The Suspicious Soviet Space Shuttle

[@primalspace]

What do you think of the Buran? - Shoutout to Skillshare for supporting this video! Try it out for free here: skl.sh/primalspace06211

[@DelftTrains]

Really cool design, also the Mustard video about the Buran is worth a watch! kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaivqWeCarOFi5I

[@carbonstar9091]

It had some advantages over the Space Shuttle it was copied from. Shame it never saw real service. I will always think of the(subpar) Bond film Moonraker when I think of that era.

[@Sajuuk]

Not just a copy of the American Shuttle but an improved version of it. Aside from the stealing of technical information, it was well designed. So sad their programme died. Incidentally, the last 2 Buran shuttles have recently been vandalized: some dimwit wannabe gangsta spraypainted tags on them....

[@MrDeathray99]

I don't think it was "stealing" from the USA per se but it was just the most effective aerodynamic craft for it's use. Bit disingenuous to say they copied the USA without mentioning the fact that it was almost aerodynamically perfect for the task so you kind of have to use that shape for the design.

[@joshuaclark518]

Cool but it is a Russian knockoff 🇷🇺

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

The Buran did make history despite its sadly short lifetime. It became the first ever spaceplane to ascend to orbit and land back on Earth fully autonomously

[@Qwarzz]

Isn't it still the only crew capable space plane that has done that?

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

@@Qwarzz Yes, and will be until Dream Chaser flies crew

[@shrodingerscat8940]

@@sebastiaomendonca1477 or ISRO's rlv TD

[@IIXRATEDIIHiTMAN]

Not really, the final design scrapped the conventional engines that allowed for independent launch when the Soviets realised it was impossible to protect them under re-entry temperatures

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

@@IIXRATEDIIHiTMAN the jet engines had nothing to do with anything I said

[@luschmiedt1071]

There is also a Prototype of the Buran shuttle in a German Museum in Speyer one can visit. It was used to test atmospheric flight similar to Enterprise. (If you want to see a Buran without breaking into a facility in the middle of nowhere)

[@marcelk3847]

Take this fake pos out of my sight bro

[@JackBlackNinja]

Wow what is it doing in Speyer

[@johngunderson5463]

@@JackBlackNinja the Germans purchased it and brought it to the museum and renovated it. I've been to that museum and seen the Buran prototype. You can look into the payload bay as well as the flight deck through the rear deck windows. If you are in Germany and love aerospace, it's worth the trip.

[@JackBlackNinja]

​@@johngunderson5463 that's awesome thanks for the info. Been all around little ole Speyer but never to the museum

[@MGower4465]

The only one to fly was destroyed years ago. Three remain in the hangar, but of those, only 1 was intended for space, snd it was never actually completed. The others are test vehicles. None are technically owned by Russia now since they have been abandoned so long. The one in Germany was actually found in Bahrain, though its apparently uncertain exactly how it got there. It was actually cheaper to move one from Bahrain to Germ as ny than from Kazakhstan tk Germany, since the trip from Bahrain could be done by boat. The only way to move the ones in Kazakhstan is by plane, and the only one designed to carry Buran is the AN-225, and its extra bracing was stripped out long sgo to create room for its new life as a mega-cargo plane, and the mounts on the NASA 747 Shuttle carriers don't match the Buran.

[@daniels7907]

The real value was in the Energia launcher that carried Buran into orbit. Unlike the space shuttles' SRBs and fuel tank, it had been part of a parallel project to develop a heavy-lift rocket for the USSR. Meaning that it could potentially have been used without a shuttle attached to it, carrying heavy payloads into orbit or into translunar injection. Had the USSR not plunged into economic collapse, they would have been ahead of the U.S. in launch capability, as by that point we no longer had a true heavy-lift rocket ever since the Saturn V was discontinued.

[@goldenfloof5469]

Also scrapped before it actually did anything, parallel indeed.

[@daniels7907]

@@goldenfloof5469 - The USSR collapsed. The space program was the last thing they could afford to put more money into. It's why they're still flying Soyuz today. They touted that they were developing a newer capsule way back when we started our Commercial Crew Program. But we have yet to see any evidence that Russia has made any progress. Likely because Putin is blowing his budget trying to conquer Ukraine.

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@goldenfloof5469 uh it had two flights, one carrying the spacecraft polyus, and the second carrying the buran

[@zaqwsxxswqaz3877]

This launch vehicle was being prepared for a mission to Mars. Since only it made it possible to launch into orbit blocks weighing 100 tons, which, subsequently, could be assembled into an interplanetary ship.

[@dkhayitov]

The collapse of the USSR greatly influenced the speed of development of space technologies. The world has just started to receive similar technologies. The Energia rockets were a family of rockets. The smallest of them could put 100 tons into orbit. Other designed rockets made it possible to carry a much larger load (up to 200 tons), but it were never built due to the collapse of the country. The design of the further development of the Energia - Energia II rocket (Vulkan) was also carried out. It was supposed to be a fully reusable rocket.

[@rosalindshays5679]

This was a nice intro into how the Buran was created, but more was needed about Buran's first (and only) actual space flight in November of 1988.

[@elingeniero9117]

2:00 Factual error: There were no private institutions in the communist system. The OKB were state owned bureaus supervised by the military and political managers.

[@DL-kc8fc]

The video is also wrong - Brezhnev does not discuss the shuttle, but threatens the delegation from Czechoslovakia just before the 1968 invasion.

[@EanPC]

All the video - is totally misunderstanding!

[@elingeniero9117]

@@DL-kc8fc You are correct

[@napalm_spb]

its true!

[@TheANDREW1789]

The bit about the wind tunnel research and the the Buran's very similar appearance to the space shuttle was especially fascinating!

[@tmi1234567]

They actually created a superior shuttle IMO. They also did test flights of a mini Buran called BOR 5. Buran also wouldn't need to have engines refitted after every launch like the US Space Shuttle.

[@daniels7907]

Aerodynamics is a hard science and the airframe design of the shuttles was already optimal for their intended operation. Coming up with a different airframe would have been a pointless symbolic gesture at best.

[@tmi1234567]

@@darkflier666 n

[@marcelk3847]

What do you expect from copy paste 😆

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@marcelk3847 cope harder, the soviet union won the space race, nasa could only play catch up, their only space first was the moon landings, which werent the first by the way, just the first manned ones. and thats why americans never shut the fuck up about them.

[@yashizuko]

Finally a buran video! There is something soo fascinating in the soviet version of the shuttle! "Autolanding" in the 80s! Just wow

[@davidodonovan4982]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k

[@tmi1234567]

Not just auto landing... There is a famous story of this landing. Ground control lost communication with the shuttle as the shuttle was approaching from the correct direction given the current weather conditions but the ground crew did not know that's what it was doing. It managed to touch down within 10 feet of the target on the runway. Buran was at least a decade ahead of the US Space Shuttle

[@lukestrawwalker]

