Would I like go on the space shuttle flight? 10 years ago I would say YES without any hesitation. Now I just don't care. Not that I am afraid, I just don't care. But I would take a chance to fly to the moon or mars, if anyone will invite me, But it it will never happen. Child dreams.
syeager9 1 year ago
What's I find interesting is Russian test program. They had to make retractable landing gear and put the jet engines so it can take off by itself. This kind of screws up the balance. But I guess it can be compensated. US only tested landings in glider mode when shuttle was released from the carrier plane. Also the landing gear don't have any retraction mechanism. They just drop down under the force of gravity.
syeager9 1 year ago
Man, I bet this thing had a high approach and landing speed. Yikes.
Chuckjagermeister 1 year ago
Hmm, design looks vaguely familiar...almost like I've seen it before...
danieldeibler 1 year ago
It just took off in this video!!!! Watch the beginning!!!
charger19691 1 year ago
I've never seen footage of a shuttle taking off like an airplane. Did any US shuttle ever do this??? I cannot recall.
charger19691 1 year ago
@charger19691 no. it can't take off like an airplane. not designed for that.
cenriqueortiz 1 year ago
Thats great, a shuttle taking off. Made my day! You don't see that very often
ramhoves 2 years ago
We've lost this project. It's so sad.
RealZom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
CCCP is weak. Sovietski people eat stale bread and have no toilet paper.
bigbobbydahmer 2 years ago
Guess what you'll be doing in a couple of years.
streetstream 2 years ago
isnt that just a huge glider?
( i dont mean a toy, i mean isnt built to glide)
harjinder14 2 years ago
No, it isn't a glider. Not with those small wings.
streetstream 2 years ago
but look at the smooth surface on the bottom of it, i am not sure, i was just thinking
harjinder14 2 years ago
@streetstream As soon something is getting lift from wings and has no engines it is a glider, even if it is a very bad one.
toddi1971 1 year ago
@toddi1971 Falling out of the sky isn't gliding in my book.
streetstream 1 year ago
Lmao russians are and were better, get some information dumbass, NASA is closing its part of space entering, and the russians are the only people who have a shuttle to get into outer space
danmcdonalds 2 years ago
Actuakky, China have one too !
adamkeam 2 years ago
I agree ! Did u no NASA Spent millions of dollars on some pen that could write in space, and the Russians used a pencil, and it worked ! :D I luv the Russians :D
adamkeam 2 years ago
Have you seen, how Buran look now?
jarinjar 2 years ago
Shut up rog!
execk2 2 years ago
I think the BURAN was in many ways more advanced than the Space Shuttle.
manoman0 2 years ago 40
And i think the american space shuttle in many ways is more advanced than the buran that is my opinion just like you gave yours thank you very much!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
would be worth finding out.....
manoman0 2 years ago
@manoman0 Yes, it was really advanced. With a minor difference. It didn't have any life support systems. So it couldn't carry people. US Space Shuttle is fully automated too. It can fly land by itself as well. As far as I know some human intervention was a compromise, so the crew won't feel like test monkeys. The only action space shuttle pilots have to do is to give the command to extend the landing gear, so they won't feel completely useless.
syeager9 1 year ago
@syeager9 - LOL. Thanks for your entertaining yet funny info. Lovely...hahaha! Cheers!
manoman0 1 year ago
@manoman0 Actually it's true. I read a lot about the shuttle program in the past and it was mentioned many times that human involvement is reduced to the minimum. They only allow pilots to interfere during not critical phases of flight. However, all pilots are trained to land shuttle manually. This only applies to the final stages just before landing.
syeager9 1 year ago
@syeager9 - so, basically, a moron could fly that thing?
manoman0 1 year ago
@manoman0 Moron? I think it's more than that. Sure, moron can fly this thing until the shit hits the fan. And it hit the fan 2 times. Unfortunately there was nothing pilots could do. Pilots can return to base until "no return" is called. They can land the shuttle manually when it deorbits and reach normal atmospheric flight. Otherwise, they are at the mercy of onboard comuters.
syeager9 1 year ago
The USSR didn't "steal" anything. The shape is governed by areodynamics.
