Have you heard about the "Cold War"? Then Russia and the US competed in the superiority and made plans to destroy the enemy. Now everything in the past and thank God.
Scratching my head over this one. The Soviets land all their space capsules on land while we land them in the sea. The Soviets actually build a space PLANE and where do they land it??
space shuttles are extremely good usable as weapon platforms in space. You just opening the cargo hold, shoot a missile, than you change course to a different orbit level and fire another. No one could count where they'll hit, and so fastly, that even anti-ballistic missiles can't react.
But like I said earlier, this bickering about who's nations rocket is better is pointless. The Soyuz is Cheaper and safer. The shuttle is more capable. Pros and Cons. But spaceflight and exploration of the cosmos is an international effort now. It's not "us" versus "them" anymore, it's just "us" working towards the advancement of our kind, the human race. People may have drawn imaginary border lines on the Earth's surface, but there is only one Earth, and one human race.
@gruhland What do you mean? Going to the space like this was Russian idea. Way before the moon landing... Also if they copy than how come that it 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. If you copy something, than it is supposed tu be the same or a bit whorst...
@Modellpecs All Space Shuttles had the ability to cut power to their engines if their computers found faults in them. (Search STS-51F, I think.) Challenger's disaster was due to an O-ring failure on one of the Solid Rocket boosters that went undetected.
All shuttles also had a sort of 'ejection system'.The sad thing is that the cockpit ejected with such force that it caused the astronauts to either black out,or prevent them from using their emergency gear.
@anzin74 All shuttles did NOT have an ejection system. Only the first couple missions had them. They were dumped as the were unfeasible and every 100lbs added to the flight deck moved the shuttles CG forward 1/2 inch.
@Puff29646 Thanks for the info. Were all the Shuttles built with detachable cockpits? I've read that during the breakup of Challenger, the cockpit managed to separate itself from whatever remained of the orbiter in one piece.
@anzin74 No. They were not designed to separate. The reason the flight deck and mid deck stayed in tact is because structurally it is one of the strongest parts of the orbiter.
@anzin74 Don't say that someone is stupid, when you are. Tell me, how can a rocket be stopped with solid fuel? It is only possible with liquid fuel. I also think that my last sentence was smart in a way. It did caught your attention also. The fact that you don't see the point, is not my fault.
@Modellpecs If so, you need to CHOOSE your words more carefully.You said 'engines', & by saying THAT, you're speaking of the Shuttle's main engines, NOT its SRBs.Furthermore,I never implied that YOU are stupid, but your SENTENCE was. "If you copy something, than it is supposed tu be the same or a bit whorst..." The way you stated this sentence was as if it were a rule of thumb.I'm not going to bother explaining why it's ridiculous because the damn character limit will stop me from saying why.
@anzin74 Ok fine.... As my English is not my mother language, i think it is quite acceptable that i make mistakes on written English. Also saying that a "sentence is stupid" how can a sentence be stupid? There is always someone behind the sentence, so it is not about the sentence... You made a mistake by saying stupid. Take it then, as a man! Don't try to gloss it over. The point i tried to make is still the same. Buran is not a copy. It is way ahead of shuttle. Too bad that no money to use it..
@Modellpecs The Buran WAS a copy. I could send you a link if you'd like.
And since you see it that way, I apologize for using the word 'stupid'. No personal insults were meant, I was just appalled at what you said. You're implying that a copy of anything HAS to follow the rule of it needing to be 'the same or a bit whorst'. I am at no disagreement at the fact that the Buran was superior in certain aspects, but it still doesn't mean it wasn't a copy of the Shuttle.
@anzin74 Well, you can't do much with design of shuttle, it's same with planes. Airplanes look similar and shuttles too.. Energiya launch system is way different then the STS one and it's superior. But to be honest, both russian and american shuttle programs have failed, they never achieved to be cheap way of sending man and cargo to space.
@anzin74 It is ok . I think we got to a point, where no need to continue arguing. I can't make you think what I think, but i do not really want to. Fontomovsky wrote down the point.
@anzin74 The cockpit didn't eject them, since 1. there wasn't an ejection system (it got disabled in about STS-2 and removed later) and 2. they didn't wear pressure suits and would have died anyway in that height.
And no, you can't stop solid rockets - they burn with full power until they're empty.
@Modellpecs Russia has a tradition of copying military and other Tech. The T-34 was an improved Sherman tank, the SKS was an improved cheaper copy of a German StG 44, the Tupolev Tu-4 bomber was an exact Russian copy of a Boeing B-29 Superfortress,The P-51 was copyed and called YAK-9, the F-22 is Sukhoi T-50,along with the shuttle and many more things.By letting other countries design something Russia can sometimes build better and cheaper tech. It's pretty smart if you ask me
@ginko27 Do you mean like, Americans have developed a pen that can be used at zero gravity? And spent lots of $-s on it? while russians used a pencil.... :D What you are saying could be true. But my opinion is that they usually start on a good idea, and using all the information they can, no matter if it is american or their own, than they come up with something perfect. (Someties not.... :) ) But Buran is a bit Different. the idea is older than the moon landing, an it is pure russian.
@Modellpecs I have one of those pens, and it's basicly just greese mixed with ink and put under pressure:) Ok, I can give Russia the Shuttle. my point is that Russia has a policy to make any weapons they use more effecient and cost effective. They took our Billion $ Tech and made it affordibe so that civilians could even afford it! The German Stg 44 gave birth to the SKS, and from that the Ak was developed and it is perhaps best Assault weapon ever made! The U.S. should adopt this policy too!
@ginko27 The M4 is a pleasure to shoot, uses smaller rounds that require less logistical support, just as lethal, better penetration, 500 yard range, much higher muzzle velocity. The Ak47 is a nightmare, all it's weight is in the front, hard wooden stock that'll feel like a kick with each monsterous shot of a 7mm round. It's cheap and reliable, because it's simple, which is great if your military doctrine is disposable soldiers. But not for the U.S., no, we give our soldiers GREAT rifles.
When the M-16 made it's debut in vietnam, it was supposed to be the rifle that "never needed to be cleaned!" Well, that claim cost a lot of American lives because that thing stove piped like a bitch. The military reluctantly issued cleaning kits and a comic strip showing American GI's how to clean the damn thing. An AK-47 can be dismantled in less than a minute in the field, quickly cleaned and ready for battle in just a matter of moments. The M-16 will never be the rifle the AK-47 is.
@ModelbuildingTANKS Do you really see only the a pen in my post? However i am quite sure that a pen is more expensive in every way than a pencil. What is between the lines, and what i really meant is that americans make things complicated and expensive. While russians make it simple easy and cheap. This is the point. Forget the pen rumor, if you don't like it. That was not the point.
@Modellpecs That doesn't show for the entirety of the space programs that one example. I am not for saying either is more complicated than the other, development on both sides is very hard. Remember that both of our countries where popping out simplified technologies during WWII, and that the United States did popularize the production line. Needless to say, Russia does not make more simplistic technology. I would say both are complicated and expensive in their own respects.
@Modellpecs You're right, dude.... The Russians, however you want to think of them, were fucking brilliant engineers. The AK-47? The best small firearm ever made, period. The Buran, it needs to make a comeback. It could service the ISS for years to come. America has nothing on the burner right now to replace the shuttle. The Buran- RUSSIA, BRING IT BACK!!
@Serpo71 Look up: SpaceX dragon. That's on the burner to replace the shuttle. Will do it for 1/2 the cost per person of Soyuz, too. The AK-47 is a cheap piece of crap. It's cheap, which is great if you think of your soldiers as disposable, like Russia. But the M16A4 beats it hands down in performance. Smaller rounds with a much higher muzzle velocity, far more penetration, just as lethal, less logistical support needed, effective range 500 yards, comfortable adjustable stock... I love that rifle
@Eagle1Division2 On the AK-47, it can't be beat for reliability. i can drag that thing in the mud for a mile and it will still fire. Try that with ANY M-16 or AR-15 variant and they'll jam for sure. The M-16 is a good weapon, but it will never beat the AK-47 as the premier assault rifle.... Sorry, dude.
@Serpo71 Lol, there's more to a rifle than reliability. Sure, it's a great rifle if you stink at taking care of your rifle, and you'll drag it in mud and dirt, but if you're a real soldier the modern M16 is more than reliable enough. Of all the soldiers I know, none have ever mentioned reliability issues. The Vietnam-era variant, though, had serious issues and was made of plastic. The modern variants (M16A4 / M4 / AR15) are far more reliable, and are made of aircraft-grade aluminum and titanium.
@Serpo71 And anyways, there's more to a rifle than reliability. What does the M16A4 / M4 / AR15 have?
