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.
dziltener is correct, you can read the info in wikipedia. Shuttle could abort only in a 5 sec window, as it ignited its engines first, and then the boosters. Once the boosters are on, nothing can turn em off. Before the Challenger disaster, they didn't wear suits for high altitude. They had a procedure (never used) where they could leave the shuttle in flight, but only in a special situation where they could glide it in autopilot, blow a hatch, extend a pole and use it to parachute down.
The program was started out in fear of the American shuttle, which was viewed as a weapons delivery platform, it got its funding for that purpose, and got canceled when that reason ceased to exist. The world's biggest plane owes its existence to the Buran program, the Antonov 225 which was restored and is flying to the awe and cheers of bystanders at any airport it lands and takes off from.
@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.
@patchesdf this was the cold war, EVERYTHING had a military function, even the old shuttle which could theoretically deploy offensive payloads. for example the black device at 4:54 was polyus, an orbital weapons platform with a recoilless cannon used to shoot down other satellites, unfortunately a software glitch caused it to spin into the pacific ocean.
Cool also lots of cool rare 80s footage I didn't know they had several variants of Buran in the works before the collaspe I also saw the polyus station launch as well. The layout of klipper is way better then what I seen on Orion also the test article or mockup are more detailed as well. The way it looks the next person on the moon might be a Russian.
The Soviets could have used their own orbiter design instead of Burn quite easily. The overall system shown here is far better than the USA design as Energia can be used on her own as a launch system carrying cargo up to 140 tonnes and more.
The only thing the Soviets failed at was the N1 Soyuz and the rest of the system worked very well. Soyuz also was far safer then the Apollo which actually had a dismal safety record when you consider the number of accidents it had for the number of flights. As badly as the Ares development has been going I'm afraid the only way a NASA astronaut will ever visit the moon again anytime soon will be either on a private craft like spacex's or on a Russian vehicle.
@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.
@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...
I read somewhere that it could carry up to ten cosmonauts, when it first flew it did not have life support systems, but that's no big deal, the next launch was supposed to be manned but it never happened.
@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.
The excess availability of resources would simply drive the prices down. But the proposed atomic engines could very well be used for interstellar travel, for exploring beyond the inner planets, etc. The Voyagers do use radiation as their source of power, which is why they still go on after decades in space. It would also make good use of all that excessive nuclear arsenal. But people fear accidents in launching would spread dangerous contamination.
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.
@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.
Little kids stop fighting. I think this vehicle was superior to the American, but the collapse of the Soviet Union sadly ended the program. Of course, as a weapon platform it looks pointless, you could do the same more cheaply using simpler ICBMs, etc, but they probably gave it that spin just so it would get funded by the bureaucracy. Buran made a single flight, but it was fully automated, from launch to orbit, then landing, in the 80ies. Remarkable. The American vehicle had to be manned.
@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.
The Soviet engineers wanted to place their own space plane design on the top of Energia but in a rush the leaders told them th place the orbiter on the side. Then then placed Buran which was similar to the USA orbiter in design on the side.
The American Space shuttle was like the Nintendo Entertainment system. The Buran was a Sega Genesis. The difference is a 16 bit microprocessor and blast processing.
@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.
Indeed, the American shuttle fleet is getting quite old. The Columbia first flew in 1981. We've already lost two space shuttles- Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003. It will be good, and bad to retire the fleet. It is probably getting too costly and too dangerous to keep flying these old shuttles. But, they were technological marvels, and America- and the world, too- got a lot of work & discoveries from the space shuttle program. I hope NASA will have a repacement for the shuttle.
We don't even have a CLV yet and the design we are pursuing the Ares I has been found to be fatally defective so we have to start over. Klipper has two outer shells to choose from one is the winged version the other is a biconic liftng body which actually can handle higher speed reentries then the max safe speed on the apollo shape . Orion wouldn't be safe for a 35K mph mars return do to having too small of a L to D ratio only .3 For mars return you need .5 to 1 to keep the G loading safe.
@ FlightFan: Where did the videos come from that equate the BOR-4 test beds with missiles? Why would they mimic windscreens in their shape if they were missiles, and why use an expensive winged re-entry vehicle when they already have MIRV designs that can re-enter? When I was in the USAF, we were briefed that these were small scale models / test beds of the Mig 105 manned re-entry vehicle intended for the Spiral 50/50 project, a model of which is shown starting at 1:04.
