Why was the Soviet space shuttle left to rot?

[@TheRonster666]

You can see one of the Buran prototypes that was used for atmospheric flight testing in the Technik Museum in Speyer, Germany. I was there one month ago on July 10, 2016. Great museum.

[@drmaudio]

Although Buran was obviously inspired by and borrowed heavily form the space shuttle, the launch system was significantly different, with the four main engines placed on the rocket, rather than the space shuttles three on the orbiter. The Buran orbiter didn't have any main engines, only two orbital maneuvering engines, leading to (reportedly) significantly more payload, but lower reusability.

[@morganahoff2242]

Yeah, I remember this was the most significant difference between the Space Shuttle and Buran. The Soviets reasoned that the engines were for getting into space, and therefore there was no reason to have them attached to the back of the spacecraft, since they were useless after the fuel tank was jettisoned. That goes right up there with, "Oh...we use a pencil."

[@HalNordmann]

The "significant difference" was about a ton of payload. Not worth it.

[@PhilippensTube]

Yeah, obviously the Soviets looked closely at the Shuttle, but if you look closely, there are much more differences. If you want to make a space plane type of spacecraft, it's not like you have a broad choice of different designs. It's the best design for the requirements. But the Soviets didn't blindly copy the design. They looked at it and then made their own choices, like the engines, the tiles and lots of structural choices. Just like the Tu-144, it's very much their own design. Passenger airplanes also look very similar, but we don't say that Airbus copies Boeing, do we? Cars too. The Energya rocket was a great move, because they could also use it as a carrier for other payloads. They only used it once for Polyus, but that was because they lacked funding for more.

[@mikedicenso2778]

Amy, the "external tank" the Soviet Buran orbiters rode into space on had a name. Energia, and it was not an external tank, like the U.S. STS had, but a standalone expendable rocket in it's own right. What you call an external tank was the core vehicle for Energia and it had 4 LOX/H2 powered engines mounted on the bottom. You are correct in that this vehicle was assisted to orbit with 4 strap on booster rockets, each of which had 4 LOX/Kerosene powered RD-170 rockets.

[@BrianRonald]

I believe that Energia could (in theory) throw something like 120 tonnes into orbit, or alternatively an orbiter with 30 tonnes inside it.

[@tomthx5804]

Why was the Soviet space shuttle left to rot?

[@carmatic]

the collapse of the soviet union meant having no more budget

[@VenusIsleNews]

MiG in space

[@johnwhiting6663]

Mike DiCenso Is the US shuttle engine powered?

[@jimstiles26287]

There was a key fraction in the Soviet Politburo at that time, which had strong faith in American technological prowess, that believed that the Americans had to have good reason to build the Space Shuttle and that the Soviet Union needed one as well.

[@jshepard152]

Yep, that was the logic. Little did they know they were copying a mistake.

[@brendancarlton7326]

I actually remember reading about the Buran when I was four back in 1990. I got in a fight with a Russian kid in my kindergarten class over whose shuttle was better.

[@nutsackmania]

+Brendan Carlton BREEEEENNNNNNNDDAAAAAANNNNNN

[@911gpd]

so cute :)

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Brendan Carlton and now with retrospect Buran was betwe, but both ended up grounded

[@Kitmaker]

Oh it was definitely betwe. One purported successful flight vs. 135. This is how myths are created people.

[@ouuniversity]

I hope you won!!

[@patrickswayne4584]

There's one technical miss-step in this video. The Russian shuttle did not have an external tank -- it had an external rocket. There were no main engines at the base of the shuttle -- they were at the base of the "tank", which was actually the Energia rocket. It was the largest rocket ever built.

[@USWaterRockets]

I was totally unaware there were so many Burans built and there were still some in hangars. Those photos are spectacular. Thanks for bringing this topic to my attention. Very cool!

[@brianwilliams3729]

USWaterRockets One of the operational Buran was badly damaged when the hangar fell in upon it....There are quite a bit of information here >> www.buran-energia.com/ and a lot more out on the web with good searching. The guidance system is and programming language is truly brilliant!

[@USWaterRockets]

Brian Williams That sounds like the kind of thing I would love to read about. Thanks for the tip.