The Soviets insisted ALL their spacecraft be capable of fully autonomous operations from the very start... Early on the Mercury US spacecraft was similarly designed, but the astronauts INSISTED on having more flight control capabilities in their spacecraft, so the US fundamentally diverged from the Soviets in this respect. The Soviets perfected automated rendezvous and docking (ARD) technology WAY back in the 1960's, where the US used computers to calculate the approach maneuvers to bring two spacecraft into proximity to one another, and relied on the astronaut to perform the final docking maneuver, all through Gemini, Apollo, and the shuttle days. It's only been with Crew Dragon that we've actually developed the capability to perform ARD in the US. The Soviets also pioneered automated fuel transfer between spacecraft, perfected and flown since the mid-late 70's on their "Progress" resupply freighter/tankers, which refuelled, resupplied, and reboosted their Salyut and Mir space stations and the ISS for decades now. The US *could* have developed an autolanding system for the shuttle even back in the 70's, but they QUITE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT. The reason was, in the 70's came the rise of political factions who wanted to cancel manned spaceflight entirely-- they had been in the background even during the Apollo days, but had been marginalized in the need to "beat the Soviets" to the Moon, and demonstrate the superiority of our technical prowess and institutions to create the technology to do so and "win the Cold War" so to speak. With the onset of "detente" with the Soviets in the early-mid 70's, the oil embargo and crisis and the economic malaise turning into stagflation and soaring interest rates as the 70's wore on, with a tired American taxpayer now distrustful of gubmint in the wake of Watergate, and tired of huge gubmint spending programs on military technologies for the Cold War that simply furthered the arms race and spent huge sums of money, these politicians with their "save the taxpayer money" theme gained prominence... Chief among them Senators like William Proxmire, who made hay out of irresponsible gubmint spending for things like $400 hammers and $4,000 toilet seats with his "Golden Fleece" awards to highlight such gubmint overspending and tomfoolery. Walter Mondale, who would ultimately be Carter's Vice President, was also a vocal and powerful opponent of NASA manned spaceflight, calling for it to be cancelled as wasteful and expensive. NASA, who's chief mission had been to assure American preeminence in spaceflight, primarily by beating the Soviets to the Moon, were now promoting the shuttle and sold it on the premise that it would be a much CHEAPER, ROUTINE access to space vehicle, carrying crews and cargoes up into space and coming back to be REUSED AGAIN AND AGAIN, like an "airliner to space". NASA made a lot of promises and cooked a lot of numbers on false or unrealistic presumptions and assumptions in order to "prove" their shuttle would be a huge money-saver... which it definitely WAS NOT and NEVER COULD BE. Having sold the shuttle and gained approval and funding (insufficient, but funding nonetheless) for it, the nagging problem remained that *IF* shuttles COULD operate completely autonomously, IF they had that capability, then it was STILL in the realm of possibility that at some point the beancounters might actually manage to cancel manned spaceflight, disband the astronaut corps, and leave NASA flying an AUTOMATED shuttle with no crews aboard. Thus, the designed shuttle to *REQUIRE* a pilot on the stick and rudders to land the shuttle-- even though of course it could launch unmanned, fly in space unmanned, open its payload bay and deploy its cargo autonomously, perform the maneuvers and retrofire to return to Earth and fly through reentry all under computer control, the last "three minutes of flight" were deliberabley DESIGNED to require a human at the controls, to put the thing down on the runway... without it, shuttle COULD NOT FLY and return to Earth... SO by doing it that way, they ENSURED that at least SOME crew would still be required for shuttles to fly, and since shuttle was being promoted and basically forcing all competing existing expendable unmanned launch vehicles out of existence in the US, cutting manned spaceflight would by definition GROUND the space shuttles as well, leaving the US with NO space launch capability whatsoever... a masterful stroke of political chicanery that basically made manned spaceflight "IMMUNE from cancellation" in the future... Later! OL J R :)

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

@@lukestrawwalker let me introduce you to a new term: par·a·graph /ˈperəˌɡraf/ Learn to pronounce noun a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.

[@Steffen2k7]

The Fokker-100 was the first commercial aircraft in 1986 which also featured auto-land.

[@Nithincr1]

An 225 - Mriya build for Buran!

[@MuhammadAli-255]

Rip

[@mariusbaronquandel3802]

In Germany we still have the Buran in the Space and Flightmuseum in Speyer.

[@davidodonovan4982]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k

[@falk.]

Dann weiß ich was mein nächstes Reiseziel ist

[@brickonblock5183]

Yeah and there is a lot of other cool stuff there

[@mustang5132]

Isn’t it just a mock-up of one?

[@Skilan506]

@@mustang5132 it was the prototype they did manned test flights in. The one that got destroyed in the hangar collapse was an actual orbiter, the only one that got to space for one unmanned test flight.

[@rays2506]

During the entry, descent and landing (EDL) on that first Buran flight, the unfilled gaps between the heat shield tiles tripped the boundary layer and resulted in local and downstream turbulent flow and consequent tremendous overheating. This melted the edges of the tiles and melted the aluminum skin of that orbiter in the tile gap area. Side note: During a trip to Moscow in Nov 1992, I was able to see a full-size Buran test article that was on display in Gorki Park. The Russian engineer accompanying me remarked that the vehicle on that first Buran flight would require a lot of repairs before flying again.

[@Валерий-у9ф]

Бред

[@thecamocampaindude5167]

@@Валерий-у9фbrad?

[@52robbo]

It’s now in what used to be called the Park of Economic Achievement, in north east Moscow.

[@Валерий-у9ф]

​@@52robboэто мокет для аэродинамический трубы

[@Валерий-у9ф]

В космос он точно не летал настоящей буран погиб под завалом крыши

[@thepigwillfly5869]

I saw a Buran on display at VDNH park in Moscow in 2019. I think it may have been an early prototype that never actually flew.

[@Steffen2k7]

Speyer museum in Germany also has one on display the OK-GLI which was used for 25 test flights.

[@starnigel6279]

К сожалению, это всего лишь макет для экскурсий. Настоящий Буран был куплен бизнесменом в Казахстане во времена развала СССР. Он хранил его в ужасных условиях и на Буран обрушилась крыша ангара.

[@putt7515]

The number one reason the Buran was better than the Space Shuttle was the fact that the main engines were not located on the Shuttle itself but on a separate booster as it is not needed in orbit. This allowed for more cargo space, weight , turnaround time and reduces main engine damage from space. It also allowed engineers to work on the main engines while the spacecraft was in orbit.

[@mercuryfalconog]

how is that an advantage? so you would have to build and use new engines every time instead of reusing them. Aerodynamics had similar flaws as STS 1 and 2 , just a matter of time until they had their own Columbia disaster.

[@fork9001]

That’s not the number one reason. The number one reason was probably the capability to launch and land unmanned, because the weight of life support and other things like food could be removed, allowing higher payload capacity. Also it’s better for military launches as there would be no astronauts that would know about it, unlike the American shuttle.

[@fork9001]

@@mercuryfalconog Allowed for a higher payload capacity. The Energia could use this advantage to fly without Buran (it could launch 100t to orbit without Buran), as it did with the Polyus space station (sadly/thankfully the Polyus orbital battlestation deorbited itself with OMS instead of circularising). There were designs and proposed derivatives intended to recover and reuse the Zenit boosters and the Energia core but as with the Buran spaceplane and the Energia rocket, they fell with the Soviet Union. The system was more robust as the Energia could be used for other payloads and could lift 4 times as much payload as the STS but could also serve as a crew launch vehicle or a spacecraft that could recover satellites and other spacecraft.

[@mercuryfalconog]

@@fork9001 I looked into the Buran-Energia program more in depth and am impressed about some of its twerks like autonomous landing in 1988! Sad that it came to a stop. Would have loved to see a docking on the MIR by a Buran. Both STS and Buran-Energia are such a magical part of space exploration. Russia should really get back into space research the past decade has been slow

[@fork9001]

@@mercuryfalconog They are working on a new rocket and spacecraft for lunar landings. The rocket is called Yenisei and the spacecraft is Orel. Both are supposed to fly by 2028 but lunar landings should be in the 2030s. Assuming current events don’t affect the timeline.