Also, the building plans are readily available from NASA...the construction isn't a secret.
Some people are just conspiracy nuts.
GangrelLondon 2 years ago
Then why did the soviets have to build a space shuttle of thier own for if the americans already had it first to begin with knowing the construction was not a secret???????
rog197236 2 years ago
At the time...the 80's, the Cold War was still going strong. America was planning not an "International" space station, but an American one...with help from certain NATO countries. The Warsaw Pact was standing ready to build a Soviet space station.
GangrelLondon 2 years ago
i love america space shuttle is the best plane in the world,,,
i dont like ussr russia buran,,,
ussr russia is a very cheap space buran shuttle,,,
ussr russia is always copy steal from america space shuttle
bestamerica 2 years ago
very smart comment dude.... Space race is over for more 30 years.
It is a great video, I didn't knew they have installed additional engines on the orbiters!!! Too bad the mankind did not benefit from more shuttle all these years.
caiustanasie 2 years ago
Alright bestamerica finally someone who has made an educated comment.I like this guy!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
The engines are a cheaper way to test descent and landing, rather than actually using a rocket full of fuel!
Great video!
musico81986 2 years ago 18
"Yeah, well, we'll build our own shuttle! With JET ENGINES on the freakin' sides!" Too bad it got crushed :(
MattExzy 2 years ago
It would be a deserved "in your face" to NASA if russians put up viable heavy lift reusable space plane while we in the US go back to capsules.....
hypoxichyrax 2 years ago
Very lame and uneducated comment you just made.Go wave your little dick somewhere else.....
rog197236 2 years ago
you must work for boeing!
Shuttle was a pinnacle, dude - not the bonus cash that a defense contractor is getting us for taking us back to the sixties. Why go back to the moon? Because George Bush missed it on TV.
hypoxichyrax 2 years ago
The U.S. needs to stay on the top of things.Not let another nation move ahead of us.Then again america has been to the moon 6 times so Mars should be our next mission.Bush just likes his fudge to be packed hard and heavy...lol
rog197236 2 years ago
its sad that Buran is no more
SeXeHRD 3 years ago
SeXeHRD,
its sad that Buran is no more
yes that is good for NO more buran,,,
i dont want ussr russia join america space shuttle at all
bestamerica 2 years ago
With all due respect, I don't believe that Buran is finished. Now that Russia is coming out of its economic depression and cooperating with the European Space Agency, several top engineers within both the Russian and European Space Agency have proposed reviving Buran as a possible future shuttle for the International Space Station. A couple of the shuttles are still salvageable and the Energia rocket is just too efficient to give up on. Unlike Americans, Europeans hate wasting good engineering.
A86 3 years ago
Shuttle is a real "success", names like Atlantis come to mind. No wonder Buran was shut down, we Russians are very careful with the lives of our cosmonauts, unlike the yankos.
Ofcourse, yanks would have no conventional lift capability at all, if they didn't whine and beg to get our RD-180 engines.
SovietWarrior 3 years ago
SovietJoy-ior, you need medication. You argue for technical superiority of Buran (despite its having no successful, useful fights whatsoever), then you argue for moral superiority of the Soviet Union because the Buran was garbage. With a self-contradicting debating partner like you, who needs crackpots?
Plutoplatter 3 years ago
WTF are you talking about
no succesful flight?
Get some education first and do some research
also how about than: US Shuttle was disigned to fly about 100 times for each machine while actualy they did about 26 each, lost 2 of them and retire in 2010
Buran has comletely different concept
you should research on it first before you say something
also Buran halted because of political and economical reasons only not because of technical bugs
MarshallJukov 3 years ago
i have a lot of respect for russian aerospace engineers, lots of great work. but the buran was a copy of the shuttle.
cenriqueortiz 3 years ago
Actualy - nope. First before Buran and Shutle USSR had Spiral
Also Buran is not simply a shuttle - it is a system - Buran-Energia
Energia heavy rocket can be used separately from shuttle and lift off any payload - while shuttle uses its own engines to lift off
Here - read info here.
buran. ru/htm/molniya. htm
Also Buran capable and did fully auomatic flights while Shuttle can not.