@YUSKHAN because A) it was never designed for re-entry and burned up in the atmosphere and B) any wreckage that did make it to earth is at the bottom of the pacific ocean and not in any salvageable state.
@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
@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!
the building housing buran and the energia rocket boosters collapsed destroying the only flight capable buran, the other shuttles were for test purposes and cannot fly
@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.
@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.
@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...
No it was destroyed when the roof of the Russian version of the orbiter processing facility collapsed in 2002. Buran and the Energia vehicle themselves worked very well the Ployus station was due to a software bug in the station it's self not Energia. The station performed it's circularization burn after performing a 360 rotation vs a 180. So Energia actually has a 100% success rate though only two flights. So we'll never know how reliable it really was.
Energia on the other hand is in storage and is still the largest launch system in the world and should have been used to build the ISS in a few years. It's a pitty the Energia was not allowed to build the ISS as she can lift 140 tonne compared to 25 tonne USA shuttle.
I think people should be concentrating on Energia which is the heaviest lift launch system int he world to this day. Buran the orbiter that sat on Energia's back was somewhat copied from the USA but the Soviets had many of their own designs.
Yes, you would need several missions just to bring materials in orbit, even before starting assembly. Look at how long they took for the ISS, just imagine if the thing had to be added fuel tanks and engines so it can be later used to escape earth's gravity, perhaps establishing stations at lagrangian points first, etc. Funny thing is once in orbit you need little fuel, its like 80% is wasted reaching space. Using more efficient methods is crucial, so Shuttles had to go. Nasa is back to capsules
@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.
There really isn't any point in arguing over who is better in space. Both countries were great. Both countries had incredible advances and discoveries. It was the Soviets who 1st placed an artificial satellite, the 1st man & woman & then did the 1st spacewalk. Then America came along with the 1st rendez-vous in space, the 1st moon landing, followed by the 1st reuseabe spacecraft. Now there is the joint ISS by several countries.
@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
@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.
@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.
Well, then there's obviously plenty of room for improvement by all countries. All the same, I have I don't see the Space Shuttles of any countries having a major part in the future of space travel--we seem to be returning to multi-stage, like the Soyuz and Saturn of the past. Multistage put Gagarin in space and Armstrong on the moon, after all. But I'm really, REALLY not an expert on this technology.
The energia rocket functionally was the same type of vehicle NASA is trying to create with Ares V. Buran and energia was much more then just a shuttle it was a system that was to take the USSR to mars from what I read. As for claims of theft well buran's wings are a little different then the shuttles just that often the same shape is happened upon by different engineers. It's a very effective hypersonic reentry vehicle shape. NASA HL20 and dreamchaser are similar the bor4 test article.
What i don't understand is why Energia as a company don't take donations on their website for say clipper project.Every university in the world is taking the. I for one would like to contribute. I emailed them about this but they never responded.
@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...
@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
Russia has already committed to the APTS/PPTS, Angara, Kliper projects which are way more cost efficient, reliable, and offer more utility then the Space Shuttle which was a disaster for NASA. Although they were sexy.
@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.
@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.
Well it cosy cost 18 billions dollars to develop almost 30 years ago and when adjustments are made for wages in the Soviet Union which were much lower then this was an incredible amount of money. So was it advanced HELL YES
I wouldn't necessarily say that Russia's materials are better. I mean, the Buran itself is nearly a carbon-copy of the US space shuttle, developed& engineered beginning in the 1970's. A truly smart society will recognize that to build the best that it can, it will accept ideas, materials & information from outside sources & countries. No one country has all the best brains & scientists, and it makes perfect sense to gather ideas& to borrow or buy materials from other countries.
Also i agree the Energia system was much more superior and elegant; I wonder why Americans didn't copy back that design before ending their Shuttle program. They still used that over complicated solid boosters + liquid stuff. In the end using large space planes is less efficient than symmetric rockets with their payload on top, as the Soyuz proved all these years and now the Americans are finally coming back to with the Orion which is like the Apollo Command Module.
The Russians at the moment are building clipper which is more in line with what their engineers had in mind before they were derailed by their leaders.Clipper will fly in 3 years and will sit on top of either a Soyuz launch vehicle or Angara launch vehicle.
@ 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.
