@40390576 I dont know about optimally designed. The shuttles off-axis non-symmetric design makes flight control very difficult, and it's original intention of a 'reuseable' glider is highly debatable. It was more or less imagined that the shuttle would land, roll to a stop, be hauled up vertically and attached to a tank, ready to fly again, but the reality was the tiles kept falling off, requiring months of expensive rework between flights. Buran was just a politically motivated stunt
Great news: This magnificent beast may soon fly once again! The Russian government is looking into possibly reviving the rocket or devising something based on it by 2016.
@dhbiza - Lol! It's a good thing that it might be coming out of retirement because if they intend to keep the ISS afloat then no other vehicle is really up to the task of re-boosting it into a higher orbit; or bringing up some additional modules that have been funded for the ISS in the future. The Soyuz, Progress, ATV, the SpaceX Dragon and Orion spacecraft are too weak to re-boost the ISS. Their powerplants aren't powerful enough.
@A86 Energia cannot reboost the ISS! It's a launch vehicle. They should never have retired Energia. The three major space agencies should update its design and make it the main vehicle for super heavy lifting.
17 Billion to build a super heavy lifter (that will blow out to 30 Billion + before a single launch) is a wast. Give the plans to SpaceX and they will make a working Energia for far less. Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy and Energia would do the world fine for a long while.
@Realfoxhawk - Oh, I was referring more to the Buran. Sometimes I forget to the separate the Buran and the Energia, I'm kind of used to the US Shuttle which is treated as a single vehicle since the US Shuttle "Stack" cannot function as a separate machine from the Orbiter (so far, unless they do something like the "Shuttle-C").
@Realfoxhawk - "Give the plans to SpaceX and they will make a working Energia for far less"
They have little incentive to create such a thing. Interplanetary space travel is not profitable. There isn't a big market of people willing to pay $50 million to fly by an asteroid or fly to Mars (technically we don't even have the technology yet to make such a venture safe for human flight) and making $50 million/flight wouldn't offset all the costs.
@A86 The main point I was thinking about is that if there was a market and the budget was provided to a company like SpaceX then they could do a better job than a government organisation. Red Tape is the same the world over. By the way - I think there will be a market down the track. Not Lunar though, more Mars. There is no point going to the moon until Mars is semi-autonomous.
@Realfoxhawk - Eh, it remains to be seen. So far SpaceX is feeding from the taxpayer trough just like other old contractors like ATK, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. I have faith they can do well but so far they've only cranked out 1 launch or so per year at double their original quoted price. So, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.
There would probably be more of a market for the Moon early on. The Moon is much safer to reach and much easier to build bases and resorts on.
@Realfoxhawk - Mars would probably be off-limits to civilians for years after any astronauts reach it. Mars takes months to reach, you'll get a crap-ton of radiation on the way over and while you're there (as Mars has almost no magnetosphere), rescue is almost impossible and you have bad weather to worry about and possibly even germs if there is life on Mars. The gov wouldn't risk the liabilities with civilians until it's safe. If a civilian dies that could be the end of the space company.
@Realfoxhawk - SpaceX is having enough difficulty attracting a market for LEO flights. Right now most of their contracts still come from the government instead of the private sector.
@dhbiza And your point is? The Soyuz module is the safest way to space and it isn't American. Your not one of those Americans who knows nothing about the world beyond your borders are you? You know the kind - they go on a holiday overseas and cannot help but lecture people in other countries about how much better America is than any other country. Then they return home and pay some of the highest taxes in the west, can't afford to get sick and are broke after working two jobs.
@Realfoxhawk No, I know a lot about the world. I dont holiday overseas because I LIVE in the best place in the world. You know..the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders. You know, the place that leads the world in food production, in technology, that LANDED men on the moon 6 times. all this after barely 200 years existance. BTW I work 1 job and am not broke. Good day.
"the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders."
HAHAH, that's what americans actually believe! Hillarious.
@Kamradec Yes I believe that because it is TRUE. You just hate America. Even your name here is a variation of "Comrade". I never understood why people that hate this country don't just move elsewhere. ....unless...deep down they KNOW the rest of the world is worse....
That's no hate. Bringing freedom and democracy in a bomber bay is fun and entertaining. But you just have to admit that it has nothing with freedom and justice in reality. That's the truth.
@Realfoxhawk No, I know a lot about the world. I dont holiday overseas because I LIVE in the best place in the world. You know..the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders. You know, the place that leads the world in food production, in technology, that LANDED men on the moon 6 times. all this after barely 200 years existance. BTW I work 1 job and am not broke. Good day.
@baginatora you're right, my bad. I thought Buran unmanned flight was done from Antonov in atmosphere, as they had the same problem with loosing thermal tiles like US program until 1981. Still, similarity between US orbiter and Buran is astounding... and it's a shame USSR priority to build it was fear of US dropping bombs from orbiter (like wtf, no better way to do it?!), so Buran next (unmanned) flight was supposed to happen in 1993. They could use it for Mir though...
@EddieTheBigMonster surely they would have used it for Mir :) I read somewhere (I'm not sure if I'm correct) that the design for the shuttle Buran was admitted to be a copy of the american shuttle- at least externally. We could only imagine what progress would the USSR have made, had it not fallen appart- the competition between the East and the West gave birth to some great stuff like Buran, the nuclear submarines, concept for the colonisation of other planets etc. :)
Wow, if this was a near-disaster, it's only fair to say STS-1 was one as well. That thing nearly got its aft end blown away by the unexpected SRB ignition overpressure.
@phantom1000A : And? ...Soon Capitalist America will have no money either. In terms of debt, the people of the U.S.A. owe even the underwear the wear every day.
@vonkaunaz dont you know we could easily control currencies around the world? we could change your inflation rate if we wanted to. how? the entire world is based on the US dollar. money isn't an issue of you are the one in charge of it.
@phantom1000A But the dollar has been dumped by Russia ,China and Iran.Soon the US dollar will be replaced by a new global currency. You just need to wait 2 to 3 yrs.
@Nikola16789 because capitalism and private enterprise will build more cost effective rockets, kinda better than government owned programs, just like healthcare, space, whatever.
The tilt is not a result of a guidance error. This is due to the center of gravity being offset because Energia is carrying the payload piggyback as opposed to on top along it's vertical Y axis. A similar effect happens when the Space Shuttle ignites it's engines before liftoff.
I think the polyus actually exists to this day. They probably said all that crap about landing to that ocean floor and stuff. It was probably a cover story so the U.S. deosn't think that something that powerful exists. The U.S. never searched the pacific ocean floor for polyus. And polyus is a stealth satellite with black carbon paint
@AllHailUSSR Polyus was not even a weapon. I was essentially a dummy maquette for testing whether Energia could launch Kaskad satellites when those would be finished.
And Kaskads weren't supposed to be particularly powerful, their primary role was defense against US ICBMs.
And then treaties were signed that forbid placing weapon platforms in space. It's perfectly possible to track an object whose orbital parameters are known, even if it was painted black.