[@gregwilliamson3001]

I saw one of the Busan prototypes when it was brought to Sydney, Australia in 2000. I took one of my sons to see it, but he was too young to fully appreciate it. But, he wasn't alone, as it was taken away less than a year later due to a "lack of interest"! ☹️

[@paulhorn2665]

Now this Buran is in a museum @ Speyer in Germany.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Was it really a lack of interest or the Aussies just didn't want to be seen to be too pally with the Ruskies?

[@user-PoltanovDmitriy]

1:06 You forget : First Man on Orbit in 12.04.61, First Manned Space Walk in 18.03.65, First Woman Cosmonaut in 16.06.63. ...

[@terminated_account_09.24]

Yep, I agree man.

[@Steph.98114]

Yeah, the ussr was winning for most of the space race

[@CinemaDemocratica]

This video is a great example of what happens when you take the editorial gatekeepers out of the creative-content chain and let people vanity publish whatever the heck they think they have to say. The truth about the Buran / Shuttle similarity is that the Space Shuttle was *never* classified. NASA Director Alan Lovelace once said in an interview, "To my knowledge the Soviets never actually wrote to us and asked for the technical drawings -- but if they had, we would have happily sent them over. There was nothing secret about the development of the Space Transportation System."

[@E88twenty2]

That's such a good point

[@johnpmusick]

oh editorial

[@gnualmafuerte]

I can't believe I'm about to defend the soviets, but just in this case, it's deserved. Did they steal a lot of information about the Shuttle? Yes. Could they have copied the design? Yes. Did they copy the design? Nope. Most important elements of the Buran were *entirely* different from the Shuttle. Buran didn't have any engines, and launched on Energia, using a hydrogen stage and four liquid fuel boosters. The Shuttle, on the other hand, had its own engines, and use an external tank plus two solid fuel boosters. That is the most important part of the design, and it's radically different. The aerodynamic profile of the Buran and Shuttle were different enough that whatever info they stole on wind-tunnel testing was irrelevant, and they did a lot of wind-tunnel testing. There are still wooden prototypes of the Buran that were used for wind-tunnel testing. The Shuttle was tested by deploying it, unpowered, from a 747, while Buran had its own jet engines. They flew their prototype with jet engines *dozens of times*. The Buran looked similar to the Shuttle for the same reason the A320 looks similar to the 737: Because they both work under the same laws of physics.

[@odysseus5872]

I both want to praise you and scold you for this comment

[@davidodonovan4982]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k

[@odysseus5872]

@@davidodonovan4982 Loved that video when it was first uploaded. The Buran was soooo much better than the shuttle and unfortunate that it never went in to service. Even the shuttle engineers weren't mad at the design stating what the original comment already said in that the physics of the concept would've produced essentially the same thing with the given technology at the time.

[@junioraviator4325]

Totally agreed!

[@muhammadrizqanilmi1301]

They need better funding but sadly, 3 years later everything collapsed. That's why Buran got abandoned and underrated so much. Roscosmos rather focusing into Soyuz programme than reviving this majestic spacecraft (probably because of how expensive it was, just like Shuttle ended up to be).

[@alt8791]

Fun to see a video exploring the espionage side of the Buran story, instead of just the technology side.

[@TheGrantourismo]

It is mostly a fantasy.

[@userman444]

imagine hypothetical universe where two nations USSR and USA works together on something like that. Or lack of competition makes the space race very slow?

[@ilyes.yacine]

I suggest you watch" for all the mankind"

[@starnigel6279]

Вот это самое печальное. Противостояние США и СССР в науке позволило человечеству прыгнуть далеко вперед. Без СССР американцам нет смысла вкладываться слишком серьезно, а другие страны не способны к похожим свершениям. Разве что Китай вскоре может попробовать сделать что то интересное. Меня очень вдохновляют совместные проекты типа СОЮЗ-Аполлон или, если говорить о фильмах, сцены как в Космической Одиссее 2001, где показано прежде всего сотрудничество. С разрушением многополярного мира вся планета глобально продвинулась лишь в потреблении, а о космосе уже никто не мечтает...

[@DVXDemetrivs]

do you really think that the United States is capable of allowing itself fair competition in which it does not have more profit than its rival?

[@calvinnickel9995]

That’s literally what the ISS is.

[@putlerkaput]

2:15 There was hardly anything private in the soviet union above the bootblack level, let alone the design bureau capable of creating or even copycatting a space vehicle.

[@mooneychan]

Contents: spies copy-paste spies copy-paste spies spies spies. Meanwhile: 1. totally different engine scheme (Shuttle had a pull up a big-ass tank, Buran was just a passenger on big-ass rocket) 2. because of that Buran had better space engines and thus maneurability 3. buran launched and automatically landed unmanned 4. Unlike Buran, Columbia and Challenger didn't have any serious safety/escape features. Because it's cheaper ©

[@UnePintade]

I mean, the buran ejection seats were not rated for use at mach 23 so I don't see how it could have helped in Columbia's case

[@ИмФам9]

Thank you for saving me 9 minutes and 32 seconds of time.

[@DL-kc8fc]

The Buran was primarily a political "answer" to the American shuttle. Therefore, the technical solution of the opponent was copied. Similarly, it was in the Concorde case. The shuttle documentation was accessible in every school library in the US. In the 1980s, I personally had the structural plans of the American shuttle - legally in AutoCAD 9. The aim was to burden the Soviet economy, which we succeeded. The Soviet philosophy of autonomous unmanned proceedings caused the defeat of the Soviets in the fight for a Moon. The automat must operate at 100 + 10 percent. While American philosophy has replaced failure hardware and software with a special expertise that could solve problems. The Soviet astronaut was only a passenger without expertise with some political function. Autonomous driving was not a good solution at the time. If the buran was in full operation, this would prove to be a weak place. The starting configuration of the Soviet shuttle was also not good either. The buran had to have engines on at the start, because the connecting beams would not last overload. For the same reason, the American shuttle engines were powered by a large tank. The tank was carried by two solid fuel engines. In addition to the tank, everything was recyclable. The Soviet way required to build a new expensive rocket. The Soviet starting configuration did not bring any useful advantage - the shuttle fuel was consumed. The American shuttle had its own fuel supplies for maneuvering the main engines, but in an acceptable amount. The maneuverability Buran was not better because the positions of hydrazine nozzles were copied. The fuel in the buran went at the expense of the cargo space. Security measures were the same for all American shuttles - separation from the main reservoir. This configuration did not allow other solutions. Catapult can be used in the landing phase above the ground. However, this was the result of automatic control, while the American method relied on the expertise of the crew, for example, the chassis was pulled out manually, as on the plane. This eliminated automatic failure - it was not necessary to install catapult.

[@mooneychan]

@@DL-kc8fc honestly, feels like ChatGPT.

[@Orion-CSAT]

@DL-kc8fc I'd argue that Buran was an improvement on the shuttle, for the following reasons: 1. The Energia could be used as a standalone LV, capable of about 100t to LEO. 2. Buran was fully autonomous, which STS nearly was, which meant flights cpuld be flown uncrewed. This would have prevented casualties in the case of failures, provided the flight was unmanned. The shuttle, on the other hand, was autonomous with the exception of lowering the landing gear. 3. Buran had more abort modes than the shuttle, allowing for crew escape in more situations. 4. The Buran was in fact more maneuverable than the shuttle as the dry mass of the engines was discarded with Energia.

[@michaelnguyen6730]

The Buran prototype equivalent to Shuttle Enterprise is resting at the Technical Museum in Speyer, Germany.