The Russian program is 15 times more efficiient because: 1. Last year the budget of NASA was $17 billion while the budget of the Russian Aerospace agency was just $1,5 billion, ten times less. 2. But while NASA got 15 launches (of space rockets), the Russian space agency got 26 launches. So the Russian space agency is much more efficient.
@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....
Imagine where we could be in space exploration if the US & USSR had just worked TOGETHER instead of against each other trying to outdo one another. Perhaps by now we'd already have a manned moon base. Perhaps the US would not have lost two space shuttles & 14 astronauts& perhaps the Soviets would not lost whatever they have lost, if we had just worked together! =) Fortunately, 16 nations, including Russia are all working together on the ISS, and it's nearly complete, after 11 years so far.
@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.
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??
the next person on the moon is most likely going to be chinese, have you seen the latest NASA budget cuts? oh and the music totally suits the video, any idea what its called?
@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!
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
The Russian lunar program was abandonded because of the spectacular failure of their N1 boosters. The damn things kept exploding with the force of small nukes. If they could have come up with a decent rocket that could compete with the Saturn V, they may have had a shot at it.
Excellent Footage ! awesome Buran...
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.
dziltener is correct, you can read the info in wikipedia.
Shuttle could abort only in a 5 sec window, as it ignited its engines first, and then the boosters. Once the boosters are on, nothing can turn em off.
Before the Challenger disaster, they didn't wear suits for high altitude. They had a procedure (never used) where they could leave the shuttle in flight, but only in a special situation where they could glide it in autopilot, blow a hatch, extend a pole and use it to parachute down.
The program was started out in fear of the American shuttle, which was viewed as a weapons delivery platform, it got its funding for that purpose, and got canceled when that reason ceased to exist.
The world's biggest plane owes its existence to the Buran program, the Antonov 225 which was restored and is flying to the awe and cheers of bystanders at any airport it lands and takes off from.
@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.
@patchesdf this was the cold war, EVERYTHING had a military function, even the old shuttle which could theoretically deploy offensive payloads.
for example the black device at 4:54 was polyus, an orbital weapons platform with a recoilless cannon used to shoot down other satellites, unfortunately a software glitch caused it to spin into the pacific ocean.
Cool also lots of cool rare 80s footage I didn't know they had several variants of Buran in the works before the collaspe I also saw the polyus station launch as well.
The layout of klipper is way better then what I seen on Orion also the test article or mockup are more detailed as well.
The way it looks the next person on the moon might be a Russian.
The Soviets could have used their own orbiter design instead of Burn quite easily. The overall system shown here is far better than the USA design as Energia can be used on her own as a launch system carrying cargo up to 140 tonnes and more.
The only thing the Soviets failed at was the N1 Soyuz and the rest of the system worked very well.
Soyuz also was far safer then the Apollo which actually had a dismal safety record when you consider the number of accidents it had for the number of flights.
As badly as the Ares development has been going I'm afraid the only way a NASA astronaut will ever visit the moon again anytime soon will be either on a private craft like spacex's or on a Russian vehicle.
@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.
@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...
I read somewhere that it could carry up to ten cosmonauts, when it first flew it did not have life support systems, but that's no big deal, the next launch was supposed to be manned but it never happened.
@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.
The excess availability of resources would simply drive the prices down.
But the proposed atomic engines could very well be used for interstellar travel, for exploring beyond the inner planets, etc. The Voyagers do use radiation as their source of power, which is why they still go on after decades in space.
It would also make good use of all that excessive nuclear arsenal. But people fear accidents in launching would spread dangerous contamination.
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.
@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.
Little kids stop fighting. I think this vehicle was superior to the American, but the collapse of the Soviet Union sadly ended the program.
Of course, as a weapon platform it looks pointless, you could do the same more cheaply using simpler ICBMs, etc, but they probably gave it that spin just so it would get funded by the bureaucracy.
Buran made a single flight, but it was fully automated, from launch to orbit, then landing, in the 80ies. Remarkable. The American vehicle had to be manned.
@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.
The Soviet engineers wanted to place their own space plane design on the top of Energia but in a rush the leaders told them th place the orbiter on the side. Then then placed Buran which was similar to the USA orbiter in design on the side.
This video its such a good answer, why all program was shut down.
The American Space shuttle was like the Nintendo Entertainment system. The Buran was a Sega Genesis. The difference is a 16 bit microprocessor and blast processing.
@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.
