back in the day the Soviets made a space shuttle, Buran. It never got to fly with astronauts. It had only one mission, totally automated, but was somewhat spectacular. I've seen other Buran videos ...
back in the day the Soviets made a space shuttle, Buran. It never got to fly with astronauts. It had only one mission, totally automated, but was somewhat spectacular. I've seen other Buran videos on YouTube but I think this one is new.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Bombarder, the presence of 'burn marks' on Buran proves nothing. Since the supposed Buran 'flight' was conducted in secrecy, that fact alone leaves the Soviets open to a conclusion that the Buran failed to make it into orbit. For all we know, the 'burn marks' were made with blowtorches. Energia also was a dud. It was too expensive to use routinely, and never demonstrated any actual reusability. Lastly, good luck with Angara. Given the poor Russian history with BIG rockets, luck will be needed.
Your false sense of pride makes you blind and deluded even when information is just a few clicks away. (web links are not accepted here, but they can be easily googled)
1. The Shuttle's automated landing system has never been tested (which means "god knows if the design really works"):
As a result, remote landing capability has been implemented instead which is not an automated landing by any stretch of mind:
2. RD-170 is not a Ukranian design. It was designed by a Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash:
3. Nobody in the rocket engine industry considers RD-170 to be "four engines with common turbopump". It is single engine with multiple chambers no matter how often you state the opposite.
4. Buran's airframe cannot be a copy of the Shuttle for a simple reason. Shuttle has its lift engines in the tail and pushes the external fuel tank. Buran was designed to be a payload attached to the rocket. As a result, forces applied to the airframe are completely different. If you do not see that difference it means that you are either technically illiteral or deliberatly misleading others.
Actually, the Saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever built....and proved clearly to have been successful, too, in that its launches were all televised. The Soviets, with their deep love of secrecy, never televised any of its cold-war era launches, including this one of Energia. As a result, we don't have any proof that Energia was successful, either. Whether it actually put the Buran all the way up in orbit is entirely unproven.
When the cold war ended the soviets revealed all their secrets, there is footage of buran returning and you can clearly see it has been burned during reentry, the soviets did admit that the first launch of energia was succesful but that the 100 ton polyus weapon package failed to reach orbit., I am waiting for russias newest rocket the Angara heavy lift system, I read there is one configuration that will give it the ability to lift 175 tons!
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
1. The Shuttle's automated landing system has never been tested (which means "god knows if the design really works"):
As a result, remote landing capability has been implemented instead which is not an automated landing by any stretch of mind:
3. Nobody in the rocket engine industry considers RD-170 to be "four engines with common turbopump". It is single engine with multiple chambers no matter how often you state the opposite.
Overall impression: your arrogance is waaay ahead of your technical competence.