I remember historical day in November 1988 when Space Shuttle Buran flew to space for first mission. After two orbits Buran (Snow storm) landed in fully automatic mode.
Man I can’t believe that the space shuttle didn’t have a fully automatic mode for landing, (it did) I also can’t believe that auto pilots didn’t exist before the buran… (they did)
Based on the Energia rocket, it was planned to create a Vulcan rocket with a payload capacity of up to 200 tons. Instead of 4 side blocks with RD-170 engines, it was supposed to install 8, and also add a third stage. Currently, Russia is developing the Yenisei rocket, which is a continuation of work on superheavy missiles
The Sad thing was that the Side boosters of Buran were to be Reusable. It was supposed to have Wings and it would glide back on a runway like a Glider.
That was Urgan (Energia 2.0), They planned on a fully reusable rocket The core would have delta wings and skip over the atmosphere, the boostets had deployavle wings
@@denzelklarenaar5883грузоподъемность определялась заданием. Система автоматической посадки сделана ещё в 1955 для самолётов в США, но нужна ли так она... Катастрофы как с Шаттлами были возможны тоже.
@@masonrowden9730SMH lol. Middle school logic. It is known that the Space Shuttle had many design flaws. That being said, it was a pioneer for being the first and only system of its type to make it into space. One of the Buran’s biggest benefits is not having no reusable engines on the vehicle. That played a large role in the US shuttle being very expensive to repair (not to mention the time). Not sure if Buran would have had the same issues with tiles. The shuttle design is so relatively complex that it is unlikely to be a “copy” outside of what a Middle Schooler would consider to be a copy. Now, other Russian products… definitely copy (like MacDonalds), but not such things as this or even fighter jets…
It would be realy interesting if CCCP would not colapse when it did and we could see Buran fly in its "final" version. On paper, it was an improved and a more capable design over USS shuttle. I see few people understand that in USA, congress (who are not rocket scientist) decided in the end what the shuttle was to be, which was very decremental. Originaly, the external tank was to be reusable aswell, and no dangerous srbs. While in CCCP military supremacy and scientific endevors were praised. If you had the right idea, presented to the right people, you had a green light. Of course there were other county issues, but generaly in CCCP scientis/engeneers were more valued then in USA, where movie stars have way bigger social status. Thats why more "unreal" things came from that land, 1st full stage oxigen rich engines which americans thought to be unfeesable and later used them on atlas. People are smart, reguarless in which county they are born, the only thing that sets us apart is who, how and by what standards are we led.
Indeed. I would also like to see what the Soviet engineers and scientists could achieve with the same budget as their US counterparts. Of course, one of the reasons why the Soviets were quite creative in their engineering approach (multi-combustion chamber rockets, staged combustion cycle, etc), was because of limited resources. The USSR, despite all its flaws, was a very technocrat-led country in certain aspects. Many political members had engineering/STEM backgrounds. China (where I now live/work, as en engineer) takes this to a new level. They're far better at setting industrial policies than their western counterparts with liberal arts/soft degrees. The mayor of my City has a Ph.D. in metallurgy, and worked for a large steel making plant.
@@energiam880 respect for beeing an engeener 👌 im also in engeering indeed indeed, good poings Im sad to say but it seems usa pushes forward only when there is competition compromizing theyr values, not suprising, its a human instinct to be better. For this reason i hope china and india keep breaking the barriers, not only to advance techology, but to motivate competition again.. After all, space is for all mankind, its to big for single coutrys, let alone private individuals. (Individualism is a bit of a plague if in a to big "dose" if you ask me) I dont know china to well, im a simple balkan european who was born in war times and have to say, china at this moment seem to have an almost perfect balance between industrial focus and, as you put it, liberal/soft degrees.. meybe to much industrial focus, but thats good for general progress in a seemingly stagnating world. Not gonna lie, liberal degrees are necessary for people to prosper and industial focus for a coutry to prosper, a balance of both is ideal... went to much in politics on a technical video, my apologys
That's a really nice job! Recently I started to read and watch stuff about Buran, so YT keeps recommending me jewels like this one; I guess the algorythm gets smarter :) Where did you get dimentions etc. from? And would you care to share those 3D models?