- Extremely low recoil. The thing is a dream to shoot. Also makes 3-round bursts far more precise.
- Smaller rounds, just as lethal, higher muzzle velocity (highest of any rifle I know of, 3200 fps, most are ~2700 fps), more penetration, less logistical support, lighter bullets, means more bullets.
- 500 yard eff. range.
I haven an AR15... WITH A SCOPE. Ak47 isn't accurate enough for one.
@CodeGreen47 Yes, but since we're talking "what if's" here, I could also say that if NASA's Venture Star had completed, then NASA would have an SSTO that'd beat Buran hands-down ten times over.
Also, NASA would have nuclear thermal rockets, and a Mars mission in 1981 using nuclear thermal rockets on the Saturn V.
@Eagle1Division2 Well, why didn't it use it and land on the Mars, then? Also, as space shuttle program advanced, shuttles were always upgraded with some things, and Buran was used only once, and if it kept going on, it would match the Space Shuttle perfectly.
@CodeGreen47 Funding. Same reason Buran was canceled.
@Modellpecs Only as much a dream as a Buran program with 135 flights. Funding is the only thing it lacked, in both cases.
But look, Russia's boat is the Soyuz. And the Soyuz is safer and cheaper than the shuttle, but the shuttle has more capability and is more advanced. Heck, the Soyuz is like the Ak47 of rockets. Reliable and cheap, but not as capable as America's Shuttle (M16). There's pros and cons to each one...
@CodeGreen47 Aye, there have been many neat ideas that have never come to full fruition, and Buran was tantilizingly close. If it were to be a weapon of destruction, then I'm not sad about it, though... But I am glad SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are moving forward now. SpaceX has made a better capsule, that carries more people, more cheaply per flight, for about 1/100th the development cost compared to NASA's Orion Capsule! Private space is very promising...
2. No, it can't take 4x more weight, that's just wrong.
3. I don't know about landing weight,
4. Then that's a waste of heat shield mass
5. Loss of communications = loss of vehicle. Not true with STS. STS could fly even if all comms failed.
6. Wouldn't have made a difference. First warning anyone noticed was an astronaut on-board, about a second before it broke up he noticed the pressure in the ET LH2 tank dropping rapidly.
@Modellpecs NASA, wiki, astronauts who've flown on the shuttle and a wide variety of other sources (books on space propulsion, spaceflight, technology, etc.) Where did you get YOUR data?
1. Every source indicates this
2. That violates basic laws of rocketry, even down to the first: Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation! (Dv = Ve * ln[R]) Outrageously wrong, even if every other source didn't confirm it's wrong
@Eagle1Division2 Do you think, that shuttle was not used as a weapon? Don't be blind! Russians planed to, but US did!
Buran parameters? The net is full of this. Feel free to look it up. ;)
It is a fact that energia can lift much more by itself. Also it can be stoped anytime as it is using liquid fuel, unlike shuttles... Fully automatic, unlike Shuttle. Also equiped with ejection system. Facts, facts, facts... Look it up. Than your great love shuttle, will seam so.... ;)
@Modellpecs The lack of automation in the shuttle is a safety feature, in case ground comms. are lost. That said, ascent and re-entry are controlled by autopilot, and OMS burns are type-and-enter control, without using the rotational hand controller (control stick). That's how a shuttle should be.
Now, if you continue to claim it can lift so much, then show me the mass ratio. It's physically impossible using rocket engines.
@Modellpecs And in case my other comment really did fail to post: The worst thing the shuttle did was deploy spy and other classified satellites, which any other rocket can do. In other words, it wasn't a weapon. As for the satellites, the USA only uses weapons of deterrence and defense, unlike other nations, we don't want millions to die to satiate a thirst for power.
Lol, if you want to kill someone's love for the shuttle, show them the cost per kg of payload xP. I still love STS, though.
The most basic laws of rocketry say your claim is impossible, but if you want sources:
3 sources have it listed as maximum of 26,780 kg, with a typical of ~20,000 kg.
Google: "Buran payload", result 7 is a website, under the Buran section it has a comparison in-between the shuttle and the Buran. According to the table, the Buran can lift 30,000 kg. A far cry from 4x the shuttle payload, which would be 107,120 kg, a payload mass not flown since the Saturn V...
@Modellpecs But look, this little bickering rivalry is pointless. The Cold War is over and now mankind is united in the endeavor of space exploration. The Soyuz has it's plusses and minuses, and so does the Shuttle. Well, the shuttle's retired now, but SpaceX will probably have launches for half the cost of Soyuz per person.
But the important thing is Russians have flown on the Shuttle, and Americans have flown on the Soyuz (but nobody's flown on the Buran). The space station is international.
@Eagle1Division2 Buran did flay with man, but not in the space. It was canceled because of founding problems, not because it was not good enough. It was. Soyuz is still the safest way to space. At the moment the only way also. Venture Star was more like a dream than reality. Buran is real. As it did fly. And it did well. This is the point. What i am saying is that there was a big potentional in it, that is why i say that i am sorry that it ended. Should not have.
@Modellpecs But anyways Buran got canceled and funding failed before it's first manned flight. If we can include programs that never flew people, then NASA worked on the Venture Star, which beats Buran hands-down.
@ 2:26, that's just a dumb idea. Why use all the extra Delta-Vee to go into orbit, and use a whole, expensive, life-supporting enormous mothership (Buran), when you could just use ICBM's?
The U.S. is currently investigating using a space rocket to rapidly deploy marines anywhere on Earth. It would be sub-orbital, like an ICBM.
Also the fact that Russia, according to this, wanted to use Buran as a weapon, is sick and illegal by international treaty. It rightfully failed if this was the case.
@Modellpecs On the contrary! When you copy something, it is usually better than the original. Because it is done after the original, you can learn from the experience and mistakes of the original space shuttle. Also- the Russians freely admit that they developed the Buran after (and because of) the American Space Shuttle (memoirs of Boris Chertok). It's no secret. I don't mean to say Buran is stupid or cheap. Actually, I really love both American and Russian shuttles!
@Modellpecs On the contrary! When you copy something, it is usually better than the original. Because it is done after the original, you can learn from the experience and mistakes of the original space shuttle. Also- the Russians freely admit that they developed the Buran after (and because of) the American Space Shuttle (memoirs of Boris Chertok). It's no secret. I don't mean to say Buran is stupid or cheap. Actually, I really love both American and Russian shuttles!
Thanks for the footage, interesting. Good points Modellpecs, the ejection seats that the Enterprise and the Columbia flew only where active for the first four space missions. I wonder if they would have saved lives in the later incidents.
Russian have the most BIGGER AND MAMMOTH machine in Soviet time! I hate Soviet for their policy of humanity but certainly i love their approach on building such a bigger machine so that an Americans finally stop to being so proud on their technology marvels. ROSSIYA!!!!
people keep saying either oh the russians stole this or americans stole this. well heres my opinion, it was during the soviot union so we had spies there (im american) and russians had spies here, we basicly worked of each other and americas just so happened to stick
Buran can bring up 4 times more weight than space shuttle (120 ton) , and able to land with 30 ton (space shuttle 20 ton) Its heat protection can take mor heat than space shuttle. Buran is fully automatic. Space shuttle can land automaticaaly, after the last upgrade but it is a backup system there. Burans backup system is the crue. also Its engines can be stopped anytime. Wonder if Chalanger had this... Buran also equiped with ejection system. Thies are the main differences.
@Modellpecs I think that tragedy of this project was state of Soviet Union economy on the end of 80th year. No money no funny. Maybe today this project would be more competetive than American program. I dont know the budget for maintance this project, but usualy Russian make stuffs more simple, but more efective...for examle Korolev rocket R7..it still works....
@jankumich R7 is a true success! Seams like it will never be obsolete. Already lived longer than anyone would have expected it. Also; I know it means nothing, but in my opinion is one of the best looking rockets.
The magnificent R-7 is a titanic example of the axiom, "IF IT ISN'T BROKEN DON'T FIX IT." The R-7 will probably be around for another 50 years. Its like our B-52 it just keeps on ticking. I think its beautiful too, and it is one of the best looking rockets. Sergei Korolev hit a grand slam with that design.
I sometimes wonder why they built Buran. It's impressive but it is just additional weight for the Energija-Rocket to carry. You didn't need it to get freight into orbit, it was just additional freight itself.
da fuck I come to look at this video and admire what an awesome and beautiful craft this is, but all I see is people writing dumb essays on which countrys better
@B0rnToRoll why should i shut up, there is no way how you can forbid me writing a commenet here... furthermore I still don't see why you have to complain on the comments if you wanted to see ''what an awesome and beautiful craft this is'' so there was no necessity for you to read the comments...yet you did do it, and also felt a need to whime about it. I can't stand ''wankers'' like you.