@ertyqwer lol i know its late but i feel like arguing so..... people do things when were supposed do to anyways. Now the intention of putting mines and launching it to space was technically a violation to the treaty wont u say so?
@covingtonium By your elegant use of language - I'm assuming you're an American teen. I'm afraid to tell you that the US will have to fly at the grace of that same Russian Space program for probably the next 15 years following the cancellation of the Shuttle AND Orion.
Before manned flight , the USSR suffered the Nedelin pad disaster in 1960 losing maybe 150 ground engineers and miltary personnel but they have only lost 4 crew 'in flight' compared to the US sadly losing 14.
@jonlawsb Nice spin-job. Russia loses a pair of two-seat capsules, America loses a pair of seven-seats. Therefore, Russia is more awesome because the total deaths are lower. Riiiight.
You know what's way more awesome still? The UK's program! It's lost 0 people through their brilliant strategy of giving up 39 years ago.
this was much like apollo 13: a successful failure. Yes the Energia did its job :D. but the polyus didnt reach its planned orbit. but who cares it was a great launch!
I think he may mean the way to rocket seemed to "lean" to one side after liftoff for a bit. This is known as a "fly away" maneuver, the Sat V did it, the Ares 1-X did it. Its a move to get the rocket going AWAY from its umbilical tower (would be bad to hit that)
True, a PAM (Pad Avoidance Maneuver) is not unheard of, but Energia's flight profile didn't include one. That's why this says nearly a disaster, because it wasn't supposed to "lean" like that!
It was expected to lean, the automatic stabilization system was programmed not to activate till T + 3 seconds to prevent an engine gimbal resulting in an engine contact with the launch table. The deviation while unexpected from the untrained eye was expected by those who designed the rocket. For future flights the program was activated earlier
@Ronsmytheiii Can I ask where you got that information? It's not that I'm questioning you, I'd like to know what resource that came from so I can take a look at it myself. Thanks!
@Ronsmytheiii ENERGY TRIES TO PUT INTO ORBIT THE LASER GUN THE SCYTHIAN..... FALLING ABOUT? ЯСНИЛИ PROGRAM FAILURE.!!!! AND MOST LIKELY GORBACHEV'S THIS TREACHERY OF THE BALD GEEK.... THE USA PLANNED ЗВЁЗНЫЕ WARS AND THE USSR REALIZED IN PRACTICE.!!!!
@Ronsmytheiii In effect what your saying is the engineers miscalculated and they made a correction for future launches that never happened. Engineers don't make mistakes, they were given bad information.
The launch itself was successful (from the Energia point of view), but the Polyus orbital insertion didn't work properly, firing rockets in the wrong direction and de-orbiting it. Polyus itself was almost boilerplate; it was put together in only six months when it became clear that the Buran flight article wouldn't be ready for first Energia launch.
There was no disaster. The Energia rocket completed its task. The Polus module got detached, but didnt reach its orbit and therefore had to fall into the ocean.
The main rocket ideas and technology was developed by Russian, German and U.S scientist and space/rocket pioneers between 1880-1930. The governments and private investors at this time was ignorant.
In the middle of 1920's german pioneer rocket scientist (not Nazi's), like von Braun who have studied the Russian and U.S knowledge, invite Goddard to cooperate. But he wasn't interested.
Some years later the Nazi's get to power, and gave order to develop rockets for military use.
Polyus was a prototype orbital battlestation. A systems failure caused it to fall into the Indian ocean after separation. It seems that Gorbachev battled hard to get it cancelled but was over ridden by opposition in the Kremlin. Polyus carried a laser to disable optical equipment, a mine thrower device and the abilty to dispense a cloud of Barium to shield itself from laser attack. It also had a radar disrupting paint job. Polyus is the black cylinder attached to the Energia.
Polyus did not have laser installed because its turbogenerators were not ready for flight. Only tracking/aiming equipment and momentum-free gas exhaust system for the turbo. A mine thrower was not a part of its design.
The payload (a rushed affair, made purely because the Energia stack was ready before the Buran shuttle) shot itself into the ocean *after* it seperated form Energia.
There were claims that Energia had a software glitch and others claimed that she was designed that way to clear the tower. However with Buran she lifed flawlessly and without lateral movement.
According to the memoir book written by the chief designer, the lateral movement was an acceptable side effect of clearing the tower. The nozzle deflection was blocked for a few seconds after liftoff contact trigger to make sure the nozzles do not touch block "Я" (launch pad interface with mechanical, electrical and hydraulic connections). Due to asymmetric architecture of the load/strap-on boosters the whole system was "falling" on the side until the nozzle deflection logic was getting enabled
The amount of lateral movement during the first launch was perfectly acceptable for Energia itself, but the thrust threw away concrete road pavement blocks around the launch pad. Also, it was looking very scary. That is why for the second launch the amount of delay was reduced to minimum. Therefore, the lateral movement became less notable.
Is their a problem with Energia. With the launch of Buran Energia lifted off flawlessly but polyus I imagine was considerably heavier and does this account for Energia moving laterally on lift off.
Well in fairness to Reagan he also was thinking of particle cannons, and the reason they were not built had a lot to do with Congress cutting off the funds. "Brilliant pebbles," orbital defense rockets, came up a few years later and were also unfunded. Congress felt they would be provocative. Of course the Soviet government was a little more realistic.
The irony is that even unbuilt, the US Missile Defense plan forced the Soviets to spend billions and aggravated their financial problems.
I dont think anything is wrong with that rocket. The slight "yawing" you see at liftoff is just the rocket moving away from the LUT. The Saturn V did the same thing for each launch. It made a move that would move it away from the tower to make sure it would not hit it. Just more pronounced with the Energia.
Throughout the early 1980s, the Soviets were working on their own versions of Star Wars, weapons systems to be placed in space. When the Buran shuttle project was delayed, the opportunity arose to use the first Energia Launch Vehicle to instead launch a 100-ton payload of space weapons hardware. This super-secret weapons paylaod became known as Polyus, or Pole.
When it was launched in May 1987, Soviet space officials simply called it 'size and weight dummy mock-up'.
Polyus was actually a black cylinder 37m long and 4.1 m in diameter, with an off-the-shelf space tug at one end. Polyus possessed deployable tracking targets and large tanks of gases to be released into the ionosphere.
The spacecraft also carried a 'Skif-DM' apparatus (probably an anti-satellite laser) and according to some reports, a laser rapid-fire aircraft cannon.
> When the Buran shuttle project was delayed, the opportunity arose to use the first Energia Launch Vehicle to instead launch a 100-ton payload of space weapons hardware.
According to the book by the chief designer, the first launch was originally planned to be just static test firing. But because probability of explosion was estimated to be 4% it was decided to launch it to make the test less dangerous for the test infrastructure (called Versatile Complex Stand-Launchpad) that had no backup.
The space shuttle was designed to loft super heavy spy satellites into orbit. Its cover story was that it was to help mankind, be reusable, put astronauts into space cheaply, blah blah.
Look how many DOD missions the shuttle has had and now you know why so much money was poured into the project despite the expense.