@@energiam880 Hello, could you be so kind to sent me the files for Energhia&Buran , these ones. I will try to make one in 3D , but I didn't find anyware such great detalis as you have. Please help me in this project. Many thanks in advance
Ya missed more, abt BURAN: all was done Autonomously. On way back, it senses flight line was a bit off, so flew over the airport and made 2nd attempt. Landed and even parked on its own, at the designated parking lot. 😂 Shes wayyy better.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver WHAT "it didn't"!!!???? Buran did not fly on his own and made second approach when landing? Of course it did! You know nothing and it is obvious that you are obsessed with American superiority. You are nothing more than a complete waste of time ...
the soviets only had to fly it once to realize the basic design was far too expensive, impractical, and dangerous to be useful.. it took 30 years for the US to finally resign to that
@@RideAcrossTheRiver systems that were and still are in use today.. soyuz, atlas, etc.. and to flip the question, what did shuttle ever do that those systems can't?
I've heard that the NASA actually considered using the Buran after the Columbia disaster. But the only Buran that ever flew to space was destroyed by this time. All the other orbiter that never got completed got their components used for other projects, scrapped or abandoned.
Buran has only one mission, but not because it was bad, but because the state that made it ceased to exist. The shuttle ended its career due to well-known catastrophic events. Following the loss of two Space Shuttle missions, the risks for the initial missions were reevaluated, and the chance of a catastrophic loss of the vehicle and crew was found to be as high as 1 in 9. In other words - you have a better chance to walk across the minefield relaxed, with your hands in your pockets, unharmed than to survive the Space shuttle mission. P.S. Quantity and quality are two different things, although you Westerners have a habit of saying that quantity itself is a kind of quality.
No shit, if the country producing it fell apart before completing it. And even when it was falling apart, it was tested sucessfuly, have to give props to the people making it. Fact is they learned from shuttles mistakes (srbs, ext. tank, orbiter, all had flaws but it was pushed forward to please the fing congres) and improved the design. Like it or not, it would be supperior if it had a fair chance of flying.
Нужно бы снова восстановить буран, мрию, «каспийского монстра» и других и создать корабли даже лучше.. Все были рады развалу СССР но только спустя время многие начинают понимать что мы потеряли на самом деле😊
Он вообще то один раз летал на орбиту Земли в автоматическом режиме и вернулся оттуда на аэродром, сомневаюсь что ваш шаттл был способен на это, так что глупости не пишите, раз не в курсе всего...
@@yurakondratuk253 тут под этим видео некоторые писали что он вообще не летал, поэтому и написал что он всё таки разок слетал, а причём тут строительство МКС? Речь вообще не о нем.
there is only 1 reality and in this reality the Shuttle flew 135 times with humans on board and the Buran flew 0 times, there is no competition here, everything else is fictional
That's lovely, but this isn't really an ego-measuring contest. It's just my artwork But thanks for your expert opinion anyway. However, think it's probably best if you kept them to your self :)
If you already insist on formalities: Buran had one mission. Buran's safety record is 100%. Shuttle's safety record is 98,52%. Buran has 0 losses, Shuttle has, how many, 14 lost lives? So far, 24 astronauts in American missions, 5 astronauts in Soviet and 1 astronaut in Russian missions have died.
Unless you disagreed with a dictatorship or were "lesser race" according to Stalin at which point you were tortured, gulaged and/or killed ... kinda sounds like another Nazi Germany with a Hitler in power when you think about it like that.
Buran has a lower percentage of returned parts. The number of engines on boosters speaks for this. The Chinese, when they copy Starship, will do the same.