Komrad! If the Buran and Shuttle look similar it is because American spies stole the engineering plans in 1976. In fact, Sergei Korolev was dreaming of Buran at about the same time he designed the superior N-1 moon rocket! And the two N1 launches failed only because of sabotage perpetrated by US secret agents. LOL!
Actually the smartest thing the Russians did was to scrap the Buran once they realized how expensive it would be to operate. We should have done the same.
@1138thz Actually they looked similar because we used technical info on Shuttle which was available from the mass media. Buran used different materials and had different capabilities - this info was classified, so we had to spend our effort on that developing the rest.
The N-1 was a magnificent effort. I believe its only weakness was an overly complex first stage that required feeding and controlling 30 Kuznetsov NK15 rockets! When Korolyov died in 1966 I believe that the program became vulnerable to political pressure and the N-1 was rushed into service. We used 5 F-1's on the SaturnV which made our job easier. But the excellent NK-15/NK-33 engine technology lives on in the US as the AJ26 (Reworked NK33's) the best lox/ke engines ever made
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
I have always considered the Energia's 4 liquid fueled RD-170 powered strap on boosters to be superior and safer than the Shuttles SRB's. The shuttle boosters are responsible for all 14 deaths. Once by O ring failure (challenger) and once because of the excessive vibration they always deliver to the structure(columbia) in flight. The reports are the Energia was as smooth as silk.
@1138thz Well the shuttles SRB's have been VERY reliable when in use. The only problem was the challenger disaster when there was a failed O ring (something like that) The problem afterwords was fixed. SRB's a cheaper than liquid boosters and generally more reliable. They also produce alot more thrust than liquid engines and don't require a complex set of turbopumps and a cooling system. the only advantage liquid rockets have are the ability to shutdown when something goes wrong.
@1138thz SRB's are Very reliable =14 deaths. 1 from O ring's and 1 from vibration knocking off foam. That actually does not count. Colombia broke up in reentry. The damage was caused by the foam but not during it's flight. So there fore there has technically only been one accident caused by the SRB on the STS missions. the foam piece came form the orange external tank, not the SRB.
@1138thz-um, your N1 had 7 accidents, that's right 7. 7 N1s either exploded or disintegrated in the air before they even left the atmosphere and all of these were in a row.
You must be a retard...you can't even read. I) I'm not Russian so the N-1 AINT mine dumb ass
2) Only 4 N-1's were ever launched..all four failed (learn to read)
3) Only a fool would say that the N-1 didn't have potential.
4) The N-1s problems were: systems integration, primitive computerized engine control systems and poor quality control. All caused by the death of Sergei Korolev prior to the N-1's first launch and the tiny budget allotted to the N-1 program. educate yourself
@1138thz-Your implying that the N-1 is better than the saturn v, which it isn't. No, there were over five N-1s launched and ALL of them failed. You basically destroyed yourself in this argument. Keep in mind, that the N-1s failed during actual missions, the failed launches of the US happened during tests.
@1138thz Actually that ISN'T TRUE! the shuttle program has been in development since the sixties! actually even before that. IT first started with the X craft. Like the X15. The program started in response to reduce the costs of space travel by designing a reusable launch system. The Apollo mission was floored in the 70's because IT WAS TO DAMN EXPENSIVE! we proved our point by beating the soviets in the space race. During that time we were already designing the STS. Maiden flight was in 81.
@1138thz "The shuttle didn't reduce costs it raised them." I KNOW THAT! but the concept was to reduce costs. the STS missions were far cheaper than the Apollo ones. But the main problem is that the shuttle wasn't really that reusable. IT still required extensive refurbishment like you mentioned and the orange external tank was disguarded and burnt up in the atmosphere.
@1138thz the cheapest way for getting into space is hitchhiking the ride on the Soyuz. The Soyuz has been an EXCELLENT space craft. But the design is dated now. IF the bush administration hadn't floored the X33 project. IT would of been an Excellent way to cut costs of going into space even CHEAPER than the soyuz since it doesn't require any expendables. but even so It currently costs over 10,000 per pound to send up there. the venture star would of been able to cut that to 1,000 dollars per LB.
Right. I was a big fan of the Venture Star program before that idiot Bush gave it the ax. The linear spike engine was a magnificent innovation and the Venture star with empty fuel/oxidizer tanks tanks offered such a low area to mass ratio that it wouldn't have needed any tiles to reenter. It would have been a real step forward. Now that idiot Obama has axed NASA's new HLV and the upscaled Apollo style capsule as well. So we'll be stuck hitching rides on Soyuz ..pathetic!
@1138thz Well i don't think he axed it completely. He did cut funding (so he could bailout all the shitty corrupt companies in wallstreet). The Ares V rocket is still in development. IT will just bee a looooooong time before we'll be able to see it's first flight. it was pathetic to. We would of been to mars by the 90's! If the government didn't have it's greedy head so far up it's arse. I understand the defense budget having ot be large, but you can't forget about our aerospace funding!!!
@1138thz Nasa has brought so many things towards the public, Yet people STILL seem to not realize that! they always say "oh we need to focus on what's going on down here" Part ways true but you could forget satellite communications, cellphones, composite materials, and just many over THOUSANDS of patents that have been created from the space program!
Imagine what it could be like if we had developed NPPP (Nuclear Pulsed Plasma Propulsion) and developed an interplanetary economy based on exploiting the solar systems almost limitless resources? Advanced fission implosion powered ships could be hauling millions of tons of refined materials to Earth every year. If you haven't already checked out the book "Orion: The true story of the atomic spaceship" I recommend it.
@1138thz We could also use the microgravity environment to our advantage when it comes to assembling MASSIVE ships, The main challenge that we are faced with for now is escaping earths HEAVY gravitational pull. And the only effective method so far is releasing a FUCKTON of energy, Otherwise in the form of a rocket. I honestly hope that someday we find a way around this. We still don't technically know what gravity IS, but we know how it works. this sucks.
Such as don't fix it if it ain't broke would be one that I could think of. And shoot for evolutionary change not revolutionary change. An ISS resupply mission with the shuttle costs 1.5 billion. With a Russian SL-4 based automated resupply vehicle the cost is about 1% to 2% of that. If you want a new section of the station put up use a Proton, it costs less than $100,000,000.00 minus the payload about 7 to 10 percent of a shuttle mission.
@1138thz lol and yeah the americans did sabotage the N1 aswell as other launches because its strange how half way through the space race the soviets began to have problems with there rockets while the americans almost had no failures what so ever and remember the soviets had the best rocket engineers.
The USA DID NOT sabotage the N1. The 4 things that ended the N1 were:
1)Korolyov's sudden death,
2) The Politburo wouldn't give the N1 project enough money,
3) The cluster of 30 excellent NK-15 engines in stage 1 had computer control and plumbing faults.
4) Viscous political rivalry.
In contrast Von Braun used 5 huge engines on the Sat- 5 instead of many smaller ones (simple) but risked 'combustion Instability' the prob was solved only a few weeks before the first Sat-5 Launch.
@1138thz i am sure there was more to it than that we all know it was during the cold war and we all know that the US did send special task forces into the soviet union pretty often so i certainly wouldn't rule out sabotage that easily and remember at this ponit also (1968) the soviets were still in the leasd now that would have put a lot of p pressure on the americas do to such a thing it all adds up really the N1 was destroyed on purpose.
it existed way before, back in the 50s, an aeroplane like this can only have theses aerodynamic designs. The Buran was the King of space travel even today so advanced for it's time
@YUSKHAN-Oh really? I think you're going to be hardpressed to find a single article that states that russia had a space shuttle since the 1950's. The buran isn't even in service today, it only flew once.
On that we can agree. The Buran was never man rated because it was a DEATH TRAP!! Conceptually and Aerodynamically the Buran was a direct copy of the shuttle. IT WAS A DISMAL FAILURE! Unlike the interesting N-1 the Buran was a CHEAP shoddy knock off. I might add that The Buran's most notable tour of duty has been as a relic that children scramble on at a park. The Buran was NOT the king of space it was the Drag-Queen of Space...a pathetic joke.
@1138th you have obviously never been to Russia. how those people ever had a space program in the beginning i have no idea. go there and see what it's like.
haha this video is funny, my favorite is how all the missiles hitting the US missed all the key areas where all the nukes, aircraft, and icbm's are. i really feel bad for the cattle and cactus though.