The Polyus payload was in fact a derivative of the Almaz military space stations the Soviet flew in the the 1970's as an response to the U.S. Air Force's proposed (but later cancelled) "Blue Gemini" and Manned Orbiting Laboratory.
The space shuttle actually does something very similar during main engine start it'll nod and then spring back before the SRBs are lite.
The delay between srb and main engine start makes it a lot less obvious and also exits for safety reasons to make sure the SSMEs are healthy before committing to launch since an SRB cannot be shut down once started.
Ares I if it ever flies will likely do lots of scary looking corrections in flight.
Elements are only as dear as their availability to the consumer.If these rare elements were plentiful then one couldn't give them away no less sell them.
Ronald Reagan was so scared of the Polyus that his administration didn't even mention it to the American public for fear that they would lose confidence in his own "Star Wars" system, which blew 85 billion dollars (1980's money) and had nothing to show for it, while the russians actually had an devastating operational space weapon!
did i seriously hear that, learn your facts nasa is a far superior regime than the russian counterpart, launch successes to failure rates are garbage in the former USSR, and the current RF, stupid ruskie.
Those Russians will likely beat NASA back to the moon and to mars if the private space groups don't pull off a miracle.
Their next generation spacecraft is a lot farther along then Orion and the Soyuz 3 launch vehicle doesn't have fatal flaws like Ares I plus Soyuz already can go to the moon with just a few modifications.
true, but the russian space programme has always had a better cost to launch ratio than nasa could ever achieve, one could only wonder what the USSR couldve achieved if they had access to such money.
after all, the energia remains to this day the most powerful rocket ever launched, pretty impressive for a cash strapped space program of a country on the verge of collapse.
Most powerful?...a Saturn V could loft 285,000 lbs into LEO.
True, the Energia had slightly more lift off thrust but could not carry as much weight to LEO as the Saturn V did, additionally when you factor in the very efficient 2nd and 3rd hydrogen powered stages of the Saturn its total thrust surpasses the Energia.
...any rocket fitted with any type of supplementary engines will yield an increase in thrust -whats your point?
Comparing articles that actually flew verses ideas on paper is not the same thing -after all adding a few solid strap on's or F-1's (Nova)to a Saturn V would have also made it many times more powerful.
Von Braun himself stated that Saturn V could lift up to 285,000 lbs to LEO, the 260 K spec was a conservative generic value given in 1963,this was upgraded to 285 K by 1966 due to the reality of weight savings achieved by various ingenius methods (new metal alloys,common bulkhead etc.)
As far as Saturn V variations there were many proposed before and after the Apollo program -all with documented studies and associated specs.
Before telling me I'm wrong again try looking this shit up.
you're a moron that speculates and has trouble with English, first of all the Saturn V could actually lift that amount to LEO and as we all know the Germans were always conservative in their specs whereas the Soviets were always the opposite, as for Energia you used the term "bet" which means that you have no actual proof and are therefore gambling your hurt pride against something America developed over 40 years ago.
I'm sorry your country lost the space race but your rants won't change it
9k58, you can see I respond in short order whereas you took 14 days to post your reply -sounds kind of like "you know when you are winning a discussion, when your opponent has nothing else to say".
Its obvious your viewpoint was never defended by others due to your facts being blatently wrong and your obvious anti-American bias.
Spewing false information will eventually ruin your credibility silly boy ...spelling "when" as "wehen" can't help much either.
@FelixMaxwell What do you base the reliability statement on? Soyuz is regarded as the most reliable launch vehicle in the world. Proton has a 96% success rate which is comparable to Ariane. The Energia here, was 2 for 2 for launch.
USSR rockets were cheap and reliable. They did this by being big and relatively low tech. US rockets are expensive and reliable because they're finesse and high tech.
Lol Polyus was never used in combat. And quite honestly, the only thing fludblud said that was incorrect was that Energia was the most powerful rocket ever launched. Doesn't make him retarded, it makes him misinformed.
@fludblud umm...I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but the most powerful rocket ever built and launched is the Saturn V, not the Energia.
In two stage configuration yes it is as it lifted more then the Saturn V INT-21 but the lunar mission Saturn V was still more powerful when the partly fuel S-IVB is included in the IMLEO payload.
It also was more power on TLI payload.
The Energia Vulkan would have much more powerful then the Saturn V lifting 175MT or almost as powerful as the proposed Ares V LV .
GeorgH, it wasn't a software bug. It was a human mistake. Engineers had setup the 'A' rocket blocks engines not properly, so the thrust vector had wrong orientationin the first moment. So realtime systems SAVED the world. )))
1. It wasn't a mistake. The "trajectory bending" was caused by asymmetric configuration of payload/strap boosters and delay in enabling the on-board flight control to ensure clear separation from its launch facility. The amount of "bending" was acceptable, but for the next launch the delay was tuned not to scare spectators.
2. Polyus spacecraft was controlled during launch by a simple electro-mechanical device (rather than by software) similar to what most washing machines have. It was taken from another spacecraft which didn't require 180 degree rotation after separation. But due to tough schedule (1 year to design and build) this difference was overlooked.
Awesome footage, polyus was one stunning revelation after the fall of the iron courtain (for me at least). An awesome combat station in the eighties, before any of the Reagan's SDI systems! (the cool ones i mean :P)
Only sad, that this launch capacity isn't available for real scientific missions. The thought alone of sending a 10-20 ton science probe to mars orbit... Much more instruments at a time, more power - maybe for a strong active radar with high resolution, a much bigger dish for real time youtube streaming... :-)
I know,only for weapons,never for the benefit of mankind :( Nearly unlimited resources applied to
fruitless ventures so old men can continue to disagree and put the whole world in peril while competing for it's resources when there are enough resources in space to actually pay for all of this hardware.Asteroids full of platinum,gold,diamonds and far rarer elements worth as much a $1,000,000 per gram floating in our own solar system and we use this capacity for orbital weapons and cable tv,lol
Get your data correct. There are NO orbital weapons from any country at this time. There are weapons that fly into space and then come down, but nothing that orbits.
Actuaclly, until it was completely phased out in 1983, The Soviet Union had an ICBM that placed its payload in orbit indefinately(For all intents and purposes). It was called the fractional Orbital Bombardment System. SALT II outlawed such weapons though.
In commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Star Wars franchise a rocketeer named Andy Woerner, with the help of his rocketry club members, has built a 21 foot long replica of the X-Wing Fighter that will actually fly on four rocket motors in the scale engine locations. For more info check out 3dub d/ot plasterblaster d/ot com/projects d/ot html.
The rocket bent its trajectory at the very start because of a software bug (it seems) but luckily for the engineers, the system could solve this. Otherwise it would have been <b>another</b> disaster. Remember, this one was the first soviet huge rocket after the embarrassing N1 failures.
From Wikipedia: For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees, then complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly, but after disconnecting from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the rocket fired, it slowed and fell into the south Pacific ocean.
I wouln't say that it bent but rather tilted one direction during launch..this was corrected for the Buran launch
skyprop 3 months ago
Oh, and that slight lean is planned, not a near disaster. Lots of launch vehicles do it.