[@spavatch]

They built as many Burans as the Americans built Columbias

[@RobertWesterbergstockholm]

Love your coverage of the vintage space race - looking forward for your book any day soon now! Keep up the great work! 👍

[@BradCozine]

Did you know that Hugo Drax had multiple space shuttles of his own in 1979?

[@GB-vn1tf]

Holy Goodhead sure could fly them!

[@lukestrawwalker]

"Surely you must realize the splendor of my conception..." Hahahaha... Later! OL J R :)

[@michaelmurphy4022]

Yeah Drax......he liked a space shuttle he did.....now earning an honest living as a used car salesman in Lyon.

[@Vahmrick60]

Lots of good information, great delivery, nice lighting, good strong voice, suggest you slow it down *slightly* and deliver more from the diaphragm, very important for TV. Just as they say the camera adds 10 lbs to your image, the microphone raises your voice's pitch slightly. You need more B roll with natsound and a little bit of graphic pre production on your still images, even if it's only a Ken Burns move would go along way.

[@Zerepzerreitug]

I'm intrigued by the Buran's automatic landing. Does it means it was remote controlled? Or did it literally land on its own? Either way, it sounds impressive for what was essentially a flying brick

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

Arturo Gutierrez I'm going to look into the engine next week. Someone on Twitter asked about a go-around. I'll do something about shuttle landings, both STS and Buran!

[@vrendus522]

Arturo Gutierrez Yes' it was automated.The Russians were not exactly sure of just how their ship would perform and did not desire bad press at that time.

[@vrendus522]

Amy Shira Teitel Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle books.google.com/books?isbn=038773984X Bart Hendrickx, ‎Bert Vis - 2007 - ‎Technology & EngineeringThe Soviet Space Shuttle Bart Hendrickx, Bert Vis ... Begin Orbiter Tests FollowingEngine Installation'', Aviation Week & Space Technology, 14 April 1986, pp

[@vrendus522]

vrendus522 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine pics U.S. Shuttle mains www.google.com/search?q=space+shuttle+main+engines&rlz=1C1RNLG_enUS518US518&espv=2&es_sm=93&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCkQsARqFQoTCKLhod_elcYCFY1aiAodc8AAaQ

[@k1productions87]

to my knowledge, the Buran also had air-breathing jet engines, making its landing a powered landing instead of an unpowered glide landing. Something the DoD just didn't care forking over extra money for, for STS.

[@flasesc5198]

I saw this amazing photo blog of the Buran a while ago, very glad you made this video, these photos really deserves the attention. Well done.

[@Astronomy_Live]

Being able to carry 30 tons into orbit but only return 15 begs an interesting question; what is a space shuttle to do when it tries to haul 30 tons to orbit but instead finds itself stuck in an RTLS or TAL abort (or perhaps even AOA) where the limits of performance are tested under even the best circumstances?

[@Nightdare]

+Astronomy Live Let's be realistic here, aborting launch simply wasn't possible for the shuttle once it was released from the launchpad 15 or 30t payload wouldn't make a prayer's difference during launchsequence the only possible window would be after achieving orbit, by then, they could ditch the cargo and return

[@lukestrawwalker]

A lot of that cargo was to be fuel that would be pumped overboard during the RTLS maneuver... That's how they planned to do it with the Shuttle-Centaur high energy LH2-powered booster stage... The Shuttle-Centaur would be in the payload bay, fueled with LH2 and LO2 through special lines into the payload bay built into the vehicle. Once launched, the Shuttle-Centaur and the payload were too heavy to land in the event of a Return To Lauch Site (RTLS) abort, or a Trans-Atlantic Abort (TAL), so in the event anything other than an "Abort To Orbit" (ATO) was required, the Shuttle was to be equipped with special drain/vent lines that would have pumped the Centaur's propellants overboard and out through the wingtip and upper end of the vertical stabilizer. So an already extremely sketchy RTLS abort would have not only required the shuttle having to flip over under power with it's ET and burn it's engines to return toward the Cape, but also pump the Centaur propellants overboard while jettisoning the ET and getting into a stable glide for a runway landing. Not bloody likely... When they proposed that the first shuttle flight be a suborbital hop to demonstrate the RTLS maneuver, John Young vetoed that idea, calling the RTLS maneuver "risking highly probable death to avoid certain death". Such was the shuttle program... :) OL J R :)