Indeed, the American shuttle fleet is getting quite old. The Columbia first flew in 1981. We've already lost two space shuttles- Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003.
It will be good, and bad to retire the fleet. It is probably getting too costly and too dangerous to keep flying these old shuttles. But, they were technological marvels, and America- and the world, too- got a lot of work & discoveries from the space shuttle program.
I hope NASA will have a repacement for the shuttle.
We don't even have a CLV yet and the design we are pursuing the Ares I has been found to be fatally defective so we have to start over.
Klipper has two outer shells to choose from one is the winged version the other is a biconic liftng body which actually can handle higher speed reentries then the max safe speed on the apollo shape . Orion wouldn't be safe for a 35K mph mars return do to having too small of a L to D ratio only .3
For mars return you need .5 to 1 to keep the G loading safe.
@ FlightFan:
Where did the videos come from that equate the BOR-4 test beds with missiles? Why would they mimic windscreens in their shape if they were missiles, and why use an expensive winged re-entry vehicle when they already have MIRV designs that can re-enter?
When I was in the USAF, we were briefed that these were small scale models / test beds of the Mig 105 manned re-entry vehicle intended for the Spiral 50/50 project, a model of which is shown starting at 1:04.
@YUSKHAN because A) it was never designed for re-entry and burned up in the atmosphere and B) any wreckage that did make it to earth is at the bottom of the pacific ocean and not in any salvageable state.
@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
@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!
the building housing buran and the energia rocket boosters collapsed destroying the only flight capable buran, the other shuttles were for test purposes and cannot fly
@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.
@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.
Buran's one and only flight was also unmanned. It didn't need a crew to fly it.
@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...
No it was destroyed when the roof of the Russian version of the orbiter processing facility collapsed in 2002.
Buran and the Energia vehicle themselves worked very well the Ployus station was due to a software bug in the station it's self not Energia.
The station performed it's circularization burn after performing a 360 rotation vs a 180.
So Energia actually has a 100% success rate though only two flights.
So we'll never know how reliable it really was.
Energia on the other hand is in storage and is still the largest launch system in the world and should have been used to build the ISS in a few years. It's a pitty the Energia was not allowed to build the ISS as she can lift 140 tonne compared to 25 tonne USA shuttle.
I think people should be concentrating on Energia which is the heaviest lift launch system int he world to this day. Buran the orbiter that sat on Energia's back was somewhat copied from the USA but the Soviets had many of their own designs.
Yes, you would need several missions just to bring materials in orbit, even before starting assembly. Look at how long they took for the ISS, just imagine if the thing had to be added fuel tanks and engines so it can be later used to escape earth's gravity, perhaps establishing stations at lagrangian points first, etc.
Funny thing is once in orbit you need little fuel, its like 80% is wasted reaching space. Using more efficient methods is crucial, so Shuttles had to go. Nasa is back to capsules
@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.
@airdaleva42 Not kamakazie, because it is automatic (and its singular flight was without crew), though it maight carry four people.
excellent!
There really isn't any point in arguing over who is better in space. Both countries were great. Both countries had incredible advances and discoveries. It was the Soviets who 1st placed an artificial satellite, the 1st man & woman & then did the 1st spacewalk.
Then America came along with the 1st rendez-vous in space, the 1st moon landing, followed by the 1st reuseabe spacecraft.
Now there is the joint ISS by several countries.
@AngusAndBubba Actually they do. Started years ago. And I think it is great!
it was planned that the boran be put into service after the retirment of the space shuttle. the plans where than droped in 2008.
It landed back at the space center it launched from, just like its American counterpart.
@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
awesome!!!!
@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.
@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.
Well, then there's obviously plenty of room for improvement by all countries.
All the same, I have I don't see the Space Shuttles of any countries having a major part in the future of space travel--we seem to be returning to multi-stage, like the Soyuz and Saturn of the past. Multistage put Gagarin in space and Armstrong on the moon, after all.
But I'm really, REALLY not an expert on this technology.
The energia rocket functionally was the same type of vehicle NASA is trying to create with Ares V.
Buran and energia was much more then just a shuttle it was a system that was to take the USSR to mars from what I read.
As for claims of theft well buran's wings are a little different then the shuttles just that often the same shape is happened upon by different engineers.
It's a very effective hypersonic reentry vehicle shape.
NASA HL20 and dreamchaser are similar the bor4 test article.
Yes, it was awesome!!!