Realfoxhawk 4 months ago
@40390576 I dont know about optimally designed. The shuttles off-axis non-symmetric design makes flight control very difficult, and it's original intention of a 'reuseable' glider is highly debatable. It was more or less imagined that the shuttle would land, roll to a stop, be hauled up vertically and attached to a tank, ready to fly again, but the reality was the tiles kept falling off, requiring months of expensive rework between flights. Buran was just a politically motivated stunt
dachhh 6 months ago
Great news: This magnificent beast may soon fly once again! The Russian government is looking into possibly reviving the rocket or devising something based on it by 2016.
A86 7 months ago 4
@A86 ...and this is great news why???
dhbiza 5 months ago
@dhbiza - Because the Energia-Buran is a beautiful machine.
A86 5 months ago
@A86 ...but it is not American!!
dhbiza 5 months ago
@dhbiza - Lol! It's a good thing that it might be coming out of retirement because if they intend to keep the ISS afloat then no other vehicle is really up to the task of re-boosting it into a higher orbit; or bringing up some additional modules that have been funded for the ISS in the future. The Soyuz, Progress, ATV, the SpaceX Dragon and Orion spacecraft are too weak to re-boost the ISS. Their powerplants aren't powerful enough.
A86 5 months ago
@A86 Energia cannot reboost the ISS! It's a launch vehicle. They should never have retired Energia. The three major space agencies should update its design and make it the main vehicle for super heavy lifting.
17 Billion to build a super heavy lifter (that will blow out to 30 Billion + before a single launch) is a wast. Give the plans to SpaceX and they will make a working Energia for far less. Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy and Energia would do the world fine for a long while.
Realfoxhawk 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk - Oh, I was referring more to the Buran. Sometimes I forget to the separate the Buran and the Energia, I'm kind of used to the US Shuttle which is treated as a single vehicle since the US Shuttle "Stack" cannot function as a separate machine from the Orbiter (so far, unless they do something like the "Shuttle-C").
A86 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk - "Give the plans to SpaceX and they will make a working Energia for far less"
They have little incentive to create such a thing. Interplanetary space travel is not profitable. There isn't a big market of people willing to pay $50 million to fly by an asteroid or fly to Mars (technically we don't even have the technology yet to make such a venture safe for human flight) and making $50 million/flight wouldn't offset all the costs.
A86 4 months ago
@A86 The main point I was thinking about is that if there was a market and the budget was provided to a company like SpaceX then they could do a better job than a government organisation. Red Tape is the same the world over. By the way - I think there will be a market down the track. Not Lunar though, more Mars. There is no point going to the moon until Mars is semi-autonomous.
Realfoxhawk 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk - Eh, it remains to be seen. So far SpaceX is feeding from the taxpayer trough just like other old contractors like ATK, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. I have faith they can do well but so far they've only cranked out 1 launch or so per year at double their original quoted price. So, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.
There would probably be more of a market for the Moon early on. The Moon is much safer to reach and much easier to build bases and resorts on.
A86 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk - Mars would probably be off-limits to civilians for years after any astronauts reach it. Mars takes months to reach, you'll get a crap-ton of radiation on the way over and while you're there (as Mars has almost no magnetosphere), rescue is almost impossible and you have bad weather to worry about and possibly even germs if there is life on Mars. The gov wouldn't risk the liabilities with civilians until it's safe. If a civilian dies that could be the end of the space company.
A86 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk - SpaceX is having enough difficulty attracting a market for LEO flights. Right now most of their contracts still come from the government instead of the private sector.
A86 4 months ago
@dhbiza And your point is? The Soyuz module is the safest way to space and it isn't American. Your not one of those Americans who knows nothing about the world beyond your borders are you? You know the kind - they go on a holiday overseas and cannot help but lecture people in other countries about how much better America is than any other country. Then they return home and pay some of the highest taxes in the west, can't afford to get sick and are broke after working two jobs.
Realfoxhawk 4 months ago
@Realfoxhawk No, I know a lot about the world. I dont holiday overseas because I LIVE in the best place in the world. You know..the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders. You know, the place that leads the world in food production, in technology, that LANDED men on the moon 6 times. all this after barely 200 years existance. BTW I work 1 job and am not broke. Good day.
dhbiza 4 months ago
@dhbiza
"the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders."
HAHAH, that's what americans actually believe! Hillarious.
Kamradec 2 months ago
@Kamradec admit it...you just hate America...
dhbiza 2 months ago
@dhbiza
Admit it. You are just another one brainwashed idiot who really believes that America brings freedom and justice to the world.
Kamradec 2 months ago
@Kamradec Yes I believe that because it is TRUE. You just hate America. Even your name here is a variation of "Comrade". I never understood why people that hate this country don't just move elsewhere. ....unless...deep down they KNOW the rest of the world is worse....
HA!!!! I win. Discussion over!!
dhbiza 2 months ago
@dhbiza
That's no hate. Bringing freedom and democracy in a bomber bay is fun and entertaining. But you just have to admit that it has nothing with freedom and justice in reality. That's the truth.
Kamradec 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Realfoxhawk No, I know a lot about the world. I dont holiday overseas because I LIVE in the best place in the world. You know..the place that sends our boys to shed their blood for others that are so stupid they elect a butcher dictator that feeds their own people feet first into meat grinders. You know, the place that leads the world in food production, in technology, that LANDED men on the moon 6 times. all this after barely 200 years existance. BTW I work 1 job and am not broke. Good day.
dhbiza 4 months ago
This rocket was never used to launch space shuttle, as Russian SS never flew!
EddieTheBigMonster 7 months ago
@EddieTheBigMonster O, rly? have you heard about the Buran? It flew, however, their space program along with the entire USSR ran out of money...
baginatora 7 months ago
@baginatora you're right, my bad. I thought Buran unmanned flight was done from Antonov in atmosphere, as they had the same problem with loosing thermal tiles like US program until 1981. Still, similarity between US orbiter and Buran is astounding... and it's a shame USSR priority to build it was fear of US dropping bombs from orbiter (like wtf, no better way to do it?!), so Buran next (unmanned) flight was supposed to happen in 1993. They could use it for Mir though...
EddieTheBigMonster 7 months ago
@EddieTheBigMonster surely they would have used it for Mir :) I read somewhere (I'm not sure if I'm correct) that the design for the shuttle Buran was admitted to be a copy of the american shuttle- at least externally. We could only imagine what progress would the USSR have made, had it not fallen appart- the competition between the East and the West gave birth to some great stuff like Buran, the nuclear submarines, concept for the colonisation of other planets etc. :)
baginatora 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The video compilation "UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy " ON
YOUTUBE is a disclosure of major lies + with held information
about life beyond Earth. Footage contains statements
from astronauts, presidents, military personnel, politicians plus
credible news footage. The compilation contains revelations regarding
awareness of free energy technology life beyond Earth along with the
current and ongoing presence which is being hidden from the public + more
Futurecop2012E 7 months ago
That Polyus weapons platform is astoundingly huge. I know that because Energia is huge.
rickcain2320 8 months ago
most powerful rocket ever built.