@zloj11 I think N1 was intended to go to the moon first. But, it was designed such that expanding or altering it for a unmanned Mars direct launch would have been a snap. So in many ways it was both!
its incradible russians planed to build space war ships! first in humankind history. Just think how many new technologies and how much people would live today on moon if cold war just been longer couple years and russian economy didnt coolaps so fast. The money on space programs were so huge!on both sides, today its only % of it Now its comercial and politican, then it was science, military, politican and national prestige. Iam still happy that cold war ended but we would be 20-30 years ahead
All you ppl are funny. Shuttle was designed to physically take spy satellites from space and bring them back to Earth for analysis. Buran was multi-functional from outset tasked with both satellite removal, weapons carriage as well as peaceful missions such as cosmonaut/astronaut rescue/delivery.
@Spetsnazovets Shuttle was built and used for delivery of components to the ISS you shit. Every launch has been recorded, publicized, and used in a non military function. Buran like everything else Soviet, seems (from this odd video) to have a primarily military intention. How about you go read a book or something.
@brentsrx7 You retard. Until you learn the real reasons why the whole space industry was created stfu. First reason was PURE MILITARY and only then did civilian use pop up. The reason why Shuttle was NOT used to bring the satellites back to earth was that satellite transmission encoding tech progressed far enough to remove the need for that. Shuttle was reoriented to civvy use to continue research both military and civilian.
@Spetsnazovets I really should not be wasting my time on you. Yes everyone knows why we have a space program you ass hole. Now how about learn something new. The shuttles were built were for NASA not the Air force. There is no military version of the Shuttle. Yes!!! the military wanted one in the 60's hence the X-15 and various other experimental space skimming aircraft. but the shuttle was designed and built simply to carry a large payload to and from space for "NASA"
@brentsrx7 In case you retarded brain didn't know NASA is constant cooperation with US SPACE COMMAND you F&*%WIT which has nothing to do with USAF. NASA does HEAPS of research for the military, USAF or Space Command. So shut your retarded hole and stick to cars. Or better go and spend some time in Military like I did before talking shit.
@brentsrx7 I thought there was a don't ask don't tell policy?? Yes, NASA works with the military. Good job, do you want a star? The primary purpose of the shuttle was to carry large payloads for NASA. If the military was intending use for satellite grabbing, they would have done the R&D through the Air force. Say like Red stone, or Atlas for instance. You need to read more books on the subject. please do, cuz you are wasting my time.
With the amount of money that gets wasted on fighting stupid wars for foreign powers and developing weapons, if we put it all into R&D of aerospace we could have the craziest space program eva....
Craig, there is no proof that the Buran that was destroyed in the snow-collapsed hanger was the one that was attempted to be launched (attempted, because there also is no proof the secretive launch succeeded; the video of the launch stops moments after Buran rose abovethe launch tower. Ever wonder why the video stops at that point?). Once the Soviets scrapped the still-incomplete Buran (it never had a life support system installed), it made no difference which Buran ended up whereever.
Спасибо, многих видеокадров я не видел.
ForielD 1 month ago
Please American moon landing is still under controversy.
Super9w 3 months ago
Why was it bombing America? 2:25
patchesdf 3 months ago
@patchesdf
Have you heard about the "Cold War"? Then Russia and the US competed in the superiority and made plans to destroy the enemy. Now everything in the past and thank God.
MrSrgj 3 months ago
@patchesdf - Does someone have to explain the 1980s to you ?
dcb1138 1 month ago
"Buran" could liftoff at -68 degrees. 1986 was -35 degrees and the space shuttle "Challenger" exploded because of icing.
MrSrgj 3 months ago
Scratching my head over this one. The Soviets land all their space capsules on land while we land them in the sea. The Soviets actually build a space PLANE and where do they land it??
The sea??
greenseaships 4 months ago
so basicly this shuttle was used a space warfare, right?
MrWeatherman10 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FlightFan
space shuttles are extremely good usable as weapon platforms in space. You just opening the cargo hold, shoot a missile, than you change course to a different orbit level and fire another. No one could count where they'll hit, and so fastly, that even anti-ballistic missiles can't react.
macee17 4 months ago
@Modellpecs
@CodeGreen47
But like I said earlier, this bickering about who's nations rocket is better is pointless. The Soyuz is Cheaper and safer. The shuttle is more capable. Pros and Cons. But spaceflight and exploration of the cosmos is an international effort now. It's not "us" versus "them" anymore, it's just "us" working towards the advancement of our kind, the human race. People may have drawn imaginary border lines on the Earth's surface, but there is only one Earth, and one human race.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
It's funny that one of the primary roles of this stolen design is to steal US satellites.
SPYK3O 6 months ago
i just wish the russians and americains would grow some balls and go into space together.
AngusAndBubba 6 months ago
@AngusAndBubba Actually they do. Started years ago. And I think it is great!
Modellpecs 6 months ago
russia always ruled....most clever people among super powers......
flyingxk 7 months ago
The Russians made a perfect copy of the B29 bomber as well...They are great at copying US technology...
gruhland 7 months ago
@gruhland What do you mean? Going to the space like this was Russian idea. Way before the moon landing... Also if they copy than how come that it 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. If you copy something, than it is supposed tu be the same or a bit whorst...
Modellpecs 7 months ago 26
@Modellpecs All Space Shuttles had the ability to cut power to their engines if their computers found faults in them. (Search STS-51F, I think.) Challenger's disaster was due to an O-ring failure on one of the Solid Rocket boosters that went undetected.
All shuttles also had a sort of 'ejection system'.The sad thing is that the cockpit ejected with such force that it caused the astronauts to either black out,or prevent them from using their emergency gear.
And your last sentence is just stupid.
anzin74 6 months ago
@anzin74 All shuttles did NOT have an ejection system. Only the first couple missions had them. They were dumped as the were unfeasible and every 100lbs added to the flight deck moved the shuttles CG forward 1/2 inch.
Puff29646 6 months ago
@Puff29646 Thanks for the info. Were all the Shuttles built with detachable cockpits? I've read that during the breakup of Challenger, the cockpit managed to separate itself from whatever remained of the orbiter in one piece.
anzin74 6 months ago
@anzin74 No. They were not designed to separate. The reason the flight deck and mid deck stayed in tact is because structurally it is one of the strongest parts of the orbiter.
Puff29646 6 months ago
@anzin74 Don't say that someone is stupid, when you are. Tell me, how can a rocket be stopped with solid fuel? It is only possible with liquid fuel. I also think that my last sentence was smart in a way. It did caught your attention also. The fact that you don't see the point, is not my fault.
Modellpecs 6 months ago
@Modellpecs If so, you need to CHOOSE your words more carefully.You said 'engines', & by saying THAT, you're speaking of the Shuttle's main engines, NOT its SRBs.Furthermore,I never implied that YOU are stupid, but your SENTENCE was. "If you copy something, than it is supposed tu be the same or a bit whorst..." The way you stated this sentence was as if it were a rule of thumb.I'm not going to bother explaining why it's ridiculous because the damn character limit will stop me from saying why.
anzin74 6 months ago
@anzin74 Ok fine.... As my English is not my mother language, i think it is quite acceptable that i make mistakes on written English. Also saying that a "sentence is stupid" how can a sentence be stupid? There is always someone behind the sentence, so it is not about the sentence... You made a mistake by saying stupid. Take it then, as a man! Don't try to gloss it over. The point i tried to make is still the same. Buran is not a copy. It is way ahead of shuttle. Too bad that no money to use it..
Modellpecs 6 months ago
@Modellpecs The Buran WAS a copy. I could send you a link if you'd like.
And since you see it that way, I apologize for using the word 'stupid'. No personal insults were meant, I was just appalled at what you said. You're implying that a copy of anything HAS to follow the rule of it needing to be 'the same or a bit whorst'. I am at no disagreement at the fact that the Buran was superior in certain aspects, but it still doesn't mean it wasn't a copy of the Shuttle.
anzin74 6 months ago
@anzin74 Well, you can't do much with design of shuttle, it's same with planes. Airplanes look similar and shuttles too.. Energiya launch system is way different then the STS one and it's superior. But to be honest, both russian and american shuttle programs have failed, they never achieved to be cheap way of sending man and cargo to space.
Fontomovsky 6 months ago
@anzin74 It is ok . I think we got to a point, where no need to continue arguing. I can't make you think what I think, but i do not really want to. Fontomovsky wrote down the point.
Modellpecs 6 months ago
@anzin74 The cockpit didn't eject them, since 1. there wasn't an ejection system (it got disabled in about STS-2 and removed later) and 2. they didn't wear pressure suits and would have died anyway in that height.