Wich was actually an improvement The shuttle was MORE expensive to repair, than just use an expendable rocket The soviets made engines more powerfull and as efficient as the shuttle's, but far less complex and cheaper to build The Shutle engines where also dead weigth in orbit
- One big engine is more expensive then 2 smaller ones. - The boosters and big tank were designed to be reusable - It flew just once as a test, autonomusly, becouse the coutry was collapsing - It was not a copy, it was an improved design by learning the shuttles drawbacks/issues, mainly srbs and orbiter. - It would have the capabitly to get to the moon in final iteration
The Energiya Super heavy rocket can take off over 100 tons into the space. Space Shuttle it is not a rocket at all. Energiya can fly without Buran. Surprise! Can the orange fuel tank fly without Space Shuttle? Definitely not. Yep, Soviet engineers was copy body and wings, like Formula One copy your family van :) four tires, steering system, drivers chair, pedals on the floor, engine. Obviously if you do not see deeply than F1 and van are same thing. And Buran was completely automatic space craft from 1988! Think about it. Soviet Union can do it. And now nobody have it and can`t make system automatic landing. Maybe soon. Maybe. Buran touch down in automatic mode without engine with hard crosswind making its own decision due to the changed weather for additional maneuver. When Columbia have disaster and Space Shuttle program have been closed (NASA?) think about resurrection Buran. But they don`t do that after counting money and effort. Well, Soviet Union build it, others can`t repair it. Ahhh! One more I just remember. The fuel for Energia was oxygen and hydrogen. Energiya is first from series super heavy rocket for Lunar expansion. I understand you, you are offended that this system was not created in your country and not your engineers. But right now, it's just a history. Relax.
The Buran was a heavily improved Space Shuttle. It fixed many of the Shuttle's fatal flaws and could even land automatically. The Energia rocket which the Buran would launch on could even fly without the Buran, allowing for much heavier payloads.
No comparison needed, Buran is obviously better
Agree
Because it trashed all of its engines every flight?
@@PistonAvatarGuy yes
this satire btw
It flew once....it wasn't operational, it had no life support capacities. It was show, all show. Functionality will always be better.
I remember historical day in November 1988 when Space Shuttle Buran flew to space for first mission. After two orbits Buran (Snow storm) landed in fully automatic mode.
And then never flew again....
Man I can’t believe that the space shuttle didn’t have a fully automatic mode for landing, (it did) I also can’t believe that auto pilots didn’t exist before the buran… (they did)
The Buran its very similar to Space Shuttle, but the Energia its fantastic, a massive rocket.
Based on the Energia rocket, it was planned to create a Vulcan rocket with a payload capacity of up to 200 tons. Instead of 4 side blocks with RD-170 engines, it was supposed to install 8, and also add a third stage. Currently, Russia is developing the Yenisei rocket, which is a continuation of work on superheavy missiles
Существовал проект Шаттл-С, саrgo, тоже без "самолётика". Надо бы - сделали бы.
@@ФедотовДмитрий-щ3гel buran. es superior.
The Sad thing was that the Side boosters of Buran were to be Reusable. It was supposed to have Wings and it would glide back on a runway like a Glider.
why is that sad? i have often wondered if wings would be better than powered landings for recovered rockets
@@peabody3000 The Sad thing was that this was scrapped, and we don't know if we can make this again.
Thats Energia 2.0, but yeah. The main tank was also supposed to skip across the atmosphere and land as well.
That was Urgan (Energia 2.0), They planned on a fully reusable rocket
The core would have delta wings and skip over the atmosphere, the boostets had deployavle wings
@@doodleboi7034 Well i have good news for you: ua-cam.com/video/P9Xh5iyLZ3Y/v-deo.html
buran is like the secound generation of space shuttle so it is very clear that buran is better
Nah it looks like a cheap Chinese knock off that tries to look better but just isn’t
@@masonrowden9730 larger payload capacity, automatic landing and designed in a way that both sts disasters wouldn’t have happened
Ничем не лучше, даже без многоразовых двигателей.
То же поколение, удалось криво повторить через 7лет.
@@denzelklarenaar5883грузоподъемность определялась заданием.
Система автоматической посадки сделана ещё в 1955 для самолётов в США, но нужна ли так она...
Катастрофы как с Шаттлами были возможны тоже.
@@masonrowden9730SMH lol. Middle school logic. It is known that the Space Shuttle had many design flaws. That being said, it was a pioneer for being the first and only system of its type to make it into space.
One of the Buran’s biggest benefits is not having no reusable engines on the vehicle. That played a large role in the US shuttle being very expensive to repair (not to mention the time). Not sure if Buran would have had the same issues with tiles.
The shuttle design is so relatively complex that it is unlikely to be a “copy” outside of what a Middle Schooler would consider to be a copy.