[@travelcedric]

Back in about 2000, there was the one Buran orbiter on tour and sitting near Darling Harbour in Sydney, Aus. I was fortunate enough to get a chance to see it, and even touch it (unlike the US shuttles which are kept out of arms reach). It had two turbofan engines mounted to the top nacelles to help with atmospheric maneuvering, although they ultimately weren't needed. The cockpit was rather small, with only two fighter style seats inside, and the cargo bay was just primer green aluminum. It was pretty fascinating to see up close and still in good condition.

[@EtherconOmnicam]

Hey Amy, I love your vids; especially the ones about the Gemini program!Could you do a video about the ESA mini shuttle Hermes?It was developed in the 80s, & after the Challenger disaster, ESA had to add safety features, which added to the weight & eventually lead to the end before its first flight. England, the largest parter of ESA wanted no part in the Hermes program; stating that they could never be able to compete with the US. The supporting members responded by stating that they had no intention of competing with the US; but to simply have an independent manned space program. The Hermes would've been launched by an Ariane V launch vehicle at the launch complex in French Guiana. After the Hermes was cancelled in the early 90s, the Ariane V was adapted for other uses.

[@gecko-nh6tx]

I love Amy's posts on spaceflight and the Soviets will love me for this but I have a piece of flown in space hardware from Buran. Where from? It was just a piece of rubber from the cargo bay door. You know when your told not to touch what does a kid do? I was probably the last one to tap on Apollo 17s hatch before it got wrapped in plastic. I tapped my finger on the Command Module hatch and it felt like solid iron. There was simply no give on that door...they built the Apollo Command Module to last...

[@PRR5406]

The original Buran orbiter did make the launch to landing under autonmous control but the orbiter suffered some heat damage during the return, which could be why that particular article was never flown again. The second flight article was named "Ptychka", meaning "little bird". One of the orbiter' is now, or was, a feature of the Gorky Park amusement center. THis may have been the original engineering mockup. Another surprising feature of Buran's design is how closely it resembles the Grumman Aerospace concept for the US Space Shuttle. Ultimately, Rockwell got the shuttle contract. Other US concept drawings may have inspired some of Buran's design. The Soviets were not adverse to adapting other engineering concepts to their own purposes, although it would be unfair to say their orbiter was entirely stolen for US plans.

[@skytrainii8933]

+PRR5406 After looking at the pictures from Ralph Mirebs, I am more convinced it is a pretty good copy (in form and fit). But one cannot tell if it is a copy in function. I have worked on all the Orbiter's designs both structurally and on the TPS (external tiles). It is amazing how the cargo bay is very similar to the one we designed, tooled and built at Convair for Rockwell. Even the amount of truss structure verses bulkhead machinings in the mid section is similar. What I cannot tell from the pictures is what material the Russians used. We invented a remarkable laminate for the boron/aluminum tubes that made up the truss section. The skin and stringers were integrally machined (no rivets). I also cannot tell if the tile material is the same as what we manufactured at Lockheed in Sunnyvale, CA.

[@BrotherSabathius]

+PRR5406 It was a successful flight, and there are some videos of it on youtube, (I remember watching it on the news at the time) but to take the spacecraft to the next stage to be ready for a manned mission, needed a lot more money... Which never came. It's quite sad really, it was better than the US Shuttle in some ways, and it worked. Then it was all just left to rot and the only Buran that flew was destroyed when its storage hangar collapsed due to lack of maintenance.

[@PRR5406]

They had some severe air frame warping on landing. It was doubtful if Buran would fly again, at least not that copy. The others were destroyed or sold or turned into park structures. They had a good launch system, too, but it was a doomed project without the USA picking up the tab.

[@paralleler]

What amazed me is that the first and only time Buran flew, it was unmanned. That too was quite a technological feat. Another fantastic job Amy!