What i don't understand is why Energia as a company don't take donations on their website for say clipper project.Every university in the world is taking the. I for one would like to contribute. I emailed them about this but they never responded.
@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...
@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
Russia has already committed to the APTS/PPTS, Angara, Kliper projects which are way more cost efficient, reliable, and offer more utility then the Space Shuttle which was a disaster for NASA. Although they were sexy.
@Anonymous5125 It was designed to be used with a carrier rocket Energy, which is surely can )
@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.
Awesome video and even more awesome soundtrack! Does anyone know who's song is that?
@Plutoplatter If you look around youtube youn will find the complete video in which it last until buran disapears in the clouds.
@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.
Well it cosy cost 18 billions dollars to develop almost 30 years ago and when adjustments are made for wages in the Soviet Union which were much lower then this was an incredible amount of money.
So was it advanced HELL YES
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.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Russia's materials are better. I mean, the Buran itself is nearly a carbon-copy of the US space shuttle, developed& engineered beginning in the 1970's.
A truly smart society will recognize that to build the best that it can, it will accept ideas, materials & information from outside sources & countries. No one country has all the best brains & scientists, and it makes perfect sense to gather ideas& to borrow or buy materials from other countries.
Also i agree the Energia system was much more superior and elegant; I wonder why Americans didn't copy back that design before ending their Shuttle program. They still used that over complicated solid boosters + liquid stuff.
In the end using large space planes is less efficient than symmetric rockets with their payload on top, as the Soyuz proved all these years and now the Americans are finally coming back to with the Orion which is like the Apollo Command Module.
excellent. spacecraft
0:27 the engines of the plane were like frozen
5 stars! good video
Oh now I understand. Thank you for the info :)
@Eagle1Division2 Dont' know about landing weight? What else? And how do you know the other data? I dont have other questions.
long live the mankind!!!!!!!!! god save all humans !!
One question: did Soviets really plan to use Buran as "orbital aircraft carrier", or just author made it up?
The Russians at the moment are building clipper which is more in line with what their engineers had in mind before they were derailed by their leaders.Clipper will fly in 3 years and will sit on top of either a Soyuz launch vehicle or Angara launch vehicle.
@ 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.
The Russian program is 15 times more efficiient because:
1. Last year the budget of NASA was $17 billion while the budget of the Russian Aerospace agency was just $1,5 billion, ten times less.
2. But while NASA got 15 launches (of space rockets), the Russian space agency got 26 launches.
So the Russian space agency is much more efficient.
@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....
not bad, your estimates on their lunar programme mirror those of the chinese government exactly.
And about the Uninons; dragon died, long live the dragon..
Imagine where we could be in space exploration if the US & USSR had just worked TOGETHER instead of against each other trying to outdo one another. Perhaps by now we'd already have a manned moon base. Perhaps the US would not have lost two space shuttles & 14 astronauts& perhaps the Soviets would not lost whatever they have lost, if we had just worked together! =)
Fortunately, 16 nations, including Russia are all working together on the ISS, and it's nearly complete, after 11 years so far.
@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.
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??
"Have a good night" in the end.)
the next person on the moon is most likely going to be chinese, have you seen the latest NASA budget cuts?
oh and the music totally suits the video, any idea what its called?
wait what were those mini shuttles
@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!
This is a cool video, but I have a problem with 2:25
Music in the video is cool. Does anyone know who is playing?
@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.
@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.
@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.
Does anyone know if clipper or kliper spacecraft is still being developed??
@greenseaships Same here. ;) Just watched this video. Search for this: "Blast into Space, Spectacular Fall to Earth" You will like it for sure!
So This was to be some kind of Soviet nuclear kamakazie platfordm? Comon!!!
didnt there shuttle program fail big time and now there only shuttle is a restaurant.
NASA should use her after they retire their shuttle fleet in 2010. There will be a 6 year gap when they will have no vehicle.
@patchesdf - Does someone have to explain the 1980s to you ?
what was that vehicle?
@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.
Unlike it's American counterpart...the Buran was capable of unmanned flight. Epic idea. Then 14 people wouldnt be dead...just Challenger and Columbia
what is this music,please someone tell me
The Russian lunar program was abandonded because of the spectacular failure of their N1 boosters. The damn things kept exploding with the force of small nukes. If they could have come up with a decent rocket that could compete with the Saturn V, they may have had a shot at it.