MarshallJukov 3 years ago
Actualy-wrong againMarshallJukov.Ohhhh Buran could lift off under it's own power oh and ohhhh Buran did fully automatic flights while shuttle can not.....Simply another defeat for the american space program.Wait what was that how many times did the soviets put a man on the moon it was like 6 times i think......Yeah go ahead and compare that to your Buran any day my russian friend!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
Answer is simple - Americans NEVER was on the moon - plain and simple - there is tonnes of reasons - and it is not about fake videos and photoes. It is mostly about parameters of Saturn V and faulty F1 engine - that ALWAYS exploded at full throttle. Do you know what it means? As for moon - we sent drones - this is cheaper and more effective - who pictures dark side first? Who made moon-maps? If you compare SCIENTIFIC heritage of our moon missions - you will be surprised.
MarshallJukov 2 years ago
@MarshallJukov USA went to the moon. Russians didn't. That is a fact. Conspiracy theories.
cenriqueortiz 1 year ago
@cenriqueortiz
Sorry but USA did NOT went to the moon)) It is proven by hundreds of obvious facts))
Want me to give you a tip?
MarshallJukov 1 year ago
@MarshallJukov I just saw this reply. Shuttle actually can take off and land automatically. I know, I worked on its flight software. Buran was in fact a copy of the Shuttle; I studied it.
cenriqueortiz 1 year ago
@cenriqueortiz How could Buran be a copy if they (Buran
and Space Shuttle) have different engines? Buran had no flight engines, only maneuver ones. Also Shuttle has fuel tank and SRB, while Buran is
launched by giant reusable rocket Energia with 4 Zenit engines.
Also systems are of course different.
What is the same? That they have/had airplane designs? Or what?
zebooka 1 year ago 3
@zebooka Buran was an almost identical copy of Shuttle's aerodynamic shape. Rather than compute the best geometry, they just took NASA's work. But the rest of Buran was better than Shuttle in almost every respect. Half the cost, safer engines, better computers, heavier payload.
Odo987 1 year ago
@Odo987 I have to say that russians are better in aerodynamics. I don't believe they copied NASA's work. There are many differences, which are making Buran superior to NASA shuttle. You can see on buran.ru website.
ZangLangVang 1 year ago
@ZangLangVang And sometimes (actually most times) the solutions to common problems are very much convergent. And both the Americans and the Russians would have faced very similar problems to each other when undertaking space travel, so its not surprising that things look similar.
pubuman 11 months ago
@Odo987 Er....not really a copy, it was simply a case of convergent solutions to common problems...
pubuman 11 months ago
@Odo987 The Buran aerodynamics are not copied from the Shuttle. In fact the whole process of Buran aerodynamic design was approached in a different manner, as we see here with the descent testing. The looks are superficially similar as form follows function (see TU-144 and Concorde), but the two craft are very different in both design philosophy and execution.
LoveMeLoveMyDog80 10 months ago
Inquiry does ultimately trump tub-thumping ignorance. But hey, what do I know? I'm just an A&P.
whizbang47 3 years ago
Is this the exact Buran Shuttle that is just being transported up the river Rhine to the Technik Museum in Speyer/Germany?
I saw it this morning in Bonn.
Salzwiesenbahn 3 years ago 2
Salzwiesenbahn,
Rumour has it that 5 Buran space shuttles have been build..One of them flew in space twice around the world and landed back on earth..
..All by remote control..
frankyspeaker 3 years ago 2
Yeah, that´s richt, but this is the one with the jet-engines...
But I guess tere´s no way finding out.
Thanx for your reply!
Salzwiesenbahn 3 years ago
Salzwiesenbahn,
This one was used for static tests and never flew..Buran's jet engines where used for the Ariane V..
frankyspeaker 3 years ago
Odd seeing one lift off horizontally like a normal airplane.