[@foximacentauri7891]

Great video, but why does everyone forget that one Buran prototype is sitting in a museum in Germany? Granted it never reached space and was never planned to, but it did fly under its own Power!

[@primalspace]

So many mentions of that since posting this video. Perhaps an update is in order! :)

[@stephengrimmer35]

I know, great exhibit in the Technikmuseum Speyer, and its sister site Sinsheim has the Tu144.

[@micstonemic696stone]

there are fascinating video's on KZbin on Buran including how they tested it using 4 Turbo-Jets while being videoed from a MiG 25 Foxbat interceptor chase aircraft.

[@Psycandy]

America didn't beat USSR to the moon. Luna 1 (1959) was a hard landing but placed Soviet pennants on the moon surface and Luna 9 (1966) a soft landing, and the Soviets had already named everything on the far side of the moon because they were the first to see it. Khrushchev named all the features after Soviet heroes to annoy the Americans and even gave Eisenhower a copy of a Lunar pennant, scores of which were already on the moon, before Kennedy even formulated the moon shot be pivotal to his campaign.

[@TheKaiser-pf8fr]

We put PEOPLE on the moon

[@the3yM]

@@TheKaiser-pf8fr Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun, a member of the Nazi Party and Allgemeine SS, and the leading figure in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany did it.

[@aarongreen1654]

@@the3yM Nobody cares about that.

[@aarongreen1654]

@@the3yM Also the idea that one man is responsible for the entire US space program is laughable nonsense. He was a talented aerospace engineer. One of many. Nothing more.

[@januaryman3004]

I wonder if the Buran had been put into service if they would have had the same technical, maintenance, and reliability issues that the shuttle had? I'm going to guess yes, as this design seems to be inherently complex.

[@terminated_account_09.24]

Well, it wouldn't have had as many issues as the Space Shuttle had. The Soviets used the extra money that would have gone into research to improve the design of Buran, in order to make it better. And, in some ways, the Burand truly was better than the Space Shuttle.

[@Gibson99]

@@terminated_account_09.24 exactly. No solid rocket boosters. instead it used liquid fuel which was more flexible (it could throttle and steer) and safer since it could be shut off unlike SRBs. No engines on the shuttle other than oms and thrusters. Larger cargo bay as a result. Wish it could have gone into regular service.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@Gibson99 The stack that lofted buran was not reusable, only the shuttle itself was. That said, the russians can build rocket engines for less money than an SRB refurbishment cost(s). On the other hand, SRBs deliver exceptionally high thrust-to-weight ratio improvement.

[@davidodonovan4982]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k

[@lukestrawwalker]

No... the Soviets knew the costs of spaceflight, theirs as well as ours, from our own open media no less, and perhaps spying on internal documents.... they KNEW NASA was lying about the "savings" of the space shuttle in terms of costs of spaceflight, which is what aroused their suspicion... when they determined it could be a first-strike weapon, they determined to build their own to demonstrate "strategica parity" with the US, thus to deter its use as such. Basically, that's why they designed, built, and flew Buran one time, and then didn't use it again. It never even flew with a crew, only unmanned. Their well-tested and well proven "Soyuz launcher", evolved from their old "Semyorka" R-7 missile of the late 50's that had orbited Sputnik and Gagarin and all their previous manned spaceflights, along with the evolved versions of their venerable Soyuz capsules, had been flying crews successfully and much more cheaply to their Salyut space stations and then Mir for decades at that point, despite being a fully expendable system... So don't fix what's not broken! They developed Buran to counter the US strategic capabilities of the shuttle as a potential nuclear bomber, that was it. For "routine" manned spaceflight, it was the more expensive option, and they knew it, thus they never used it for that. The US had foolishly placed all its eggs in the shuttle basket when shuttle was approved, and had spent SO much money on it and had SO many vested interests wanting to see it continue, that even the Challenger disaster, which proved shuttle to be a vulnerable, brittle design that was overcomplicated, super-expensive, and would NEVER measure up to the promises made for it, it managed to survive ANYWAY and continue for another 13 years-- it took the death of another crew and destruction of another shuttle to finally drive the point home that shuttles were a flawed and compromised design that would never be "inherently safe" and that they should be retired... Energia, Buran's launch vehicle, was a super-heavy launched designed by Korolev's old partner/nemesis Valentin Glushko, who in the early 70's after Korolev's successor after his untimely death in early 1966, Vasily Mishin, had been unable to bring to successful flight after 3 disastrous attempts, Glushko convinced the Soviet leadership to replace Mishin with himself, and of course he got approval to cancel N-1 in favor of his own pet project, the Energia rocket, named after his new enterprise after his own design bureau was merged with Korolev's old OKB-1 design bureau... Thus "Energia" was sold to the Soviet leadership as the ultimate HLV for the coming decades. As it turned out, it was too expensive for the money the Soviet space program had, given their faltering economy, so it too was cancelled after only two launches-- the first being Polyus, the space battle station that was their answer to the US "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI) program, and the second being Buran. After that it too never launched again and was ultimately canceled, though a cheaper single-hydrogen engine twin-booster downsized version was proposed but never funded... One can speculate endlessly about how the Soviet space program might have turned out had they not suffered economic problems that ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it's all basically fantasy or alternate history... Later! OL J R :)

[@mkrp4]

2:14 There were no private institutions in the former Soviet Union; all owned by the government!

[@randybentley2633]

I could well imagine a docking, reminiscent of the Apollo-Soyuz rendezvous, between these two space planes. The meeting of shuttles could've been, in one vain, a showcase & demonstration of the viable technical capabilities and compatibility of these two space agencies' vehicles, and in another, to serve as an announcement for the ISS to the world. Just imagine having both of these spacecraft working, either individually or in tandem, to build the Station. The savings, in both time and money, plus the potential of further modules being sent aloft should the need for them arise. Tis such a shame. Thankfully, the heady days of the grand potentials of spaceflight have returned, and 5he SpaceX Starship is about to lead the way.

[@mediaworldwide9848]

I ordered a space shuttle from Wish and got a Buran.

[@Achillguy49]

Don’t buy a space shuttle from temu 💀💀💀💀💀

[@calvinnickel9995]

Hmm.. completely automated, more payload, and none of the fatal flaws that killed 14 astronauts.

[@DeputyNordburg]

The Buran never went to space with a crew or life support systems on board. It could land by itself! But so could the shuttle... The Buran also returned from it's only launch damaged to the point that it could never fly again. Keeping a crew alive and returning in working condition is the main point of a "space shuttle." We will never know if the Buran could have been improved to that point.

[@Kommunisator]

the test mule with the jet engines on the side flew with a crew iirc. It is still on display at the Technik Museum Sinsheim in Germany

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@Kommunisator Yes the BTS-02 took 25 flights using jet engines with a crew of 2. But it was not a launch capable spaceplane, and had no life support systems.

[@davidchristensen6908]

No one can argue if The Buran was better or worse the the nasa shuttle. You can’t argue the point. 1 flight up and down doesn’t create a record of success. As much as I would have liked to see the Buron used and develop an operation record it is a failed craft. Failed because the country found it was not needed and ended the program. Regardless of what pressures caused Russia to stop makes no difference it never got to prove itself. 1 flight does not make a flight record. It is pointless to argue how good or how ban Buron was because it is no more canceled before it was even ready for service. Buron is just that a Buron an untested spacecraft.

[@oscarjulius9062]

There is actually a Buran sitting in the technical museum Speyer in Germany. It's on my profile picture:)

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Wasn't that the atmospheric testing prototype with the jet engines? Only 3 space worthy versions were built, and as said the actual flight proven version was destroyed in the collapse and the other two are in the other hangar.