LonghornPhysicist 8 months ago
Polyus was space laser weapon mockup. Energia is the best rocket ever launched.
Fantomas24ARM 9 months ago
Where did the Energia go..nowhere..
btw the Saturn V rocket had the most Thrust and was the most powerful rocket ever launched, flud.
11AMERICANO11 11 months ago
@11AMERICANO11 You are LOH (лох), my friend from Pindosia (US).
1chemodan 9 months ago
Wow, if this was a near-disaster, it's only fair to say STS-1 was one as well. That thing nearly got its aft end blown away by the unexpected SRB ignition overpressure.
ugowar 1 year ago
this is why you socialists cant afford to go into space! you have no fucking money!
phantom1000A 1 year ago
@phantom1000A : And? ...Soon Capitalist America will have no money either. In terms of debt, the people of the U.S.A. owe even the underwear the wear every day.
vonkaunaz 1 year ago
@vonkaunaz dont you know we could easily control currencies around the world? we could change your inflation rate if we wanted to. how? the entire world is based on the US dollar. money isn't an issue of you are the one in charge of it.
phantom1000A 1 year ago
@phantom1000A But the dollar has been dumped by Russia ,China and Iran.Soon the US dollar will be replaced by a new global currency. You just need to wait 2 to 3 yrs.
alexfakbar999 11 months ago
@alexfakbar999 - we have heard this rumor mongering since the great depression.. all that has happened is Russia collapsed under its own weight.
strangerindanger 11 months ago
@phantom1000A
We don't control our currency. We signed away control to a group of European banks when the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed.
rickcain2320 8 months ago
@phantom1000A LOL, I have to ask you, who will carry your men into space after Atlantis flight? And why you going to retire space shuttles?
BECAUSE you have no fucking money!
Nikola16789 9 months ago
@Nikola16789 because capitalism and private enterprise will build more cost effective rockets, kinda better than government owned programs, just like healthcare, space, whatever.
phantom1000A 9 months ago
@phantom1000A Cant wait to see that rockets and vehicles xD
Till then (at least 5 years), you can go in space only in soyuz, so enjoy in ride :P
Nikola16789 9 months ago
emmm.. where's nearly a disaster?
Shmacktop 1 year ago
The tilt is not a result of a guidance error. This is due to the center of gravity being offset because Energia is carrying the payload piggyback as opposed to on top along it's vertical Y axis. A similar effect happens when the Space Shuttle ignites it's engines before liftoff.
HeliosPhoenix 1 year ago
@Covingtonium I get it!!!!!!!
Henry92RLC 1 year ago
Nearly this nearly that ...NEARLY A load of BS. Where is the disaster? People have a tendency to twist and turn reality...LIE.
I see an Energia rocket system launch...where is the disaster?
bsod4u2 1 year ago
I think the polyus actually exists to this day. They probably said all that crap about landing to that ocean floor and stuff. It was probably a cover story so the U.S. deosn't think that something that powerful exists. The U.S. never searched the pacific ocean floor for polyus. And polyus is a stealth satellite with black carbon paint
AllHailUSSR 1 year ago 6
@AllHailUSSR Polyus was not even a weapon. I was essentially a dummy maquette for testing whether Energia could launch Kaskad satellites when those would be finished.
And Kaskads weren't supposed to be particularly powerful, their primary role was defense against US ICBMs.
And then treaties were signed that forbid placing weapon platforms in space. It's perfectly possible to track an object whose orbital parameters are known, even if it was painted black.
ertyqwer 1 year ago
@ertyqwer lol i know its late but i feel like arguing so..... people do things when were supposed do to anyways. Now the intention of putting mines and launching it to space was technically a violation to the treaty wont u say so?
AllHailUSSR 1 month ago
@AllHailUSSR May be you are right.
gigaton1000 1 year ago
@gigaton1000 1 year later but i still thank the people who support me :)
AllHailUSSR 1 month ago
hey if you wanna risk ur life go be part of the russian space program im sure your life insurance rates will skyrocket
covingtonium 1 year ago
@covingtonium By your elegant use of language - I'm assuming you're an American teen. I'm afraid to tell you that the US will have to fly at the grace of that same Russian Space program for probably the next 15 years following the cancellation of the Shuttle AND Orion.
Before manned flight , the USSR suffered the Nedelin pad disaster in 1960 losing maybe 150 ground engineers and miltary personnel but they have only lost 4 crew 'in flight' compared to the US sadly losing 14.
jonlawsb 1 year ago
@jonlawsb yeah ok moron
covingtonium 1 year ago
@jonlawsb Nice spin-job. Russia loses a pair of two-seat capsules, America loses a pair of seven-seats. Therefore, Russia is more awesome because the total deaths are lower. Riiiight.
You know what's way more awesome still? The UK's program! It's lost 0 people through their brilliant strategy of giving up 39 years ago.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid
I laughed out loud when I read this comment. Witty comment frapa ; )
pacificguitarist 1 year ago
This is not a disaster. It's called Pad Avoidance Maneuver although maybe a bit excessive in this case.
SkyyCaptainn 1 year ago
For a first launch, this is excellent.
tjohn6041 1 year ago
Energia flew twice, Polyus once, Buran once. If you dont call wasting all those rubles a disaster, then you probably want Stalin back.
Hodson2000 1 year ago
this was much like apollo 13: a successful failure. Yes the Energia did its job :D. but the polyus didnt reach its planned orbit. but who cares it was a great launch!
chillaxer1993 1 year ago
I think he may mean the way to rocket seemed to "lean" to one side after liftoff for a bit. This is known as a "fly away" maneuver, the Sat V did it, the Ares 1-X did it. Its a move to get the rocket going AWAY from its umbilical tower (would be bad to hit that)
Zoomer30 2 years ago
True, a PAM (Pad Avoidance Maneuver) is not unheard of, but Energia's flight profile didn't include one. That's why this says nearly a disaster, because it wasn't supposed to "lean" like that!
ntrgc89 2 years ago
It was expected to lean, the automatic stabilization system was programmed not to activate till T + 3 seconds to prevent an engine gimbal resulting in an engine contact with the launch table. The deviation while unexpected from the untrained eye was expected by those who designed the rocket. For future flights the program was activated earlier
Ronsmytheiii 2 years ago 25
@Ronsmytheiii Can I ask where you got that information? It's not that I'm questioning you, I'd like to know what resource that came from so I can take a look at it myself. Thanks!
ntrgc89 2 years ago
the Book Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space shuttle
Ronsmytheiii 2 years ago
@Ronsmytheiii ENERGY TRIES TO PUT INTO ORBIT THE LASER GUN THE SCYTHIAN..... FALLING ABOUT? ЯСНИЛИ PROGRAM FAILURE.!!!! AND MOST LIKELY GORBACHEV'S THIS TREACHERY OF THE BALD GEEK.... THE USA PLANNED ЗВЁЗНЫЕ WARS AND THE USSR REALIZED IN PRACTICE.!!!!