And no, you can't stop solid rockets - they burn with full power until they're empty.
dziltener 6 months ago
@Modellpecs Russia has a tradition of copying military and other Tech. The T-34 was an improved Sherman tank, the SKS was an improved cheaper copy of a German StG 44, the Tupolev Tu-4 bomber was an exact Russian copy of a Boeing B-29 Superfortress,The P-51 was copyed and called YAK-9, the F-22 is Sukhoi T-50,along with the shuttle and many more things.By letting other countries design something Russia can sometimes build better and cheaper tech. It's pretty smart if you ask me
ginko27 6 months ago
@ginko27 Do you mean like, Americans have developed a pen that can be used at zero gravity? And spent lots of $-s on it? while russians used a pencil.... :D What you are saying could be true. But my opinion is that they usually start on a good idea, and using all the information they can, no matter if it is american or their own, than they come up with something perfect. (Someties not.... :) ) But Buran is a bit Different. the idea is older than the moon landing, an it is pure russian.
Modellpecs 6 months ago
@Modellpecs I have one of those pens, and it's basicly just greese mixed with ink and put under pressure:) Ok, I can give Russia the Shuttle. my point is that Russia has a policy to make any weapons they use more effecient and cost effective. They took our Billion $ Tech and made it affordibe so that civilians could even afford it! The German Stg 44 gave birth to the SKS, and from that the Ak was developed and it is perhaps best Assault weapon ever made! The U.S. should adopt this policy too!
ginko27 6 months ago
@ginko27 The M4 is a pleasure to shoot, uses smaller rounds that require less logistical support, just as lethal, better penetration, 500 yard range, much higher muzzle velocity. The Ak47 is a nightmare, all it's weight is in the front, hard wooden stock that'll feel like a kick with each monsterous shot of a 7mm round. It's cheap and reliable, because it's simple, which is great if your military doctrine is disposable soldiers. But not for the U.S., no, we give our soldiers GREAT rifles.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 All the current AK variations come equipped with a composite stock....
Serpo71 4 months ago
When the M-16 made it's debut in vietnam, it was supposed to be the rifle that "never needed to be cleaned!" Well, that claim cost a lot of American lives because that thing stove piped like a bitch. The military reluctantly issued cleaning kits and a comic strip showing American GI's how to clean the damn thing. An AK-47 can be dismantled in less than a minute in the field, quickly cleaned and ready for battle in just a matter of moments. The M-16 will never be the rifle the AK-47 is.
Serpo71 4 months ago
@Modellpecs Don't use that myth, it's false, the fisher pen is very cheap, and did not take a genius to develop at high levels of money....
ModelbuildingTANKS 5 months ago
Comment removed
Modellpecs 5 months ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS Do you really see only the a pen in my post? However i am quite sure that a pen is more expensive in every way than a pencil. What is between the lines, and what i really meant is that americans make things complicated and expensive. While russians make it simple easy and cheap. This is the point. Forget the pen rumor, if you don't like it. That was not the point.
Modellpecs 5 months ago
@Modellpecs That doesn't show for the entirety of the space programs that one example. I am not for saying either is more complicated than the other, development on both sides is very hard. Remember that both of our countries where popping out simplified technologies during WWII, and that the United States did popularize the production line. Needless to say, Russia does not make more simplistic technology. I would say both are complicated and expensive in their own respects.
ModelbuildingTANKS 5 months ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS Iam not russian. ;)
Modellpecs 5 months ago
@Modellpecs You're right, dude.... The Russians, however you want to think of them, were fucking brilliant engineers. The AK-47? The best small firearm ever made, period. The Buran, it needs to make a comeback. It could service the ISS for years to come. America has nothing on the burner right now to replace the shuttle. The Buran- RUSSIA, BRING IT BACK!!
Serpo71 5 months ago
@Serpo71 Look up: SpaceX dragon. That's on the burner to replace the shuttle. Will do it for 1/2 the cost per person of Soyuz, too. The AK-47 is a cheap piece of crap. It's cheap, which is great if you think of your soldiers as disposable, like Russia. But the M16A4 beats it hands down in performance. Smaller rounds with a much higher muzzle velocity, far more penetration, just as lethal, less logistical support needed, effective range 500 yards, comfortable adjustable stock... I love that rifle
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 On the AK-47, it can't be beat for reliability. i can drag that thing in the mud for a mile and it will still fire. Try that with ANY M-16 or AR-15 variant and they'll jam for sure. The M-16 is a good weapon, but it will never beat the AK-47 as the premier assault rifle.... Sorry, dude.
Serpo71 4 months ago
@Serpo71 Lol, there's more to a rifle than reliability. Sure, it's a great rifle if you stink at taking care of your rifle, and you'll drag it in mud and dirt, but if you're a real soldier the modern M16 is more than reliable enough. Of all the soldiers I know, none have ever mentioned reliability issues. The Vietnam-era variant, though, had serious issues and was made of plastic. The modern variants (M16A4 / M4 / AR15) are far more reliable, and are made of aircraft-grade aluminum and titanium.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Serpo71 And anyways, there's more to a rifle than reliability. What does the M16A4 / M4 / AR15 have?
- Extremely low recoil. The thing is a dream to shoot. Also makes 3-round bursts far more precise.
- Smaller rounds, just as lethal, higher muzzle velocity (highest of any rifle I know of, 3200 fps, most are ~2700 fps), more penetration, less logistical support, lighter bullets, means more bullets.
- 500 yard eff. range.
I haven an AR15... WITH A SCOPE. Ak47 isn't accurate enough for one.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Modellpecs That's so damn straight! If Buran lived on, It'd be better than Space Shuttle, much more efficiant.
CodeGreen47 5 months ago
@CodeGreen47 Yes, but since we're talking "what if's" here, I could also say that if NASA's Venture Star had completed, then NASA would have an SSTO that'd beat Buran hands-down ten times over.
Also, NASA would have nuclear thermal rockets, and a Mars mission in 1981 using nuclear thermal rockets on the Saturn V.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 Well, why didn't it use it and land on the Mars, then? Also, as space shuttle program advanced, shuttles were always upgraded with some things, and Buran was used only once, and if it kept going on, it would match the Space Shuttle perfectly.
CodeGreen47 4 months ago
@CodeGreen47 Funding. Same reason Buran was canceled.
@Modellpecs Only as much a dream as a Buran program with 135 flights. Funding is the only thing it lacked, in both cases.
But look, Russia's boat is the Soyuz. And the Soyuz is safer and cheaper than the shuttle, but the shuttle has more capability and is more advanced. Heck, the Soyuz is like the Ak47 of rockets. Reliable and cheap, but not as capable as America's Shuttle (M16). There's pros and cons to each one...
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 Well, it would have been a great shuttle system for it's time. But since It's just a piece of history, we'll have to get over it.
CodeGreen47 4 months ago
@CodeGreen47 Aye, there have been many neat ideas that have never come to full fruition, and Buran was tantilizingly close. If it were to be a weapon of destruction, then I'm not sad about it, though... But I am glad SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are moving forward now. SpaceX has made a better capsule, that carries more people, more cheaply per flight, for about 1/100th the development cost compared to NASA's Orion Capsule! Private space is very promising...
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Modellpecs 1. Shuttle came first,
2. No, it can't take 4x more weight, that's just wrong.
3. I don't know about landing weight,
4. Then that's a waste of heat shield mass
5. Loss of communications = loss of vehicle. Not true with STS. STS could fly even if all comms failed.
6. Wouldn't have made a difference. First warning anyone noticed was an astronaut on-board, about a second before it broke up he noticed the pressure in the ET LH2 tank dropping rapidly.
Eagle1Division2 5 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 Dont' know about landing weight? What else? And how do you know the other data? I dont have other questions.
Modellpecs 5 months ago
@Modellpecs NASA, wiki, astronauts who've flown on the shuttle and a wide variety of other sources (books on space propulsion, spaceflight, technology, etc.) Where did you get YOUR data?
1. Every source indicates this
2. That violates basic laws of rocketry, even down to the first: Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation! (Dv = Ve * ln[R]) Outrageously wrong, even if every other source didn't confirm it's wrong
4. Aerospace engineering knowledge
5. Astronaut and NASA
6. NASA and various media sources
Eagle1Division2 5 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 Do you think, that shuttle was not used as a weapon? Don't be blind! Russians planed to, but US did!
Buran parameters? The net is full of this. Feel free to look it up. ;)
It is a fact that energia can lift much more by itself. Also it can be stoped anytime as it is using liquid fuel, unlike shuttles... Fully automatic, unlike Shuttle. Also equiped with ejection system. Facts, facts, facts... Look it up. Than your great love shuttle, will seam so.... ;)
Modellpecs 5 months ago 8
@Modellpecs The lack of automation in the shuttle is a safety feature, in case ground comms. are lost. That said, ascent and re-entry are controlled by autopilot, and OMS burns are type-and-enter control, without using the rotational hand controller (control stick). That's how a shuttle should be.