[@mrfrozen2705]

NASA: Have you seen my space shuttle? USSR: OUR SPACE SHUTTLE

[@gargantuality5009]

Noo USSR: what space shuttle oh this one ,uhm yeah this is ours

[@CsRj2854]

Soviet Union: Fuck off, NASA. This is the Buran, not your little wimpy space shuttle. NASA: I still won the Space Race. Soviet Union: CYKA BLAT!!

[@walterhernandez9867]

Also... the medium in which these machines operate is the same so the engineering is inevitable to be similar. Boats and submarines are similar despite who produce them because they all move on the surface of the water or under it.

[@whotknots]

The Soviet 'Spiral' also looked like an almost exact copy of an early experimental 'lifting body' proof of concept vehicle developed by NASA and the USAF!

[@driftaddict228]

nasa copied USSR in that one

[@vyruss000]

True, "Dyna-soar" or something?

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

The dreamchaser has nearly identical design and that craft is slated to fly in the near future.

[@donweatherwax9318]

I suspect that's not a coincidence . . .

[@RobinCernyMitSuffix]

@@donweatherwax9318Yes, because aerodynamic laws are the same. Guess why most cars look very similar, no matter where in the world you look. Or Airplanes, or Ships, or Submarines.

[@silverismoney]

Best Buran video yet. Nice one. I have one of their design docs from soviet times given to us by a friend of my family. I remember watching some documentary on Buran and the shuttle and the nasa guy found it amusing the KGB stole plans as they were never classified and they might have given them to them if they'd asked ( I doubt it but still funny )

[@TheGrantourismo]

It is a hoax. Soviets had much simpler ways to transfer documents using diplomatic mail.

[@Meg_A_Byte]

Thanks for the free month of Skillshare!

[@scottwilliams846]

We pretty much gave them the designs. Said "Yeah, you can copy our homework. Just change it up a bit so the teacher doesn't notice."

[@grovik]

The prototype took off on 31 December 1968 near Moscow from Zhukovsky Airport two months before Concorde's first flight. The Tu-144 broke the speed of sound on June 5, 1969, and on May 26, 1970, became the first commercial aircraft to exceed Mach 2. Oops

[@calvinnickel9995]

They also tested-and rejected-the ogival wing that Concorde used. Concorde was limited to commercial airfields so needed low speed performance. The TU-144 instead concentrated on speed. Also the TU-144s engines were closer to the fuselage-making an Air France like crash less likely.

[@intel386DX]

Sometimes the copy is much better then the original and this case is exactly that ! ☺️

[@xtriplexvisionx]

No its not😂😂

[@intel386DX]

@@xtriplexvisionx yes it is !

[@gayfruitbasket]

Bro got a Yugoslavia pfp wouldn't expect any better

[@intel386DX]

@@gayfruitbasket I do not understand what do you mean.

[@tachyon8875]

The Spiral had to have inspired TNC's Dream Chaser spaceplane. They're very similar.

[@WhatTheFuck1205]

I was thinking the exact same thing!

[@alt8791]

I believe a lot of the Spiral’s designs were given to NASA at some point in the 90s, at which point NASA built their own mock-up of the concept and were considering doing a test vehicle with that design. The concept never took off, but SNC took a lot of the work done by NASA on the design and used it for dreamchaser. So yes, in a kind of roundabout way, Dreamchaser is derived from Spiral.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@alt8791 Dreamchaser grew out of work done on NASA's "Orbital Space Plane" (OSP) program in the 90's... after the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV's-- Delta IV and Atlas V) were developed for the Air Force for national security launches, to replace the expensive Titan IV (which itself was an outgrowth of the Titan III launcher, which was revived and enhanced after the Challenger disaster demonstrated the idiocy of relying on a SINGLE COMPLEX AND LIMITED MANNED SPACECRAFT (the shuttle) to launch essential national security payloads that could more easily, cheaply, and more timely be launched by unmanned expendable launch vehicles). NASA was always tinkering on the sidelines with other designs, other ideas, and one idea for a potential shuttle replacement was a small "crew taxi" space vehicle consisting of a small winged lifting body vehicle launched atop one of the EELV versions, probably a heavy 3 core version. Delta IV Heavy with its single core and two near-identical side booster "common cores" was developed, it was expensive, and sufficient for the needs of the military to launch large spysats and such, so the similar "backup design" of the Atlas V Heavy with three identical common cores was never developed. OSP was often shown in concept art launching atop an Atlas V Heavy, which was still in development when the OSP program got its start. OSP had kind of grown out of the realization that basically the shuttle was lousy at the job it was originally intended to do... supplying and ferrying astronauts to/from a space station, and station construction. While it could loft a large, heavy payload, and crews to do construction work or swap crews at a space station, and could haul up prodigious supplies to a station, it could NOT REMAIN at a space station. Shuttle was limited to a flight time of only two weeks... which when it was designed was deemed "long enough" for an "airliner in space" as it was envisioned to be, BUT in reality it never flew often enough or easily or cheaply enough (let alone safely enough) to gain that achievement, so obviously any crew aboard a space station manned and supplied SOLELY by shuttles would essentially be STRANDED there after 2 weeks when the shuttle HAD to return to Earth. Launching a new shuttle every 2 weeks to provide continual escape capabilities was simply impossible given shuttle's anemic flight rates and exorbitant costs and turnaround times, and in the event of another disaster like Challenger, a crew could be marooned on a space station in orbit with no means of getting supplies, if Shuttle was the ONLY means of them getting home. SO NASA started development of the "Crew Return Vehicle" (CRV) program, based on previous HL-20 small lifting body designs and developed further in a testbed vehicle, the X-38, which performed landing tests before it was canceled. X-37 was to be a technology demonstrator for the launch and spaceflight aspects of this vehicle, but later it was transferred to DARPA and flies autonomously as the X-37B spaceplane, a fully automated secret mission vehicle for the military. NASA had insufficient funding for CRV, so they simply chose to rely on the Russians for resupply and crew rotation and escape capabilities when shuttles weren't present, with their Soyuz and Progress resupply spacecraft. CRV morphed into OSP, which after the loss of shuttle Columbia in early 2003, when it became clear that a shuttle replacement WOULD be needed sooner rather than later (though there were those who had planned to fly shuttles indefinitely into the future, but shuttle was nearing the point it would need MASSIVE redesign and replacement of many of its components which were showing their age or outright obsolete, a program which would cost BILLIONS of dollars to accomplish, making developing an all-new vehicle more attractive from a cost and capability standpoint), OSP morphed yet again from a winged small crew taxi spaceplane to a capsule vehicle, the predecessor that became the Orion crew spacecraft, the so-called "MPCV" after it survived near-cancellation by Obama. It's a really interesting history, and quite convoluted at times. NASA had tinkered with replacing the shuttle several times, all of which came to nothing... Various proposals for replacing shuttle cargo launches or supplementing them with huge heavy-lift launchers like the "big dumb booster" lower cost option, to the X-33/ "Venturestar" SSTO lifting body crew transfer/ small cargo launch vehicle... even before that, Reagan's X-30 National Aero Space Plane (NASP), a runway takeoff, runway landing, single stage to orbit spaceplane... (X-33 and Venturestar were to be vertical launch pad takeoff, horizontal runway landing SSTO's. Both were impossible or impractical at the time due to cutting edge technologies needed that didn't then exist, and still aren't today so far as we know. ) NASA also wisely invested in some small engine development programs, which they foolishly didn't fund to completion, usually to the test phase and no further into development... programs like the TR-107 pintle injection engine, the RS-84 large high-pressure regenerative cycle kerosene engine, and the smaller FASTRAC engine design, all designed around possible applications for a small crew taxi spacecraft or launch vehicle requirements, which of course never materialized. FASTRAC and TR-107 pintle injection proved quite useful for SpaceX, however-- their original "throw away" Merlin engine design, relying on an ablatively cooled nozzle, thus non-reusable, was basically a FASTRAC engine. They soon modified it into a regeneratively cooled and greatly improved reusable engine through several iterations, to the Merlins flying on Falcon 9 today. Later! OL J R :)

[@alt8791]

@@lukestrawwalker mucho texto

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@alt8791 read it or don't, not my problem, I don't care. Maybe learn something if you do, but most folks can't be bothered anymore. Probly why we have so many GD idiots in the d@mn world nowadays

[@ajbp95]

Did not know this. Thanks for sharing! You mention it being superior than the space shuttle. Would be interesting to watch a video where you went indepth and compared them.