1ZALMOKSIS 1 year ago
@Ronsmytheiii In effect what your saying is the engineers miscalculated and they made a correction for future launches that never happened. Engineers don't make mistakes, they were given bad information.
jerkyturkey007 1 year ago
Granted, Ares I-X did some substantial damage to LC39B, so I don't know if that's a good example, but yeah. ;)
ZaneKaminski 2 years ago
Though, Ares I-X is supposed to lean on takeoff, unlike energia.
*Cough* Dang Soviets *Cough*
heound 2 years ago
yes but this lean away was actually a software bug.
joachim2464 2 years ago
The pad damaga was because the LC39B was not fully optimised for a flyaway manouver profile for Ares 1-x
joachim2464 2 years ago
is there any official source that says polyus failed? I cant find any
Takeital 2 years ago
The launch itself was successful (from the Energia point of view), but the Polyus orbital insertion didn't work properly, firing rockets in the wrong direction and de-orbiting it. Polyus itself was almost boilerplate; it was put together in only six months when it became clear that the Buran flight article wouldn't be ready for first Energia launch.
rsynnott 2 years ago
There was no disaster. The Energia rocket completed its task. The Polus module got detached, but didnt reach its orbit and therefore had to fall into the ocean.
SergeiPilipenko 2 years ago 27
The main rocket ideas and technology was developed by Russian, German and U.S scientist and space/rocket pioneers between 1880-1930. The governments and private investors at this time was ignorant.
In the middle of 1920's german pioneer rocket scientist (not Nazi's), like von Braun who have studied the Russian and U.S knowledge, invite Goddard to cooperate. But he wasn't interested.
Some years later the Nazi's get to power, and gave order to develop rockets for military use.
DennisStartrek 2 years ago
Polyus was a prototype orbital battlestation. A systems failure caused it to fall into the Indian ocean after separation. It seems that Gorbachev battled hard to get it cancelled but was over ridden by opposition in the Kremlin. Polyus carried a laser to disable optical equipment, a mine thrower device and the abilty to dispense a cloud of Barium to shield itself from laser attack. It also had a radar disrupting paint job. Polyus is the black cylinder attached to the Energia.
Alembic25 2 years ago 4
Polyus did not have laser installed because its turbogenerators were not ready for flight. Only tracking/aiming equipment and momentum-free gas exhaust system for the turbo. A mine thrower was not a part of its design.
gadinaaa 2 years ago
@Alembic25
Yep. There's a good introductory article on the wiki.
Silmacar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.Copy this
2.Hold your breath
3.Copy it on another video. If u can do this withoug breathing ure a great kisser
Zoompen 2 years ago
Nearly a disaster? The thing shot it's payload into the ocean. I'd call it a total disaster.
Klaitu 2 years ago
The payload (a rushed affair, made purely because the Energia stack was ready before the Buran shuttle) shot itself into the ocean *after* it seperated form Energia.
lettucemonster 2 years ago
The russians sure know how to make powerful boosters.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 4
vao n c fude!
th3r3gist3r 2 years ago
Can someone tell me was Buran lighter that Polyus.
Irishguy20008 3 years ago
No, somewhat heavier.
rsynnott 3 years ago
There were claims that Energia had a software glitch and others claimed that she was designed that way to clear the tower. However with Buran she lifed flawlessly and without lateral movement.
Irishguy20008 3 years ago
According to the memoir book written by the chief designer, the lateral movement was an acceptable side effect of clearing the tower. The nozzle deflection was blocked for a few seconds after liftoff contact trigger to make sure the nozzles do not touch block "Я" (launch pad interface with mechanical, electrical and hydraulic connections). Due to asymmetric architecture of the load/strap-on boosters the whole system was "falling" on the side until the nozzle deflection logic was getting enabled
gadinaaa 2 years ago
> an acceptable side effect of clearing the tower.
Sorry, you should read as "clearing the launch pad", not the tower of course.
gadinaaa 2 years ago
The amount of lateral movement during the first launch was perfectly acceptable for Energia itself, but the thrust threw away concrete road pavement blocks around the launch pad. Also, it was looking very scary. That is why for the second launch the amount of delay was reduced to minimum. Therefore, the lateral movement became less notable.
gadinaaa 2 years ago
Is their a problem with Energia. With the launch of Buran Energia lifted off flawlessly but polyus I imagine was considerably heavier and does this account for Energia moving laterally on lift off.
Irishguy20008 3 years ago
see that black thingy at 0:17????
Soviet space laser station.
I wonder how long will it take US to catch up to Russia until they launch one like this?
9K58 3 years ago
sorry for not knowing, but what does space laser do? shoots nukes or satellite?
justiakas 3 years ago
blind anti-sattelite weapons, other sattelites (blind or destroy).
But soviets did not develop good enough lasers to shoot down missiles.
Soviet TERRA-3 ground laser could blind sattelites, but someting bigger would have to be in place to destroy missile.
9K58 3 years ago
thanks for info, man!
justiakas 3 years ago
np :)
latest big space thing Russia is developing is a reusable launcher, which, if used, will GREATLY decrease the cost of space launches.
9K58 3 years ago
it wasnt a laser, it a very large recoiless cannon used to destroy enemy satellites.
while regan was wasting billions on the non existant star wars programme, the soviets had already launched their own orbital weapons platform.
pity a software bug caused it to spin 360 degrees and into the pacific ocean.
fludblud 2 years ago
Can I get a link please?
rudenoodle 2 years ago
Well in fairness to Reagan he also was thinking of particle cannons, and the reason they were not built had a lot to do with Congress cutting off the funds. "Brilliant pebbles," orbital defense rockets, came up a few years later and were also unfunded. Congress felt they would be provocative. Of course the Soviet government was a little more realistic.
The irony is that even unbuilt, the US Missile Defense plan forced the Soviets to spend billions and aggravated their financial problems.
DEP717 2 years ago
wat was the gun saterlight called ?
swiFtey08 2 years ago
LOL 'SATERLIGHT'!!!
OH GOD THAT CRACKS ME UP.
Kill yourself, kill yourself now.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
im 16 and have dyslexia your 33 ....... in other words get a life
swiFtey08 2 years ago
Dyslexia means your are too stupid to read.
Kill yourself now.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
haha u dont no anything go die your such a loser i bet your fat and have no friends and no job
swiFtey08 2 years ago
I'll translate your sentence into english, so other people can understand what you are trying to say:
'Ha-ha, you do not know anything, go die. You're such a loser. I bet you're fat and have no friends and no job.'
There, much better.
P.S. that means you got totally owned, all the way to the balls. AGAIN.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
haha u really do have no life
swiFtey08 2 years ago
and u said u owned me in the balls : S r u a pedo as well as a loser
swiFtey08 2 years ago
Again, you need to learn to read sonny.
I said TO THE BALLS, not IN THE BALLS.
That means I'm owning you balls-deep, shooting my hot semen down your throat as you gag on my massive tubesteak.