Now, other Russian products… definitely copy (like MacDonalds), but not such things as this or even fighter jets…
Energia is so awesome
Did you know there are attempts to bring it back?
No doubt BURAN is the best!!!
Ничем не лучше
then you must be russian
nah
It would be realy interesting if CCCP would not colapse when it did and we could see Buran fly in its "final" version. On paper, it was an improved and a more capable design over USS shuttle.
I see few people understand that in USA, congress (who are not rocket scientist) decided in the end what the shuttle was to be, which was very decremental. Originaly, the external tank was to be reusable aswell, and no dangerous srbs. While in CCCP military supremacy and scientific endevors were praised. If you had the right idea, presented to the right people, you had a green light. Of course there were other county issues, but generaly in CCCP scientis/engeneers were more valued then in USA, where movie stars have way bigger social status. Thats why more "unreal" things came from that land, 1st full stage oxigen rich engines which americans thought to be unfeesable and later used them on atlas. People are smart, reguarless in which county they are born, the only thing that sets us apart is who, how and by what standards are we led.
Indeed.
I would also like to see what the Soviet engineers and scientists could achieve with the same budget as their US counterparts.
Of course, one of the reasons why the Soviets were quite creative in their engineering approach (multi-combustion chamber rockets, staged combustion cycle, etc), was because of limited resources.
The USSR, despite all its flaws, was a very technocrat-led country in certain aspects. Many political members had engineering/STEM backgrounds.
China (where I now live/work, as en engineer) takes this to a new level. They're far better at setting industrial policies than their western counterparts with liberal arts/soft degrees. The mayor of my City has a Ph.D. in metallurgy, and worked for a large steel making plant.
@@energiam880 respect for beeing an engeener 👌 im also in engeering
indeed indeed, good poings
Im sad to say but it seems usa pushes forward only when there is competition compromizing theyr values, not suprising, its a human instinct to be better. For this reason i hope china and india keep breaking the barriers, not only to advance techology, but to motivate competition again.. After all, space is for all mankind, its to big for single coutrys, let alone private individuals. (Individualism is a bit of a plague if in a to big "dose" if you ask me) I dont know china to well, im a simple balkan european who was born in war times and have to say, china at this moment seem to have an almost perfect balance between industrial focus and, as you put it, liberal/soft degrees.. meybe to much industrial focus, but thats good for general progress in a seemingly stagnating world. Not gonna lie, liberal degrees are necessary for people to prosper and industial focus for a coutry to prosper, a balance of both is ideal... went to much in politics on a technical video, my apologys
Buran is better but when the time of it's building process soviet union is.......let's say bankrupt 😅
That's a really nice job!
Recently I started to read and watch stuff about Buran, so YT keeps recommending me jewels like this one; I guess the algorythm gets smarter :)
Where did you get dimentions etc. from? And would you care to share those 3D models?
I got them from scaled blueprints from a Russian forum.
@@energiam880 Hello, could you be so kind to sent me the files for Energhia&Buran , these ones. I will try to make one in 3D , but I didn't find anyware such great detalis as you have. Please help me in this project. Many thanks in advance
Hello Sir, I'm interested too for these plans...design....if I may. Could you be so kind to share with us, please. Many thanks in advance.
Buran was better? It flew two orbits, just 85,000 km, just once, and unmanned, almost 40 years ago.
Collapse of the Soviet Union stopped Buran progress. That is really sad :(
Ya missed more, abt BURAN: all was done Autonomously.
On way back, it senses flight line was a bit off, so flew over the airport and made 2nd attempt. Landed and even parked on its own, at the designated parking lot. 😂
Shes wayyy better.
@@kentershackle1329 Yeah, sure, no, it didn't. Also, pilots fly better.
I will with you
@@RideAcrossTheRiver WHAT "it didn't"!!!???? Buran did not fly on his own and made second approach when landing? Of course it did! You know nothing and it is obvious that you are obsessed with American superiority. You are nothing more than a complete waste of time ...
While I like the Buran, I'm gonna be honest there that reminds me of the N1
Its just soviet liquid propellant thechnology. From below it looks more like a soyuz
mOaR EngInEs
Did Buran have jet engines in addition?
How many missions did Buran perform?