[@ajrobbins368]

Mustard did a video on the Buran, if you're interested.

[@davidodonovan4982]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k

[@ajbp95]

@@ajrobbins368 Thanks, have to check it out!

[@SebastianUnterberg]

There’s another Buran in a German museum. It’s the Technikmuseum Speyer. It’s nice, you can even touch it.

[@primalspace]

Very cool. I would love the chance to go see that!

[@SebastianUnterberg]

@@primalspace the mounted actual jet engines to the Buran so it could take off on its own for test flights too. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaK9mGONl7t4bNk

[@comrade369]

Stealing German Scientist was easier than you think by NASA 👍😀😘

[@bubba842]

The Russians also stole their fair share of German scientists.

[@crazyivan030983]

Let's be honest. Buran-Energia sounds amazing...

[@ivankirov3676]

Ha,ha,ha...rosian kopi SHIT..😁😆😅🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@antonboludo8886]

There is an important documentary about the Buran linking up with the USA shuttle for a joint mission to the distant planet Uranus.

[@Peterthegreat1234]

Why would anyone do that in a shuttle ?

[@davidh.4944]

Haha. He's talking about _The Uranus Experiment_ . Feel free to look it up. Just don't do it at work or when your wife is around.

[@AD-cy7wx]

Anyone recognize the fighter jet at 8:01 ? 🤔

[@nighttide3079]

That Is non other than a Mig-25

[@AD-cy7wx]

@@nighttide3079 thanks!! That’s what I was thinking but wasn’t 100% sure.

[@nighttide3079]

@@AD-cy7wx Just remember that the Mig-25 has a longer, sharper nose and bigger tail fins compared too a Mig-31. Also It looks like the Mig-25 in the video is a Mig-25UB. A recon bomber variant

[@A.R.77]

Praising this thing is a stretch. None of the systems needed to support life were installed. There were many systems that could have added years of development to complete. The Space Shuttle will more than likely be the most complicated system design ever developed for years to come. I definitely feel nervous about Space X and what's to come of their current design.

[@DrDoid0420]

Best coverage of the BURAN program to date. Way to go!

[@primalspace]

Thanks Randy!

[@stevenchan3822]

Autopilot to orbit and back in that era that’s some achievement.

[@The-Muslim-Samurai]

I would give them credit for upgrading it to top tier

[@linkin543210]

That’s like saying BMW stole Mercedes’ design. Just because they look similar, doesn’t mean it was stolen, sometimes that’s the best design for its purpose.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Thing was, the Shuttle was not even close to the best design for its purpose. It was a political compromise.

[@АлексейГиссарский-ь4у]

Buran's chief designer did not hide the fact that the Shuttle was the prototype.

[@a-bell]

Amazing video!

[@aaronryder4008]

This is mindblowing!

[@HackerFlavio]

2:44 that looks almost identical to dream chaser, thats crazy.

[@mmiYTB]

The repeated footage of people sitting at the negotiating desk like 6:18 is the Czechoslovakia president, prime minister and additional politicians having a government discussion with most likely Russians around the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.

[@apotheases]

Baldandbankrupt did a great video of the shuttles. Worth a watch.

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

The huge Antonov plane which was destroyed in Ukraine in the beginning of the Russian "Special Military Operation" was originally intended to carry a Buran space shuttle round.

[@Shortkidnextdoor]

goddamnit Russia

[@ИльяПашинцев-к4в]

Вы написали об первом назначении самолёта АН-225 "Мрия". У этого же самолёта была и другая задача: он мог стать первой ступенью для лёгкого многоразового челнока "Спираль". То есть, речь идёт о самолётном старте космического челнока. Американские конструкторы это придумали лет на 15 позднее.

[@kotkompot2294]

@@Shortkidnextdoorthere is a clear footage of Russian forces leaving airport when “Mria” is still there in the hangar. So it definitely was destroyed by Ukrainian army strikes, may be by an accident.

[@Shortkidnextdoor]

@@kotkompot2294 It probably was an accident, but if russia hadent invaded, they wouldent be bombing the airport

[@nightsidechild.]

​@@ShortkidnextdoorRussia invaded because Ukraine and NATO became mad

[@brokenbones78629]

Why not mention now that the Spiral looks so much like sierra space's dream chaser or whatever it's called?

[@HailAnts]

I still find it funny that the Soviets really thought that the Shuttle would function as a practical nuclear bomber!

[@johnfox2975]

americans would think the same.

[@dannypipewrench533]

They took one look at the thing and said, "Well that is an orbital bomber." The Chinese (and probably Russians too) feel the same way about the X-37B if I am not mistaken.

[@HailAnts]

How would it in any way be superior to nuclear-tipped ICBMs?

[@bradgoodman9137]

What’s with thumbnail image? The outboard elevons are missing on Buran, and the starboard SRB nozzle is gone from the shuttle stack.

[@philiproseel3506]

"One of the most advanced space vehicles of its time". Which never flew into space. Have I ever submerged my car in the ocean? No, but it's the most advanced submarine of its time.

[@RobinCernyMitSuffix]

But... It flew in to space? And landed safely again, completely autonomously. Unlike the Orbiter of the STS Program who needed human Pilots.

[@KINGH03]

2:19 what building is this?

[@Тухачевский174]

Это съезд ЦК КПСС

[@What-vr6lp]

State Kremlin Palace - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Kremlin_Palace

[@huskotabago]

Regarding the double agent situation: we will never know, who stole what from whom. Btw. it is good for the competition and evolution of mankind.

[@Peterthegreat1234]

Even at that time a Western engineer said that when you're faced with the same challenges you tend to find the same solutions. Launched like a rocket, return like a glider.

[@Thejebe]

Interesting video, would've loved to know the sources for your research.

[@discoplumber]

Yeah I'm still amazed by people that don't understand that 2 sets of very skilled engineers will arrive at similar solutions when working to very similar design parameters.

[@alexanderkenway]

Whoa, the Spiral looks like the Dream Chaser... which in turn looks like the HL-20. W-wait it's all coming together now

[@Thejebe]

I would imagine that, just like with the Shuttle and Buran, that happens to be the optimal shape. Whether it's through spying, research or other means, they'd all end up with the same shape eventually.

[@dexon777]

they are identical

[@kereyc5751]

Brezhnev had some sweet eyebrows

[@enovius1501]

>Stole Press X to doubt. The Buran had a resemblance, but the whole internal system was of soviet design.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Kinda obvious though. Russians aren't about to put an american computers in the Buran, or an american airlock....etc but by copying the aerodynamic design they saved a lot of money

[@British132.]

Which music was at 00:25?