Okay?
maureenOWW 2 years ago
ansering in record time well done your a complete RETARD
swiFtey08 2 years ago
You may think I'm a 'RETARD', but you've clearly been 'hoist by your own PETARD'.
Mainly because you can't spell the word 'answering' correctly.
You really need to stop typing.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
haha ure such a smart ass
swiFtey08 2 years ago
I dont think anything is wrong with that rocket. The slight "yawing" you see at liftoff is just the rocket moving away from the LUT. The Saturn V did the same thing for each launch. It made a move that would move it away from the tower to make sure it would not hit it. Just more pronounced with the Energia.
Zoomer30 3 years ago 2
Throughout the early 1980s, the Soviets were working on their own versions of Star Wars, weapons systems to be placed in space. When the Buran shuttle project was delayed, the opportunity arose to use the first Energia Launch Vehicle to instead launch a 100-ton payload of space weapons hardware. This super-secret weapons paylaod became known as Polyus, or Pole.
Zbyszkoz 3 years ago
When it was launched in May 1987, Soviet space officials simply called it 'size and weight dummy mock-up'.
Polyus was actually a black cylinder 37m long and 4.1 m in diameter, with an off-the-shelf space tug at one end. Polyus possessed deployable tracking targets and large tanks of gases to be released into the ionosphere.
Zbyszkoz 3 years ago 2
The spacecraft also carried a 'Skif-DM' apparatus (probably an anti-satellite laser) and according to some reports, a laser rapid-fire aircraft cannon.
Zbyszkoz 3 years ago
CCCP collapse because was only one superpower on Earth?
Zbyszkoz 3 years ago
> When the Buran shuttle project was delayed, the opportunity arose to use the first Energia Launch Vehicle to instead launch a 100-ton payload of space weapons hardware.
According to the book by the chief designer, the first launch was originally planned to be just static test firing. But because probability of explosion was estimated to be 4% it was decided to launch it to make the test less dangerous for the test infrastructure (called Versatile Complex Stand-Launchpad) that had no backup.
gadinaaa 2 years ago 2
The space shuttle was designed to loft super heavy spy satellites into orbit. Its cover story was that it was to help mankind, be reusable, put astronauts into space cheaply, blah blah.
Look how many DOD missions the shuttle has had and now you know why so much money was poured into the project despite the expense.
monkeyman1140 3 years ago
Hey man, where you getted this video?
Its awesome! I knew about that, but I think thats was a project dreamed by soviet union.
Now I know thats real, and very.
Its a big thing, wich a such complex ship can liftof like that, anyone could do it again.
victorarnault 3 years ago
such a cool looking booster. The shapes are so much more interesting than shuttle somehow, and the polyus looks plain evil :)
goatofpower 3 years ago 4
The Polyus payload was in fact a derivative of the Almaz military space stations the Soviet flew in the the 1970's as an response to the U.S. Air Force's proposed (but later cancelled) "Blue Gemini" and Manned Orbiting Laboratory.
rwboa22 3 years ago
The space shuttle actually does something very similar during main engine start it'll nod and then spring back before the SRBs are lite.
The delay between srb and main engine start makes it a lot less obvious and also exits for safety reasons to make sure the SSMEs are healthy before committing to launch since an SRB cannot be shut down once started.
Ares I if it ever flies will likely do lots of scary looking corrections in flight.
Membrane556 3 years ago
Elements are only as dear as their availability to the consumer.If these rare elements were plentiful then one couldn't give them away no less sell them.
irishguy20007 3 years ago
Hey!thanx 4 the cool vid*****this is an Awsum rocket!the Russian Soyuz Is Way cool so NASA
000darkstar000 3 years ago 2
Its hard to believe how big a a guidance correction that rocket had to take right after liftoff. Those Russians really live on the edge!
monkeyman1140 3 years ago 6
Ronald Reagan was so scared of the Polyus that his administration didn't even mention it to the American public for fear that they would lose confidence in his own "Star Wars" system, which blew 85 billion dollars (1980's money) and had nothing to show for it, while the russians actually had an devastating operational space weapon!
monkeyman1140 3 years ago
Well the solid state lasers we use in a lot of things such as DVD burners are the result of SDI research.
Same with eximer lasers ,DSPs, and a lot of other technologies.
Membrane556 3 years ago
sorry mistake responded to wayy earlier comment.
alchemy454 3 years ago
did i seriously hear that, learn your facts nasa is a far superior regime than the russian counterpart, launch successes to failure rates are garbage in the former USSR, and the current RF, stupid ruskie.
alchemy454 3 years ago
Well, if you do some research, you will find that the russian space program has a better safety record than the american.
mrxyz4 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, because they haven't been able to get to the point of human flight! What have they DONE?
encoder0 3 years ago
Those Russians will likely beat NASA back to the moon and to mars if the private space groups don't pull off a miracle.
Their next generation spacecraft is a lot farther along then Orion and the Soyuz 3 launch vehicle doesn't have fatal flaws like Ares I plus Soyuz already can go to the moon with just a few modifications.
Membrane556 3 years ago 4
This is just incorrect. They put the first human into space. On second thought, you might be whooshing me..
mrxyz4 3 years ago
true, but the russian space programme has always had a better cost to launch ratio than nasa could ever achieve, one could only wonder what the USSR couldve achieved if they had access to such money.
after all, the energia remains to this day the most powerful rocket ever launched, pretty impressive for a cash strapped space program of a country on the verge of collapse.
fludblud 3 years ago 24
Most powerful?...a Saturn V could loft 285,000 lbs into LEO.
True, the Energia had slightly more lift off thrust but could not carry as much weight to LEO as the Saturn V did, additionally when you factor in the very efficient 2nd and 3rd hydrogen powered stages of the Saturn its total thrust surpasses the Energia.
MightySaturn5 3 years ago
Energia fitted with 8 supplementary engines could lift much more than Saturn 5. Look it up.
9K58 3 years ago
...any rocket fitted with any type of supplementary engines will yield an increase in thrust -whats your point?
Comparing articles that actually flew verses ideas on paper is not the same thing -after all adding a few solid strap on's or F-1's (Nova)to a Saturn V would have also made it many times more powerful.
MightySaturn5 3 years ago
Actually, you are wrong:
total payload to LEO is 260,000 pounds for Saturn.
Soviet Vulcan could lift 175,000 kg.
See the difference?
COULD Saturn be fitted with additional engines?? do you have proof?
Energia could.
9K58 3 years ago
Von Braun himself stated that Saturn V could lift up to 285,000 lbs to LEO, the 260 K spec was a conservative generic value given in 1963,this was upgraded to 285 K by 1966 due to the reality of weight savings achieved by various ingenius methods (new metal alloys,common bulkhead etc.)
As far as Saturn V variations there were many proposed before and after the Apollo program -all with documented studies and associated specs.
Before telling me I'm wrong again try looking this shit up.
MightySaturn5 3 years ago
and the estimate for Energia is not conservative?
:)
please think before posting, I bet Energia it can also lift more than 275,000, so, let us use official data, ok, and not go down to speculation.
And forget about those lifters, Russia is developing reusable one, which (if it is made, and I hope it is) will make all other ones obsolete.
not sure on the progress though.