BTW buran in someways improved on the STS orbiter in that it's RCS used non toxic propellants this made ground handling a lot easier and safer.
Membrane556 4 years ago
I agree, in the USA spaceships there should be a german flag, Von Brawn, and many other germans did the hard work, and then the USA took the credits. Personally I liked more the russian technology, they just made things simplier, less complicated and just made it worked.
henaor21 4 years ago
Buran should have an American flag on the tail since the shuttle design and idea is originally from the USA. Russia also reaped the benefits of WWII with German technology. Most modern Russian fighter jets are based on old 70's and 80's US design. get your facts correct commie comrade.
troyx0 4 years ago
If you really want to be specific on who copied who, then we all copied nature directly, I'm referring to the shape of a bird's wing.
LOTIL62 4 years ago
haha
pycckij85 4 years ago
haha
pycckij85 4 years ago
USA had the most benefit from the german scientists! get your facts correct uncle sam!
joachim2464 4 years ago
you stupid, I dare you to post a video with a US Shuttle lifting off like the Buran... without exploding, of course.
wackokicker 3 years ago
You do know Russia has had more spacecraft accidents right?
theredraven 3 years ago
not lately, at least not fatalities.
wackokicker 3 years ago
less complicated? They made the soyus spacecraft. One of the most complicated spacecraft exept apollo. Almost 30 engines! The russians had big problems when they developed it. Many of the test launch were firecrackers. Soyus: 30 two steps
Apollo 12 engines 5 steps. Hard to judge.
joachim2464 4 years ago
Hey, the russians are still using it, and it works. Unlike the space shuttle. 2 blew themselves up already
petem1989 3 years ago
6 soyus spacecrafts failed at launch ( exploded) back in the 1950 <1960
joachim2464 3 years ago
and Apollo 1 caught fire
petem1989 3 years ago
If the russians had put this Buran in service the accidents would be greater. And apollo fire that occured in the capsule is better than the hole spacecraft blowing up with the same results.
joachim2464 3 years ago
russians are more mechanical minded people than americans it is not a surprise they made the first human space travel americans are good on copying and experimenting things specially from germans(the biggest benefit of the W.W.II was the technology they achieved from germans but they are not good engineers as russians or germans and even itallians and french
yaslimarti 4 years ago
Was that Buran or one of the sister ships?? I know they had at least 2 "test ships" for jet powered flight tests (one of the test ships is in Gorky Park and you can see the other one on Google Earth right near the hanger with the collopse roof)
Zoomer30 4 years ago
That's only an 'atmosferic' version. Only for test pourposes. Powered with jets.
vixmoa 4 years ago
@Zoomer30 You know, NASA really had balls to send the first manned shuttle out to space. Never tested. It just says something about the confidence in their technology. And it didn't fail. Russians would never do something like this. They would rather send a couple of dogs there first, or fly unmanned.
syeager9 1 year ago
@syeager9 Actually no. First our flights were veery risky.
Buran could do its first flight in manned mode, but auto system was already done and working good. So government decided it to do auto flight.
zebooka 1 year ago
@Zoomer30 In Baykonoor you can see space ship 1.02 that was finished by 95% and was going to make automatic docking with space station Mir. (it never happened). There were several test ships built and five for space flights (one complete, second 95%, third by half (2.01 version you can go to wiki and check it - it is in Moscow too like 0.01 test ship) and others were only started).
zebooka 1 year ago
>most powerful rocket ever built
Not true: Saturn V's payload was 129 ton, while Energia's ~100 ton
ikatsman 4 years ago
Both wrong: Soviet N1 was the most powerful as far as I know: 30 NK-33 engines on the first stage. Total: 6120 tons of thrust, equal to 60016.7kN, almost twice as the 33360 kN of thrust for Von Braun's Saturn V.