[@nd5301]

в Space Shuttle из расходников - пустой топливный бак. в Буране из расходников - дорогущая ракета сверхтяжелого класса. "многоразовость" по-Советски - она такая 🙂

[@Dmitriy_Pivko]

Buran is a swansong of soviet space program. Another project, which has not been relised is a N1 - soviet heavy rocket, for moon and mars.

[@Dmitriy_Pivko]

Dear autor, am afraid you too underrated the profesional skills of soviet avia and space engeneering school. Lead engeneer of Buran program Gleb Lozino-Lozinski is a super professinal, and his team was a high skilled specialists.

[@SebSN-y3f]

I really appreciate your videos because they are well done. But here is something completely wrong with this depiction. 1) The Soviets were particularly afraid that their military satellites could be intercepted and brought to Earth. This was supported by the size of the loading bay, which "coincidentally" had the dimensions of the Soviet spy satellites (the US ones were also that big). Scott Manley showed some of the secret missions of the Space Shuttle Orbiter (which I also love and adore - and whose first launch has been looking forward to for years) with strange orbits. Some of it was really about recovering satellites. Which shouldn't surprise anyone. 2) "Secret": I have books here from the East German science publisher Urania. Buran was shown there with beautiful images in the late 70s and early 80s. 3) The OKBs were not private design bureaus, but state ones. Only. 4) Scott Manley recently explained it again: The US space shuttle contained findings from a Soviet experiment with "flying bodies" called BOR 5. It had landed in the Pacific and the West was nearby with helicopters and ships and filmed everything. The design was then re-engineered in Langley. With wind tunnel tests etc. The finished mockup was later used for the Dreamchaser. Before BOR 5 there was already BOR 4 and the MIG 105, also called Bast shoe because the footwear of Russian farmers had a very similar look on the front. Of course technology transfer happened. Just as almost all liquid fuel rockets in the West are based on the German A4 "V2" (even the so-called father of Chinese space travel was in US service at the time and one of Wernher von Braun's first interrogators was still in Germany in 1945). Not only had the Russians captured fewer records and technicians than the West. The father of Soviet space travel, Korolyev, had already successfully launched liquid fuel rockets in the early 1930s. The Sojets also had the first space society (1921, before the now oldest British one in 1924). The Russians also had Ziolkowsky, who had already designed and calculated space voyages in detail at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century (the ideas for the methode of moon landings are from an polish Ingenieur in the 20th of the last century. Polish ingenieur frist crackt the german Enigma, what was taken to the british intelligence.). The first photos of the side of the moon that is invisible to us were taken using US photographic material that came from US spy aircraft that were captured over the Soviet Union. Because they were as good as the Soviet Union could at that time. So there is a lot to tell, but please do it correctly. It is clear that many in the West do not like the idea that the Soviets were also very capable, but their space successes speak for themselves. Incidentally, Sikorsky also comes from Russia and was very successful in building aircraft there (BTW: the first picture tube was demonstrated at the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1911 and the military there already had a very long and extensive experience and specialists in rockets.). The first major space travel exhibition was in Russia, from where a lot of impulses emanated everywhere. As before from the starts of the first liquid fuel rockets from Goddard in 1919 in the USA. A way was finally found to control rockets much better than before with solid fuel engines. Goddard is way underappreciated. The fact is that the Space Association, to which Wernher von Braun belonged, also knew about and was mesmerised from it. Obert was also member there etc. The fact is that the Russians did not successfully land on the moon, but they did manage to take the first orbital satellite, the first person in orbit, the first woman in the first parallel flight, the first space walk, the first photos of the back of the moon and the only ones from the surface Venus (which your channel recently explained and showed very well). And they had the first modular space stations and long-term stays in space, which is why the ISS was based on Soviet technology (many Ukrainians, where excellent engines were designed and built). In conclusion: Buran could do more, such as automatic landings and flew without dangerous solid fuel boosters.

[@fasillimerick7394]

Considering how we got our hands on all the titanium for the Blackbird, I guess we should have expected a comeuppance.

[@justimagine2403]

And that had no pilot and landed all by itself.

[@Audion]

USSR space plane The Spiral looks like the Sierra Nevada corporation Dream Chaser. 🤣🤣🤣 See 2:52

[@josefeitoza4028]

Wow, it's the same shape. Who are the master of copying now?

[@falk.]

hmm that intro, I remember that from somewhere🤔

[@cabbit3008]

from mustard they both said it was a space shuttle then said it wasnt

[@markusjuenemann]

If you look closely, the Buran and the Shuttle are actually VERY different. So are Conocorde and TU-144. The aerodynamic design looks similar because its the optimal form. Also: There's another prototype that is actually in a german museum calls "Technik Museum Speyer". You can visit it there and you can even look inside its cockpit. Unlike most other videos on this channel, the one isn't researched very well. Sorry!

[@GrzegorzOklinski]

Thank you. You saved my time to write essentially the same. Misleading video.

[@rager1969]

If the documents were publicly available (and by the way, you don't think the US weren't watching them buy these documents?) then why would it be a problem to take it out of the US? Oh, and if they were really good at avoiding detection and surveillance, they could've snuck the documents out, even if there was no such thing as a diplomatic pouch, which is how countries export things they aren't supposed to be able to,

[@thebeagles2025]

How can we say it was one of the most advanced space vehicles of its time? The whole point of the shuttle program was a RE-USABLE space vehicle. The Soviets did not build that. For sure, they never once proved that they did. Until they could make that claim, Buran was just a single use space craft that quite possibly, never even had a life support system. There is no proof of anything. It never carried a pilot. It never performed a single experiment. It didn't build anything or launch a satellite. It never even went back to space to prove the Soviets could do it twice..... much less28 flights by the shuttle the Russians were trying to copy.... Columbia.... So exactly how was it one of the most advanced space vehicles of its time? It did nothing but go up and then run to the barn. It has a cool name though.

[@timothymcphail8762]

The answer to your question is pretty simple, - It was one of the most advanced shuttles for its time, considering that the Soviet union and the USA pioneered the technology.

[@xmodalloy]

"World's most capable space vehicle" Lol. Shuttle put 29 metric tons into LEO for $576 million. Saturn 5 put 140 metric tons into LEO for $185 million.

[@Qwarzz]