Now, if you continue to claim it can lift so much, then show me the mass ratio. It's physically impossible using rocket engines.
Stop believing Russian propaganda...
Eagle1Division2 5 months ago
@Modellpecs And in case my other comment really did fail to post: The worst thing the shuttle did was deploy spy and other classified satellites, which any other rocket can do. In other words, it wasn't a weapon. As for the satellites, the USA only uses weapons of deterrence and defense, unlike other nations, we don't want millions to die to satiate a thirst for power.
Lol, if you want to kill someone's love for the shuttle, show them the cost per kg of payload xP. I still love STS, though.
Eagle1Division2 5 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 If you are questioning the offical parameters of it, than why would i or anyone wold try reasoning on this? :D
Modellpecs 5 months ago
@Modellpecs
The most basic laws of rocketry say your claim is impossible, but if you want sources:
3 sources have it listed as maximum of 26,780 kg, with a typical of ~20,000 kg.
Google: "Buran payload", result 7 is a website, under the Buran section it has a comparison in-between the shuttle and the Buran. According to the table, the Buran can lift 30,000 kg. A far cry from 4x the shuttle payload, which would be 107,120 kg, a payload mass not flown since the Saturn V...
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Modellpecs But look, this little bickering rivalry is pointless. The Cold War is over and now mankind is united in the endeavor of space exploration. The Soyuz has it's plusses and minuses, and so does the Shuttle. Well, the shuttle's retired now, but SpaceX will probably have launches for half the cost of Soyuz per person.
But the important thing is Russians have flown on the Shuttle, and Americans have flown on the Soyuz (but nobody's flown on the Buran). The space station is international.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@Eagle1Division2 Buran did flay with man, but not in the space. It was canceled because of founding problems, not because it was not good enough. It was. Soyuz is still the safest way to space. At the moment the only way also. Venture Star was more like a dream than reality. Buran is real. As it did fly. And it did well. This is the point. What i am saying is that there was a big potentional in it, that is why i say that i am sorry that it ended. Should not have.
Modellpecs 4 months ago
@Modellpecs But anyways Buran got canceled and funding failed before it's first manned flight. If we can include programs that never flew people, then NASA worked on the Venture Star, which beats Buran hands-down.
Eagle1Division2 4 months ago
@ 2:26, that's just a dumb idea. Why use all the extra Delta-Vee to go into orbit, and use a whole, expensive, life-supporting enormous mothership (Buran), when you could just use ICBM's?
The U.S. is currently investigating using a space rocket to rapidly deploy marines anywhere on Earth. It would be sub-orbital, like an ICBM.
Also the fact that Russia, according to this, wanted to use Buran as a weapon, is sick and illegal by international treaty. It rightfully failed if this was the case.
Eagle1Division2 5 months ago
@Modellpecs On the contrary! When you copy something, it is usually better than the original. Because it is done after the original, you can learn from the experience and mistakes of the original space shuttle. Also- the Russians freely admit that they developed the Buran after (and because of) the American Space Shuttle (memoirs of Boris Chertok). It's no secret. I don't mean to say Buran is stupid or cheap. Actually, I really love both American and Russian shuttles!
greenseaships 4 months ago
@Modellpecs On the contrary! When you copy something, it is usually better than the original. Because it is done after the original, you can learn from the experience and mistakes of the original space shuttle. Also- the Russians freely admit that they developed the Buran after (and because of) the American Space Shuttle (memoirs of Boris Chertok). It's no secret. I don't mean to say Buran is stupid or cheap. Actually, I really love both American and Russian shuttles!
greenseaships 4 months ago
@greenseaships Same here. ;) Just watched this video. Search for this: "Blast into Space, Spectacular Fall to Earth" You will like it for sure!
Modellpecs 4 months ago
Thanks for the footage, interesting. Good points Modellpecs, the ejection seats that the Enterprise and the Columbia flew only where active for the first four space missions. I wonder if they would have saved lives in the later incidents.
MrSmpmcg 8 months ago
Russian have the most BIGGER AND MAMMOTH machine in Soviet time! I hate Soviet for their policy of humanity but certainly i love their approach on building such a bigger machine so that an Americans finally stop to being so proud on their technology marvels. ROSSIYA!!!!
peterFans 8 months ago
people keep saying either oh the russians stole this or americans stole this. well heres my opinion, it was during the soviot union so we had spies there (im american) and russians had spies here, we basicly worked of each other and americas just so happened to stick
saqmuel 8 months ago
Buran can bring up 4 times more weight than space shuttle (120 ton) , and able to land with 30 ton (space shuttle 20 ton) Its heat protection can take mor heat than space shuttle. Buran is fully automatic. Space shuttle can land automaticaaly, after the last upgrade but it is a backup system there. Burans backup system is the crue. also Its engines can be stopped anytime. Wonder if Chalanger had this... Buran also equiped with ejection system. Thies are the main differences.
Modellpecs 8 months ago
@Modellpecs I think that tragedy of this project was state of Soviet Union economy on the end of 80th year. No money no funny. Maybe today this project would be more competetive than American program. I dont know the budget for maintance this project, but usualy Russian make stuffs more simple, but more efective...for examle Korolev rocket R7..it still works....
jankumich 7 months ago
@jankumich R7 is a true success! Seams like it will never be obsolete. Already lived longer than anyone would have expected it. Also; I know it means nothing, but in my opinion is one of the best looking rockets.
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@Modellpecs
The magnificent R-7 is a titanic example of the axiom, "IF IT ISN'T BROKEN DON'T FIX IT." The R-7 will probably be around for another 50 years. Its like our B-52 it just keeps on ticking. I think its beautiful too, and it is one of the best looking rockets. Sergei Korolev hit a grand slam with that design.
1138thz 7 months ago
One question: did Soviets really plan to use Buran as "orbital aircraft carrier", or just author made it up?
Szpagin 9 months ago
vøll_geïl_lëÙté_sùcht_mÃl_nách:_olikohle_ÄÜf_gOÔglË_vøll_gëíl
ElizaNaomasj636 9 months ago
Buran Shuttle was 7 years behind the NASA Shuttle. Merely copied American technology.
highlander2107 9 months ago
I have a question: no offense, but why does ussr still use film cameras in fact there were a couple of cassette cameras available during late 80's.
KIBProductionz 9 months ago
What is the name of the song
Lufty25 10 months ago
@FlightFan Orbital fighter bomber mig115 invulnerable
Biogem369 11 months ago
SO BURAN WAS DESIGNED TO BE A SPACE NUCLEAR BOMBER :o
TheNintendoFreak117 11 months ago
@TheNintendoFreak117 I was thinking the same thing.
Patrick966 11 months ago
great video but music improvment
trainrockdude 1 year ago
I sometimes wonder why they built Buran. It's impressive but it is just additional weight for the Energija-Rocket to carry. You didn't need it to get freight into orbit, it was just additional freight itself.
Rubashow 1 year ago
Fuck america
YUSKHAN 1 year ago
@YUSKHAN HELL YEAH YOU KNOW YOU'D HIT THAT!
EpiDemic117 11 months ago
@EpiDemic117
HELL YEAH I WANT TO ''HIT THEM'' WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS!
YUSKHAN 10 months ago
@YUSKHAN-yeah, fuck america, fuck the country that is superior to yours, YEAH!!!
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
What Germany
YUSKHAN 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
-yeah, fuck america, fuck the country that's not your fuck the Great Satan, YEAH!!!
YUSKHAN 10 months ago
@YUSKHAN-YEAH < FUCK AMERICA!!!
dalek14mc 9 months ago
@dalek14mc
-YEAH COMMENTS LIKE THAT BRING WATER TO MY MOUTH
YUSKHAN 9 months ago
@YUSKHAN-MY MOUTH WATERS FOR AMERICAN MEAT!!!!
dalek14mc 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ha ha FUCK AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YUSKHAN 1 year ago
terrible and loud music
12345qazx1 1 year ago
da fuck I come to look at this video and admire what an awesome and beautiful craft this is, but all I see is people writing dumb essays on which countrys better
B0rnToRoll 1 year ago
@B0rnToRoll thats coz instead of actually watching hte video you are reading comments, basically your own fault
viewer8D 1 year ago
@viewer8D And how would you know that I didnt watch the video? Shut up next time
B0rnToRoll 1 year ago
@B0rnToRoll why should i shut up, there is no way how you can forbid me writing a commenet here... furthermore I still don't see why you have to complain on the comments if you wanted to see ''what an awesome and beautiful craft this is'' so there was no necessity for you to read the comments...yet you did do it, and also felt a need to whime about it. I can't stand ''wankers'' like you.
viewer8D 1 year ago
@viewer8D blah blah blah go have a cry ya big wanker your the type who like to correct everyone..Im done with you
B0rnToRoll 1 year ago
@B0rnToRoll You openly admited that you have made a mistake, and then say you are ''done with me''?