The rocket failed after launch on it's 4 attempts, but it is the most powerfull rocket that has ever lifted off.
barbamonde 4 years ago
Hmmm... According to wikipedia, n1's (H1) payload was to be (never succeeded) 90ton (metric I assume) to the orbit of 200km (per ru.wikipedia) or 75000kg to LEO in general (per english version).
BTW, it has comparison of n1 vs. Saturn-5...
Check your math or engine spec. sources ;)
(N1 rocket)
ikatsman 4 years ago
sources vary, of course, but the most favorable comparison for the Saturn V gives N1 about 10000kN of advantage, while the most favorable for N1 gives it almost 40000kN of advantage) Too bad that korolev died before completing the design...
barbamonde 4 years ago
[THIS WAS FIRST] Hey, you might want to check this site out:w3.russianspaceweb com/n1.html very good information on N1 Rocket and most of soviet and Russian projects. I would say that payload is not an accurate way to determine the power of the engines of a rocket. In fact, the force that pushes it up can be verified, and in every document you read you can find that lift-off thrust was much more on the N1 than on the Saturn V
barbamonde 4 years ago
There's explanation: latitude of Kennedy spce center is ~25 while Baikonur is at ~45. I didn't calclulate, but this makes big difference in payload per trust ratio.
ikatsman 4 years ago 2
Very good point: as you go near the ecuator you need much less force to push up a rocket. It is remarkable that the russians not only did almost all the "first" of space exploration, but they did it harder than their USA (german to be accurate) counterpart.
barbamonde 4 years ago
You mean Russian(German to be dead accurate) counterpart idiot!!!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
Yes the Russians have a better Space Shuttle than the Americans. I wish they would continued the Buran prgram from 1988, it was and is still the most powerful rocket ever built and the American's haven't even come close to it.
I love the Buran shuttle, it was designed to do what no other space ship could do and the Russian's know how just to make things work, better than the American's as I am an American and I think our NASA space program stinks.
Ckott/ Scott
CCCP/ USSR
oxforduniversity 4 years ago
The americans have a better shuttle than the Buran and the russians still have not even come close to it.Also you are no american you peice of shit no american talks shit about his own country ever you loser!!!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
Actually the Buran has several design characteristics that made it better (Safer) then the US shuttle. One that it was made completely out of Titanium which meant that it did not need heat tiles. It also was capable of having it's complete re-entry and landing sequence controlled by computer.
bphendri 2 years ago
See you still had to say the russians had a better design than the americans did.Are you some rocket expert?.The american space shuttle is better far better end of story you are starting to bore the hell out of me!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
You sir... Are an idiot!
bphendri 2 years ago
You sir...Are a dumb ass!.Drop the bullshit already you are not going to get the last word!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
The funny thing is... You don't even realize that your responding to someone completely different then to whom you originally got into a pissing match with.
I bet your just some old geezer that has nothing else better to do then to sit and wave the American flag for no other reason then to get attention.
bphendri 2 years ago
If you dish it out you best be prepared to get it back otherwise do not start your own pissing match with me how do you think im gonna respond when someone calls me an idiot or a geezer with nothing else better to do that kind of bullshit pisses me off and in kind i will respond back to you and tell you how it is otherwise don't respond to comments if you can't deal with the truth!!!!!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
Dude... What the fuck is your problem? Might I suggest professional help?
bphendri 2 years ago
What the fuck is your problem then?????.I for one do not like people talking shit about america just like you would not like people talking shit about russia it fucking pisses me off in a major way and i do not fucking like the bullshit mud slinging back and forth it is getting so fucking old.I do not need professional help it is you that needs to be on meds i just defend myself so what the fuck is your problem then?????
rog197236 2 years ago
Your just defending yourself. LOL!!! You wouldn't have to defend yourself if you didn't put yourself in this position by opening your mouth.. I don't know WHO you think your actually responding to any more. For one.. I am NOT Russian, and I couldn't give a shit one way of the other what anyone says about ANY country, as long as they can back it up with facts.