But Saturn V couldn't go fix the Hubble.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@Qwarzz Sure it could... just launch a capsule with a crew and a pallet of parts they dock to and extract from the S-IVB... Saturn V/Apollo was THE most capable spacecraft and launch vehicle ever devised by man... and it was basically PERFECT in its original design-- serially staged (one stage atop another, three stages, first being kerosene/oxygen for maximum thrust and minimum volume/weight, second and third hydrogen/oxygen powered for maximum efficiency where it's needed most). NASA's own RAC-2 studies looking at various Moon/Mars launch vehicles came to the same conclusions, but the "sunk cost" argument said use a "shuttle derived solution" cobbled together from the most expensive bits of shuttles, used in "expendable mode" and thrown away after each flight... STUPID, BUT it keeps all the existing shuttle contractors with fat gubmint contracts and all the space-state politicians happy and lobbied and reelected... Saturn V launches would have saved so much money they could have launched a FLEET of Hubbles, and built them MUCH bigger, potentially the size of an S-IVB stage with a 21.5 foot diameter mirror instead of the KH-11 converted spysat that Hubble is based on. Unlike the pathetic shuttles which were UTTERLY INCAPABLE of flying over about 260 miles high or so, which meant Hubble was STUCK in a lousy Low Earth Orbit, which is a LOUSY observational orbit for a telescope-- there's a HUGE HONKIN' PLANET in the way for about 45 out of every 90 minute orbit!! (Earth). PLUS the telescope "shakes and pops" for several minutes in each orbit as is passes from direct sunlight into Earth's shadow, and back out again-- the structure heats to 250 degrees in sunlight to -200 in Earth's shadow, so thermal expansion causes "popping" of the structure that vibrates the mirrors and makes observations worthless during that time. The best orbit for a space telescope would be out either at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, say lunar orbit but on the opposite side of Earth from the Moon, or better yet beyond Earth orbit entirely at an Earth-Sun Lagrange point, as is planned for the Webb Space Telescope. Even in geosynchronous orbit the Earth would be much smaller in the sky, allowing a space telescope an uninterrupted view most of the time, without the disk of the earth getting in the way of what it's observing... BUT, the shuttle could NEVER reach any of those places, so Hubble was dropped off at the highest orbit that they could possibly wring out of the shuttle with any sort of safety factor left... which is why the Hubble missions are the highest altitude records for the space shuttle, the highest they ever flew. Each shuttle servicing mission was SO ridiculously expensive, it's been proven that simply building a new telescope and launching it on a more capable unmanned launcher would have been cheaper, and put it where it could do more science... plus not ALL the servicing missions were "live or die" for Hubble-- some simply upgraded solar panels or instruments aboard-- the first Hubble mission would have been a write-off without the repairs to correct its "nearsightedness" (caused by insufficient ground testing, which was a result of money reshuffling within NASA to pay for, SHUTTLE COST OVERRUNS AND PROBLEMS). IOW, shuttles were the main cause for the Hubble FAILURE when it was first launched IN THE FIRST PLACE! A new telescope could have been built and launched on expendable unmanned rockets to a better observational orbit for the same cost as a shuttle mission to "fix" and "upgrade" the SINGLE existing Hubble, and we could have gotten FAR more science out of having TWO telescopes or more up there, even if one was stuck with the older instruments or whatever rather than upgraded with new ones... the new Hubble would have had them anyway and could have done those observations that needed the new instruments, while other scientists used the existing Hubble with the older instruments, until it ultimately failed and died... Then you launch another one... Think of what we'd have gotten from a FLEET of Hubbles, many working at the same time! Then think of what we got with the ONE Hubble we have, by comparison, thanks so it being wedded to the friggin' SHUTTLE... Ugh... Same is true for space stations... Saturn V could loft the equivalent mass of ISS in only about 5-6 launches, rather than the 40-odd launches required for the shuttle to get ISS up there... We could have built ISS out of Skylab size modules linked together, and launched it all into orbit even at the late Apollo flight rates of 2 missions a year, in only about THREE YEARS, versus the THIRTEEN YEARS required for the shuttle to build ISS... So even THAT is an utter failure on shuttle's part compared to what Saturn V could do... Crew rotation and resupply could be done by a smaller rocket-- basically at it's heart, SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Dragon is just an updated, more capable, more efficient, and reusable version of a Saturn Ib... But, we p!ssed ALL that away when we dumped Saturn V for the bill of goods we got sold with the friggin' SHUTTLES... biggest mistake this country ever made in spaceflight... OL J R :)

[@Qwarzz]

Sounds like you really didn't like the shuttle and went your way to figure out everything that was wrong with it :) I do agree that how the shuttle turned out it just seems excessively expensive and dangerous craft. Would have made more sense if it had actually been cheaper to reuse as it was supposed to be. Surely they could have developed a craft to sit on top of Saturn V that could carry a crew and has a large cargo bay. Might be an interesting alternate history topic.

[@xmodalloy]

@@Qwarzz The unfortunate situation that the space shuttle found itself in is not dissimilar from a top fuel drag racing car. The engine has to be rebuilt every single run and every inch of the vehicle has to be looked over after ever run for cracks in the frame. However, older dragsters never performed to the level than a modern one does. Today, we could build a vehicle that performed as a dragster from 50 years ago and have it be able to run 100 passes before needing to be torn down, inspected and rebuilt. The same can be said for spacecraft. I don't think the metallurgy or engineering prowess was available to make a truly reusable craft back in the 70s when the space shuttle was designed, but I think we're close to having that capability today.

[@Qwarzz]

@@xmodalloy We're now waiting to see how Starship turns out.

[@mylesl2890]

do a video about what made it more advanced what were all those features??

[@jennykeele]

3:23 what is that

[@RailsofForney]

6:12 The shuttle has a sausage as a nose, Lol

[@darwinjina]

There is a video exploring the ruins of the prototypes and facility on YT. pretty interesting

[@JORMUNREKKR]

6:48 The KGB brought him back to Moscow not from France (as one might think) but from Irkutsk prison, where he was enjoying his 15y sentence for double murder 😅 And the letter he sent to his family was from prison - he was asking his wife to warn the DST not to search for him, which might've exposed him eventually.

[@KillTeamHungary]

Fun fact, my father in law was the lead designer of this space craft :D

[@javiercorral722]

Thanks, homeslice! Very interesting video. I had NO idea the Russians had EVER had a spaceshuttle.

[@KRAZEEIZATION]

At least the soviets paid for the prints!😁

[@deniss2786]

Buran had an autopilot. Shuttle did not.

[@arturoortiz8372]

I am not an astronautical engineer, but the design of the Buran at first glance is more aerodynamic with a superior design, since the Soviets were pioneers of the space age, not the USA...

[@kevinwiltshire2217]

The side the side booster rockets on the Russian shuttle look more aerodynamic

[@v12tommy]

I think the Buran was actually better than the Shuttle. Not only were the engines on the external tank and not reused (which was a joke on the Shuttle), but it was completely liquid fueled, so in the event of a malfunction, it could simply turn the engines off. On the Shuttle, the astronauts were along for the ride until the solid boosters were done firing.

[@the-guy-beyond-the-socket]

0:52 just a note that soviet union had first satellite AND first human in space.

[@the-guy-beyond-the-socket]

I found like 8 disinformed lines already lol.

[@actualyoungsoo]

Doing your own homework by yourself is hard, but coping it other person's homework is easy.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Amazing story of espionage and persistence. It's actually a real shame the shuttles were just canned, it would've made a brilliant space program. It's also quite amazing that Russia and America haven't nuked each other yet. I think Russia knows it might get one or two shots in but at the end of the day it'll just get flattened.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

I thought the Soviet space shuttle was a copy of the American one. But whenever that issue was brought up in a news article the excuse was given that it was a similar design only because of the fact of engineering coincidences and the American and Soviet designs were both the optimum shape. I remember distinctly once article saying it was not a copy just the fact that the two had to be the same because of aerodynamics. But there were things that bothered me. The Buran did not have the three main engines that the shuttle orbiter did. Interestingly there's a picture of the Buran under construction the rear plate has three gigantic holes exactly placed where the three main engines of the Space shuttle would have gone. Instead parachutes were packed into them. Design elements such as the reaction control system precisely line up with the placement of the same systems on the space shuttle orbiter. The claim has been made repeatedly that the Russian and American space shuttles share a similar design because it is the optimal aerodynamic shape. But there are many smaller design choices like the reaction control system that had they been designed independently would turn out differently. The precise alignment of so many systems implies a direct copy. Did the Russians have to do redesign work and independent work to make their space shuttle operational yes. But all of that was laid upon an already existing plan which they had. They had access to design plans for the space shuttle and they use them as the basis of their own.

[@rileychadwell5635]

No reusable fuel and engine parts using the Energia Booster, though. There are some jet engines on one of the Russian orbiters, however.