The truth is you just ran away, because you saw no way of backing up your comments..
viewer8D 1 year ago
@viewer8D nah I just I just dont want to waste my time on stupid pathetic youtube fights cya
B0rnToRoll 1 year ago
@STORMCAT06 ever hear of the ISS?
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
Models look like a toy I had when I was about 11.
saglek 1 year ago
Where is the music from?
LouistheHedgehog 1 year ago
9 Creationists voted on this.
LouistheHedgehog 1 year ago
Komrad! If the Buran and Shuttle look similar it is because American spies stole the engineering plans in 1976. In fact, Sergei Korolev was dreaming of Buran at about the same time he designed the superior N-1 moon rocket! And the two N1 launches failed only because of sabotage perpetrated by US secret agents. LOL!
Actually the smartest thing the Russians did was to scrap the Buran once they realized how expensive it would be to operate. We should have done the same.
1138thz 1 year ago 10
@1138thz Actually they looked similar because we used technical info on Shuttle which was available from the mass media. Buran used different materials and had different capabilities - this info was classified, so we had to spend our effort on that developing the rest.
haimaphil 1 year ago
@haimaphil
The N-1 was a magnificent effort. I believe its only weakness was an overly complex first stage that required feeding and controlling 30 Kuznetsov NK15 rockets! When Korolyov died in 1966 I believe that the program became vulnerable to political pressure and the N-1 was rushed into service. We used 5 F-1's on the SaturnV which made our job easier. But the excellent NK-15/NK-33 engine technology lives on in the US as the AJ26 (Reworked NK33's) the best lox/ke engines ever made
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1138thz Pretty much! it simply had to many parts which lead to too many thing that could go wrong. America invested more into the Saturn V rocket than what the soviets did in the N1. it also took a lot longer for the Saturn V to be fully developed. Which explains it having a much better success and safety rating. Not one has blown up.
However i admire the Soyuz system that is still in use today! it has been one of the most reliable and affordable ways of going into space.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@haimaphil
I have always considered the Energia's 4 liquid fueled RD-170 powered strap on boosters to be superior and safer than the Shuttles SRB's. The shuttle boosters are responsible for all 14 deaths. Once by O ring failure (challenger) and once because of the excessive vibration they always deliver to the structure(columbia) in flight. The reports are the Energia was as smooth as silk.
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz Well the shuttles SRB's have been VERY reliable when in use. The only problem was the challenger disaster when there was a failed O ring (something like that) The problem afterwords was fixed. SRB's a cheaper than liquid boosters and generally more reliable. They also produce alot more thrust than liquid engines and don't require a complex set of turbopumps and a cooling system. the only advantage liquid rockets have are the ability to shutdown when something goes wrong.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
SRB's are Very reliable =14 deaths. 1 from O ring's and 1 from vibration knocking off foam. Foam stripping has been a consistent problem.
Liquid boosters have more than one advantage:
They are controllable so the trust can be perfectly symmetrical=smoother ride >safety and higher ISP.
For those reasons NASA uses big liquid boosters on the Delta IV heavy. 50K lbs to LEO, more than the STS and is cheaper.
Read: 'Criticism of the Space Shuttle Program' on Wikipedia if you dare!
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz SRB's are Very reliable =14 deaths. 1 from O ring's and 1 from vibration knocking off foam. That actually does not count. Colombia broke up in reentry. The damage was caused by the foam but not during it's flight. So there fore there has technically only been one accident caused by the SRB on the STS missions. the foam piece came form the orange external tank, not the SRB.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@1138thz-That was only 2 accidents. This begs the question, how many successful shuttle missions compared to failures and compared to Russia?
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
You are wrong my friend it was 0 for 4 for the N1
Launch 1: February 1969 (Veh 3L).....Exploded after 69 seconds at 40k feet,
Launch 2: July 1969 (Veh 5L).......Engines shut off over the pad..destroyed..20 sec.
Launch 3: June 1971(veh 6L)....Went out of control at 51 seconds...destroyed!
Launch 4: Nov 1972 (veh 7L) Disintegrated at 40 km altitude at 106 seconds.
If the N1 program had gotten the support it needed the hammer and sickle would have been on the moon first IMHO.
1138thz 10 months ago
@1138thz-um, your N1 had 7 accidents, that's right 7. 7 N1s either exploded or disintegrated in the air before they even left the atmosphere and all of these were in a row.
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
You must be a retard...you can't even read. I) I'm not Russian so the N-1 AINT mine dumb ass
2) Only 4 N-1's were ever launched..all four failed (learn to read)
3) Only a fool would say that the N-1 didn't have potential.
4) The N-1s problems were: systems integration, primitive computerized engine control systems and poor quality control. All caused by the death of Sergei Korolev prior to the N-1's first launch and the tiny budget allotted to the N-1 program. educate yourself
1138thz 10 months ago
@1138thz-Your implying that the N-1 is better than the saturn v, which it isn't. No, there were over five N-1s launched and ALL of them failed. You basically destroyed yourself in this argument. Keep in mind, that the N-1s failed during actual missions, the failed launches of the US happened during tests.
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@1138thz Actually that ISN'T TRUE! the shuttle program has been in development since the sixties! actually even before that. IT first started with the X craft. Like the X15. The program started in response to reduce the costs of space travel by designing a reusable launch system. The Apollo mission was floored in the 70's because IT WAS TO DAMN EXPENSIVE! we proved our point by beating the soviets in the space race. During that time we were already designing the STS. Maiden flight was in 81.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
1) The shuttle didn't reduce costs it raised them. STS= the most expensive way/lb to get to LEO.
2) Read up on the SRB's a bit pal, NASA lost lots of launch contracts because the ride is so rough.
3) The shuttle is only reusable after a $200,000,000./ mission refurbishment.
4) The Saturn V can pump 200,000 pounds into LEO 5 X what the SST can do.
5) Why are we going back to expendables? Hint (cheaper)
6) the Air Force quit the STS program because STS launch costs were too high
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz "The shuttle didn't reduce costs it raised them." I KNOW THAT! but the concept was to reduce costs. the STS missions were far cheaper than the Apollo ones. But the main problem is that the shuttle wasn't really that reusable. IT still required extensive refurbishment like you mentioned and the orange external tank was disguarded and burnt up in the atmosphere.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@1138thz the cheapest way for getting into space is hitchhiking the ride on the Soyuz. The Soyuz has been an EXCELLENT space craft. But the design is dated now. IF the bush administration hadn't floored the X33 project. IT would of been an Excellent way to cut costs of going into space even CHEAPER than the soyuz since it doesn't require any expendables. but even so It currently costs over 10,000 per pound to send up there. the venture star would of been able to cut that to 1,000 dollars per LB.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Right. I was a big fan of the Venture Star program before that idiot Bush gave it the ax. The linear spike engine was a magnificent innovation and the Venture star with empty fuel/oxidizer tanks tanks offered such a low area to mass ratio that it wouldn't have needed any tiles to reenter. It would have been a real step forward. Now that idiot Obama has axed NASA's new HLV and the upscaled Apollo style capsule as well. So we'll be stuck hitching rides on Soyuz ..pathetic!
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz Well i don't think he axed it completely. He did cut funding (so he could bailout all the shitty corrupt companies in wallstreet). The Ares V rocket is still in development. IT will just bee a looooooong time before we'll be able to see it's first flight. it was pathetic to. We would of been to mars by the 90's! If the government didn't have it's greedy head so far up it's arse. I understand the defense budget having ot be large, but you can't forget about our aerospace funding!!!
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@1138thz Nasa has brought so many things towards the public, Yet people STILL seem to not realize that! they always say "oh we need to focus on what's going on down here" Part ways true but you could forget satellite communications, cellphones, composite materials, and just many over THOUSANDS of patents that have been created from the space program!
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Imagine what it could be like if we had developed NPPP (Nuclear Pulsed Plasma Propulsion) and developed an interplanetary economy based on exploiting the solar systems almost limitless resources? Advanced fission implosion powered ships could be hauling millions of tons of refined materials to Earth every year. If you haven't already checked out the book "Orion: The true story of the atomic spaceship" I recommend it.