9K58 3 years ago
you're a moron that speculates and has trouble with English, first of all the Saturn V could actually lift that amount to LEO and as we all know the Germans were always conservative in their specs whereas the Soviets were always the opposite, as for Energia you used the term "bet" which means that you have no actual proof and are therefore gambling your hurt pride against something America developed over 40 years ago.
I'm sorry your country lost the space race but your rants won't change it
MightySaturn5 3 years ago
YEP, that's you know when you are winning a discussion, when your opponent has nothing else to say and starts swearing.
You just showed that you have nothing to say, and you will be repeating all the same speculative bullshit you stated before.
And how is it when I speculate I am a moron, and wehen you do? What are you? EXACTLY.
Noob.
9K58 3 years ago
9k58, you can see I respond in short order whereas you took 14 days to post your reply -sounds kind of like "you know when you are winning a discussion, when your opponent has nothing else to say".
Its obvious your viewpoint was never defended by others due to your facts being blatently wrong and your obvious anti-American bias.
Spewing false information will eventually ruin your credibility silly boy ...spelling "when" as "wehen" can't help much either.
MightySaturn5 3 years ago
@fludblud Cost to launch =/= Reliablity
USSR's launch pricpal apears to be cheep, fast, and big. The U.S. has a much higher sucsess (though they both had quite a few fails...)
FelixMaxwell 1 year ago
@FelixMaxwell What do you base the reliability statement on? Soyuz is regarded as the most reliable launch vehicle in the world. Proton has a 96% success rate which is comparable to Ariane. The Energia here, was 2 for 2 for launch.
USSR rockets were cheap and reliable. They did this by being big and relatively low tech. US rockets are expensive and reliable because they're finesse and high tech.
mirfjc 1 year ago
@fludblud you are truly retarded, they killed tons of ppl because of this shit
covingtonium 1 year ago
@covingtonium
Lol Polyus was never used in combat. And quite honestly, the only thing fludblud said that was incorrect was that Energia was the most powerful rocket ever launched. Doesn't make him retarded, it makes him misinformed.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@fludblud except they killed hundreds of personnel in their space program!!!
covingtonium 1 year ago
@fludblud umm...I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but the most powerful rocket ever built and launched is the Saturn V, not the Energia.
datubaman 1 year ago
@datubaman Overall maybe. But the energia had more take-off thrust.
sidewalkere 1 year ago
@fludblud
In two stage configuration yes it is as it lifted more then the Saturn V INT-21 but the lunar mission Saturn V was still more powerful when the partly fuel S-IVB is included in the IMLEO payload.
It also was more power on TLI payload.
The Energia Vulkan would have much more powerful then the Saturn V lifting 175MT or almost as powerful as the proposed Ares V LV .
Membrane556 11 months ago
it was Energia, height - 60 m. weight - 2400 ton, power 4000 ton, Useful loading 105 ton.
ete0 4 years ago
GeorgH, it wasn't a software bug. It was a human mistake. Engineers had setup the 'A' rocket blocks engines not properly, so the thrust vector had wrong orientationin the first moment. So realtime systems SAVED the world. )))
P.S. The software bug was in Polyus software.
Gelirhil 4 years ago
1. It wasn't a mistake. The "trajectory bending" was caused by asymmetric configuration of payload/strap boosters and delay in enabling the on-board flight control to ensure clear separation from its launch facility. The amount of "bending" was acceptable, but for the next launch the delay was tuned not to scare spectators.
gadinaaa 3 years ago 3
2. Polyus spacecraft was controlled during launch by a simple electro-mechanical device (rather than by software) similar to what most washing machines have. It was taken from another spacecraft which didn't require 180 degree rotation after separation. But due to tough schedule (1 year to design and build) this difference was overlooked.
gadinaaa 3 years ago 3
what rocket was that?
Roncace 4 years ago
Wow thats a beautifull piece of machinery !
MisterCrash84 4 years ago 7
Awesome footage, polyus was one stunning revelation after the fall of the iron courtain (for me at least). An awesome combat station in the eighties, before any of the Reagan's SDI systems! (the cool ones i mean :P)
C0mr4d3 4 years ago
Only sad, that this launch capacity isn't available for real scientific missions. The thought alone of sending a 10-20 ton science probe to mars orbit... Much more instruments at a time, more power - maybe for a strong active radar with high resolution, a much bigger dish for real time youtube streaming... :-)
cavac 3 years ago
I know,only for weapons,never for the benefit of mankind :( Nearly unlimited resources applied to
fruitless ventures so old men can continue to disagree and put the whole world in peril while competing for it's resources when there are enough resources in space to actually pay for all of this hardware.Asteroids full of platinum,gold,diamonds and far rarer elements worth as much a $1,000,000 per gram floating in our own solar system and we use this capacity for orbital weapons and cable tv,lol
sopmodm4 3 years ago
Get your data correct. There are NO orbital weapons from any country at this time. There are weapons that fly into space and then come down, but nothing that orbits.
ericole11 3 years ago 3
Actuaclly, until it was completely phased out in 1983, The Soviet Union had an ICBM that placed its payload in orbit indefinately(For all intents and purposes). It was called the fractional Orbital Bombardment System. SALT II outlawed such weapons though.
NYMBO 3 years ago
The USSR ICBM made less than an orbit to hit i'ts target. It
was deployed to hit the US from the south where defenses
would not be there to detect. Being in orbit it would require
a deorbit burn which would decrease it's throw weight and
accuracy.
artwleb 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Star Wars franchise a rocketeer named Andy Woerner, with the help of his rocketry club members, has built a 21 foot long replica of the X-Wing Fighter that will actually fly on four rocket motors in the scale engine locations. For more info check out 3dub d/ot plasterblaster d/ot com/projects d/ot html.
rnech 4 years ago
Errr. It does not look like anything went wrong so "nearly a disaster" is greatly misleading.
mstuomel 4 years ago
The rocket bent its trajectory at the very start because of a software bug (it seems) but luckily for the engineers, the system could solve this. Otherwise it would have been <b>another</b> disaster. Remember, this one was the first soviet huge rocket after the embarrassing N1 failures.
georgH 4 years ago
Realtime systems saved the day! Back in the day it woulda made a big mushroom cloud!
osensei2987 4 years ago 3
From Wikipedia: For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees, then complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly, but after disconnecting from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the rocket fired, it slowed and fell into the south Pacific ocean.
geocam2 4 years ago
Man, I must say, that is an INCREDIBLE amount of yaw for such a large system.
geocam2 4 years ago
Exactly. A total waste.
booradley4000ad 4 years ago
Imagine where space exploration could be with the 400 billion spent on the iraq war..
TanzanianRoots 4 years ago 4
We could have men on mars for one.
danwill99 4 years ago 2
Every human endeavor needs to be bank rolled! Sad, but true! Unless there is profit in it then no one will ever do it!
osensei2987 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
american people can go mars and come here on earth safe..
ussr russian people can go venus and never come here on earth
bestamerica 4 years ago