All's I was doing was pointing out aspects of the Buron Shuttle that where technically superior to the US space shuttle.
bphendri 2 years ago
@bphendri Technically superior is a long shot answer. There are many aspects to it. Russian shuttle was launched by the completely disposable rocket. So there is no real benefit, besides the ability to bring the shit, like American spy satellites back to Russia. US Shuttle program was based on the maximal reusability and money savings. But I should say that it never really worked. On the long run, the cost of the space shuttle flights exceeded the most conservative estimates.
syeager9 1 year ago
It is YOU who got their panties in a wrinkle and started spewing nonsenseical rhetoric just because you precieved the statements to be against America.
Stop drinking the kool-aid for just a moment, and go out and buy a clue. It's people like you that gives the United States such a low opinion in the world.
Don't worry Obama will save you from yourself!
bphendri 2 years ago
i love america was the first space shuttle on a 747 jumbo jet place is the best in the world..i am NOT interesting ussr russia buran shuttle on a plane..ussr russia is always COPY COPY STEAL STEAL from america alot..ussr russia is very cheat, very shame, and NOT to learning at all..fromLT. russian planes are better than USA planes. Russia - GO!!! AMERICA PLANE IS BETTER THAT USSR RUSSIA..G4331. May God bless the Soviet Torah! NAH..GOD IS NOT BLESS USSR RUSSIA SOVIET..GOD LOVE THE WORLD, PERIOD
bestamerica 4 years ago
Did you use an English translator? Cause thats fairly broken English...
And, LT, the new Russian Tank is going to be better then American Tanks, but planes? Maybe in the 70s... But, no, not anymore. The American Military, Airforce, and Navy is FAR superior. Our nuclear arsenal may be smaller as well, but the majority of it is based in submarines, which means a Russian first strike could not destroy our launch positions, so... We have a superior Nuclear strike program as well.
xxTRAVINxx 4 years ago
Ok, so you think that the Russians don't have missiles on nuclear submarines? Haha! That's the reason you loose your wars, because you under-estimate your enemy. Take a look: In the late 70's they had the Typhoon class submarine, each one carrying 20 SLBM with 10 independent nuclear warhead each. As to the year 2000 the Russian navy operated 2.272 nuclear warheads on 26 strategic nuclear subs... It is well known that Russian missiles are the most advanced on the world. Check your facts(continues
barbamonde 4 years ago
(continuation) Oh, and on the aircraft topic, the only thing americans could be proud of was stealth, unlucky, the Russians had come out with a system based on plasma that can pull most of their actual aircraft out of any radar without the restrictions of shaped and material based stealth technology. Just wait to see the upcoming Burei class submarine, carrying 12 bulava SLBM. Not to mention the new warhead tested (may 29) on a RS-24 missile (continues)
barbamonde 4 years ago
Wow the Bulava is some high tech SLBM it has failed on several test launches if i was a russian it be something not to be so proud of would you agree!!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
(final part) capable of targeting indepently 10 different targets, maneuver on reentry and carry decoys. Unstoppable for any ABM shield in existence or to come for the next 20 years at least. Consider also that the first anti ballistic missile successfully tested was a soviet one, back in 1961... 23 years later the americans could test their first ABM weapon in 1984... hahaha facts sweet facts I love facts (singing, of course) well I wouldn't want to be on the USA when the war starts. Muahahaha!
barbamonde 4 years ago
I would not want to be on the russian side when war starts for them.Facts facts facts boy do i love facts....Muahahaha.You are not very educated are you asshole!!!!!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
russian planes are better than USA planes. Russia - GO!!!
fromLT 5 years ago
May God bless the Soviet Torah!
G4331 5 years ago
american planes are better thab russian planes America - go!!!
rog197236 2 years ago
Its an analogue version of the Buran 1.01
Essentially the same. Engines are mounted 4 degrees above horizon to allow take off and test flights.
Has same C.O.G as 1.01.
TheBlackSupra 5 years ago
It doesn't thats a TEST version. This version only has jet engines on it, so they can get up high and turn off the engines to practice landing for the real one.
flargo 5 years ago
Wow, it's the first video I see from a flying test Buran.
georgH 5 years ago