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz We could also use the microgravity environment to our advantage when it comes to assembling MASSIVE ships, The main challenge that we are faced with for now is escaping earths HEAVY gravitational pull. And the only effective method so far is releasing a FUCKTON of energy, Otherwise in the form of a rocket. I honestly hope that someday we find a way around this. We still don't technically know what gravity IS, but we know how it works. this sucks.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 lol but don't worry we are so close to developing nuclear fusion rockets but yes for now we are stuck on this planet :(
Jimbob8971 11 months ago
@1138thz You're delusional
tampatek 1 year ago
@1138thz lol and now we no longer have a manned spacecraft lol we could seriously learn something from the russians :)
Jimbob8971 11 months ago
@Jimbob8971
Such as don't fix it if it ain't broke would be one that I could think of. And shoot for evolutionary change not revolutionary change. An ISS resupply mission with the shuttle costs 1.5 billion. With a Russian SL-4 based automated resupply vehicle the cost is about 1% to 2% of that. If you want a new section of the station put up use a Proton, it costs less than $100,000,000.00 minus the payload about 7 to 10 percent of a shuttle mission.
1138thz 11 months ago
@1138thz lol and yeah the americans did sabotage the N1 aswell as other launches because its strange how half way through the space race the soviets began to have problems with there rockets while the americans almost had no failures what so ever and remember the soviets had the best rocket engineers.
Jimbob8971 11 months ago
@Jimbob8971
The USA DID NOT sabotage the N1. The 4 things that ended the N1 were:
1)Korolyov's sudden death,
2) The Politburo wouldn't give the N1 project enough money,
3) The cluster of 30 excellent NK-15 engines in stage 1 had computer control and plumbing faults.
4) Viscous political rivalry.
In contrast Von Braun used 5 huge engines on the Sat- 5 instead of many smaller ones (simple) but risked 'combustion Instability' the prob was solved only a few weeks before the first Sat-5 Launch.
1138thz 11 months ago
@1138thz i am sure there was more to it than that we all know it was during the cold war and we all know that the US did send special task forces into the soviet union pretty often so i certainly wouldn't rule out sabotage that easily and remember at this ponit also (1968) the soviets were still in the leasd now that would have put a lot of p pressure on the americas do to such a thing it all adds up really the N1 was destroyed on purpose.
Jimbob8971 11 months ago
@1138thz-That is spoken like a true russian. The buran is infact a total copy of the space shuttle. It has nothing to do with spies.
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
it existed way before, back in the 50s, an aeroplane like this can only have theses aerodynamic designs. The Buran was the King of space travel even today so advanced for it's time
YUSKHAN 10 months ago
@YUSKHAN-Oh really? I think you're going to be hardpressed to find a single article that states that russia had a space shuttle since the 1950's. The buran isn't even in service today, it only flew once.
dalek14mc 10 months ago
@dalek14mc
On that we can agree. The Buran was never man rated because it was a DEATH TRAP!! Conceptually and Aerodynamically the Buran was a direct copy of the shuttle. IT WAS A DISMAL FAILURE! Unlike the interesting N-1 the Buran was a CHEAP shoddy knock off. I might add that The Buran's most notable tour of duty has been as a relic that children scramble on at a park. The Buran was NOT the king of space it was the Drag-Queen of Space...a pathetic joke.
1138thz 10 months ago
@1138th you have obviously never been to Russia. how those people ever had a space program in the beginning i have no idea. go there and see what it's like.
A4moondoggy 10 months ago
haha this video is funny, my favorite is how all the missiles hitting the US missed all the key areas where all the nukes, aircraft, and icbm's are. i really feel bad for the cattle and cactus though.
A4moondoggy 10 months ago
@1138thz N1 was not moon rocket, but Mars!
zloj11 8 months ago
@zloj11 I think N1 was intended to go to the moon first. But, it was designed such that expanding or altering it for a unmanned Mars direct launch would have been a snap. So in many ways it was both!
rjpugh 8 months ago
@1138thz That is nice bullshit for another James Bond: the hunt for Buran. Shaken not stirred! LOL!
Beun007 7 months ago
@Beun007
I have head several Russians actually make the charge that the N-1 was sabotaged by the CIA. Indeed one N-1 shaken and not stirred! Possible titles:
"Dr. No more N-1", "One Moon Rocket is Not Enough!", "GoldRocket."
"You Only Launch Twice."
1138thz 7 months ago
its incradible russians planed to build space war ships! first in humankind history. Just think how many new technologies and how much people would live today on moon if cold war just been longer couple years and russian economy didnt coolaps so fast. The money on space programs were so huge!on both sides, today its only % of it Now its comercial and politican, then it was science, military, politican and national prestige. Iam still happy that cold war ended but we would be 20-30 years ahead
ProthSteriel 1 year ago
Nice video, great Russian technology !
DonElgazo 1 year ago
All you ppl are funny. Shuttle was designed to physically take spy satellites from space and bring them back to Earth for analysis. Buran was multi-functional from outset tasked with both satellite removal, weapons carriage as well as peaceful missions such as cosmonaut/astronaut rescue/delivery.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets Shuttle was built and used for delivery of components to the ISS you shit. Every launch has been recorded, publicized, and used in a non military function. Buran like everything else Soviet, seems (from this odd video) to have a primarily military intention. How about you go read a book or something.
brentsrx7 1 year ago
@brentsrx7 You retard. Until you learn the real reasons why the whole space industry was created stfu. First reason was PURE MILITARY and only then did civilian use pop up. The reason why Shuttle was NOT used to bring the satellites back to earth was that satellite transmission encoding tech progressed far enough to remove the need for that. Shuttle was reoriented to civvy use to continue research both military and civilian.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets I really should not be wasting my time on you. Yes everyone knows why we have a space program you ass hole. Now how about learn something new. The shuttles were built were for NASA not the Air force. There is no military version of the Shuttle. Yes!!! the military wanted one in the 60's hence the X-15 and various other experimental space skimming aircraft. but the shuttle was designed and built simply to carry a large payload to and from space for "NASA"
brentsrx7 1 year ago
@brentsrx7 In case you retarded brain didn't know NASA is constant cooperation with US SPACE COMMAND you F&*%WIT which has nothing to do with USAF. NASA does HEAPS of research for the military, USAF or Space Command. So shut your retarded hole and stick to cars. Or better go and spend some time in Military like I did before talking shit.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@brentsrx7 I thought there was a don't ask don't tell policy?? Yes, NASA works with the military. Good job, do you want a star? The primary purpose of the shuttle was to carry large payloads for NASA. If the military was intending use for satellite grabbing, they would have done the R&D through the Air force. Say like Red stone, or Atlas for instance. You need to read more books on the subject. please do, cuz you are wasting my time.
brentsrx7 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets and by the way, I really appreciate you serving. Even though you r being a penis
brentsrx7 1 year ago
Да, всё это просрали. Доброй ночи
mrvgmail 1 year ago
0:27 the engines of the plane were like frozen
KIBProductionz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So This was to be some kind of Soviet nuclear kamakazie platform? Comon!!!
airdaleva42 1 year ago
So This was to be some kind of Soviet nuclear kamakazie platfordm? Comon!!!
airdaleva42 1 year ago
@airdaleva42 Not kamakazie, because it is automatic (and its singular flight was without crew), though it maight carry four people.
ZaparaVladimir 1 year ago
Its not cute when you can't spell its illiterite
balcomriley 1 year ago
LOL that NATO´s P-3 Orion flying over the ships.
gargoloso 1 year ago
Launch nukes? Submarines are much better platforms for nukes. Space SHAT-tle is right. Boondogle for both countries.
MegansAdventures 1 year ago
@spzatt just trying not to forget English ;)))
MOOnLight2k 1 year ago
With the amount of money that gets wasted on fighting stupid wars for foreign powers and developing weapons, if we put it all into R&D of aerospace we could have the craziest space program eva....
Lastindependentthink 1 year ago 28
The only way to reach Mars today is to build Buran :/ But it's too expensive even for US..
MOOnLight2k 1 year ago
@MOOnLight2k Buran, just like the space shuttle, wouldn't be able to go to mars.
Anonymous5125 1 year ago
@Anonymous5125 It was designed to be used with a carrier rocket Energy, which is surely can )
MOOnLight2k 1 year ago
long live the mankind!!!!!!!!! god save all humans !!
eristderbeste 1 year ago
only in the udssr
ollenhauer1 1 year ago
Craig, there is no proof that the Buran that was destroyed in the snow-collapsed hanger was the one that was attempted to be launched (attempted, because there also is no proof the secretive launch succeeded; the video of the launch stops moments after Buran rose abovethe launch tower. Ever wonder why the video stops at that point?). Once the Soviets scrapped the still-incomplete Buran (it never had a life support system installed), it made no difference which Buran ended up whereever.
Plutoplatter 1 year ago
@Plutoplatter If you look around youtube youn will find the complete video in which it last until buran disapears in the clouds.
gargoloso 1 year ago