Zero. The only flight it did was only testing.
the energia launched a military sat that crashed ( the sat not energia) the energia launced the buran once but it was a huge sucess
Он один раз слетал в космос в автоматическом режиме...
Buran 1
Energia 2
Fucking yes bro! YES you are are on the right track to the future
The Buran never took cosmonauts to space. They were all unmanned
What a shame. And there's two unfinished prototypes rotting away in a hangar sitting deep within Russia apparently.
Cool now put them in ksp
....both of them....
the soviets only had to fly it once to realize the basic design was far too expensive, impractical, and dangerous to be useful.. it took 30 years for the US to finally resign to that
Seriously, US does not Accept anything.
Shuttle did more than any spacecraft ever did. It was a total loss to retire that capability.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver anything shuttle ever did could have been done far more safely and cheaply, with other systems
@@peabody3000 What other systems?
@@RideAcrossTheRiver systems that were and still are in use today.. soyuz, atlas, etc.. and to flip the question, what did shuttle ever do that those systems can't?
Буран - гораздо более дорогая система без многоразовых двигателей.
Boosters were designed to be reusable, but it was never implented due time shortage. Buran was lucky (or unlucky) to even fly once 🙁
@@tehice23 и как же спасались водородные двигатели?
When the space shuttle failed why didn't the United States buy the Russian space shuttle the Buran?
Буран не российский, а советский космический челнок
I've heard that the NASA actually considered using the Buran after the Columbia disaster. But the only Buran that ever flew to space was destroyed by this time. All the other orbiter that never got completed got their components used for other projects, scrapped or abandoned.
a: if the space shuttle failed, then why did it complete 135 missions?
b: its this thing called 'cold war' dont know if youve heard of it
People keep saying burin is better than the shuttle but the shuttle served 135 missions
Buran has only one mission, but not because it was bad, but because the state that made it ceased to exist. The shuttle ended its career due to well-known catastrophic events. Following the loss of two Space Shuttle missions, the risks for the initial missions were reevaluated, and the chance of a catastrophic loss of the vehicle and crew was found to be as high as 1 in 9. In other words - you have a better chance to walk across the minefield relaxed, with your hands in your pockets, unharmed than to survive the Space shuttle mission.
P.S. Quantity and quality are two different things, although you Westerners have a habit of saying that quantity itself is a kind of quality.
No shit, if the country producing it fell apart before completing it. And even when it was falling apart, it was tested sucessfuly, have to give props to the people making it.
Fact is they learned from shuttles mistakes (srbs, ext. tank, orbiter, all had flaws but it was pushed forward to please the fing congres) and improved the design. Like it or not, it would be supperior if it had a fair chance of flying.
Buran is very underrated
Нужно бы снова восстановить буран, мрию, «каспийского монстра» и других и создать корабли даже лучше.. Все были рады развалу СССР но только спустя время многие начинают понимать что мы потеряли на самом деле😊
To be Honest, Energia was way more complicated and Better than The space shuttle
Neat part is, it was less complicated, that´s the main reason why it was better
I'm the only person that commented because I understand what does feel that you didn't have comments I feel an empty inside... and nice video 👍🙂
The Soviet shuttle pursued rationality. The American shuttle pursued coolness.
Buran was never used in a real mission so there is no comparison.
Он вообще то один раз летал на орбиту Земли в автоматическом режиме и вернулся оттуда на аэродром, сомневаюсь что ваш шаттл был способен на это, так что глупости не пишите, раз не в курсе всего...
Every space flight is a MISSION!
@@BadmaOchirov50 и толку, что он слетал? Мкс строили шатры, а не бураны.
@@yurakondratuk253 тут под этим видео некоторые писали что он вообще не летал, поэтому и написал что он всё таки разок слетал, а причём тут строительство МКС? Речь вообще не о нем.
@@BadmaOchirov50 у шатла был автопилот,на сколько я знаю. Так что приемущество автопилота очень спорное. Буран не стал рабочей лошадкой в космосе
They also stole the shuttle
Никто ничего не крал, это собственная разработка СССР
@@BadmaOchirov50 they did steal, now quit yapping that theyre different by the fact you tell almost the worst infomation on the buran i could find
there is only 1 reality and in this reality the Shuttle flew 135 times with humans on board and the Buran flew 0 times, there is no competition here, everything else is fictional
That's lovely, but this isn't really an ego-measuring contest. It's just my artwork
But thanks for your expert opinion anyway. However, think it's probably best if you kept them to your self :)
@@energiam880 my comment refers to the delusional commenters below me not your modelling work
Неправда, Буран один раз слетал в космос в автоматическом режиме и он был явно лучше вашего шаттла
If you already insist on formalities: Buran had one mission.
Buran's safety record is 100%. Shuttle's safety record is 98,52%.
Buran has 0 losses, Shuttle has, how many, 14 lost lives?
So far, 24 astronauts in American missions, 5 astronauts in Soviet and 1 astronaut in Russian missions have died.
Space shuttle looks more efficient: you only expend the tank unlike the Buran whose orbiter doesn’t even have the engine.
"Mom, can we have space shuttle?"
"We have space shuttle at home"
*Space shuttle at home*
Буран -- наша гордость и боль. Ну могли же такое - великая страна была СССР!
Unless you disagreed with a dictatorship or were "lesser race" according to Stalin at which point you were tortured, gulaged and/or killed ... kinda sounds like another Nazi Germany with a Hitler in power when you think about it like that.
Buran has a lower percentage of returned parts. The number of engines on boosters speaks for this. The Chinese, when they copy Starship, will do the same.
Wich was actually an improvement
The shuttle was MORE expensive to repair, than just use an expendable rocket
The soviets made engines more powerfull and as efficient as the shuttle's, but far less complex and cheaper to build
The Shutle engines where also dead weigth in orbit
- One big engine is more expensive then 2 smaller ones.
- The boosters and big tank were designed to be reusable
- It flew just once as a test, autonomusly, becouse the coutry was collapsing
- It was not a copy, it was an improved design by learning the shuttles drawbacks/issues, mainly srbs and orbiter.
- It would have the capabitly to get to the moon in final iteration
BURAN .. THE BEST !!!
Cool graphics!... I am amazed the Soviets copied the Space Shuttle.. it was done with Soviet spies 👍
The design for the NASA space shuttle were made public, and the Soviets observed and improved from the Americans design.
@@jimmy950we5 Space Shuttle 2.0..👍🇳🇿
@@allgood6760 Indeed
The Energiya Super heavy rocket can take off over 100 tons into the space. Space Shuttle it is not a rocket at all. Energiya can fly without Buran. Surprise! Can the orange fuel tank fly without Space Shuttle? Definitely not. Yep, Soviet engineers was copy body and wings, like Formula One copy your family van :) four tires, steering system, drivers chair, pedals on the floor, engine. Obviously if you do not see deeply than F1 and van are same thing. And Buran was completely automatic space craft from 1988! Think about it. Soviet Union can do it. And now nobody have it and can`t make system automatic landing. Maybe soon. Maybe. Buran touch down in automatic mode without engine with hard crosswind making its own decision due to the changed weather for additional maneuver. When Columbia have disaster and Space Shuttle program have been closed (NASA?) think about resurrection Buran. But they don`t do that after counting money and effort. Well, Soviet Union build it, others can`t repair it. Ahhh! One more I just remember. The fuel for Energia was oxygen and hydrogen. Energiya is first from series super heavy rocket for Lunar expansion. I understand you, you are offended that this system was not created in your country and not your engineers. But right now, it's just a history. Relax.
The Buran was a heavily improved Space Shuttle. It fixed many of the Shuttle's fatal flaws and could even land automatically. The Energia rocket which the Buran would launch on could even fly without the Buran, allowing for much heavier payloads.
And the buran shuttle can take off......
Buran can get to the moon, so its better. By a lot.
Shush
Roblox king The great why? buran is superior in a lot of ways
alr these buran glazers must be trippin
NO CURRENT DESIGN (comubia, x33, buran) OF ANY OBITAL SHUTTLE CAN REACH HIGH EARTH ORBIT NOR THE MOON
THEEND
Soviet technology is best
ngad vs su 75
СССР USSR 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
США USA 👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
nooooooo
Totally UNUSEFUL!
Такую страну прое#бали