[@HalNordmann]

The Space Shuttle could've also flown unmanned - in theory. In practice, that capability was never used, and some functions for automatic control were never wired in.

[@jshepard152]

Best thing about the Soviet shuttle? They were smart enough to retire it before it killed 14 cosmonauts.

[@apieceofdirt4681]

So Russia did the same thing with the space shuttle that they did with Anglo/French Concorde; they either copied it or stole the plans via espionage. In some cases they took these copied/stolen designs and made certain things better.

[@AtilaElari]

Your videos are great, but I'd like to hear a bit more on the economic side of the space programs you are talking about. As much as it may annoy space fans and even more so the scientists, funding is the greatest limit to space exploration thus far. It would be nice if you talked more about the costs of the space programs. Maybe even make an entire episode comparing the costs of famous programs. It is very interesting to see what resources were assailable to USA. Soviet/Russian and European agencies and what were they able to do with them.

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

Atila Elari You're right it's less exciting, but important. I'll work on a way to do it!

[@wyndstryder]

You're intellect and putting in a way for the layman to comprehend fascinates me

[@galexeqe]

They brought the Buran#2 to Australia in 2000 and had it on display in a giant tent structure in a park down at darling harbour, I took the opportunity to take a few photos and was surprised at the similarity to the US shutlle (ie virtually identical) and the fact that I didn't even know they had one - probably because it only ever flew once and on auto pilot. I always remember thinking that it was shorter than I expected it to be

[@foxtrotalphaone]

'Buran' was not the name of the program or the or that family of spacecraft. It was the name of that specific shuttle, like 'Columbia', 'Atlantis', etc.

[@TheLandbo]

Sorry Amy, but Buran wasn't a secret when it was flown on the back of the world's only An-225 to the Paris Airshow in 1989 for display. The An-225 is specially made to carry Buran.

[@riforgiate74]

Two years after she said that it's existence was found out.

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

I saw AN-225 carrying Buran at Paris 1989 Airshow. It was the highlight of the show. I have photos of An-225 in-flight carrying Buran.

[@hectorfuji]

You guys needs to see Mustard's Buran video, very well made.

[@alucardhellsing1037]

Yes, but their boosters were liquid fueled. NASA prefered solid fuel boosters more power, but no safety control. Russian's were great at reverse engineering. They also did produce one of the best flight ejection seats for fighter aircraft.

[@johnp139]

Alucard Hellsing best ejection seat for high speed/high altitude ejections.

[@1pcfred]

Strapping a bottle of vodka to most anything makes it better!

[@starview1]

The Buran that flew could never fly again? Why? Because the russians in fact copied (stole) the faulty info fed to them and one of the bad areas they copied was Tile adhesion, the russians used poor material to attach heat tiles and in fact the under superstructure was badly burned on its reentry. This is historical fact.

[@jimabbey1964]

BURAN means "Snow Storm"

[@Pyotyrpyotyrpyotyr]

J Abbey blizzard

[@whiff1962]

What a Buran conversation.

[@puncheex2]

Yes, or more colloquially "Blizzard", (as I see Pyotyr said two weeks ago) and it was the name of the first of the fleet, the only one to actually fly. The program has a long boring name typical of the Russian sense of appropriateness: VKK Space Orbiter, Воздушно Космический Корабль, "Air Space Ship" programme; you could call the fleet the Buran class orbiters, following naval nomenclature. The second flight article, the one in the photo layout, is "Ptichka", meaning Little Bird, and the third one was to be "Baikal", a place name.

[@maxwellmondo4857]

Plot twist: It means shit storm

[@Jeffrey314159]

J Abbey BURA is Russian for 'storm' as in Planeta Bura aka Storm Planet

[@fadlya.rahman4113]

Actually Buran didnt have external tank. The Russian shuttle piggybacked a huge Energia super heavy lift rocket, which look quite similar to US space shuttle external tank.

[@leakycheese]

I'd like to see a video where you compare the design features and capabilities of the Space Shuttle / STS with Buran / Energia.

[@tomthx5804]

Why was the Soviet space shuttle left to rot?

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Tom thx Soviet Umion was about to colapse And like the shuttle, it was very expensive

[@НикитаЛель-г8ы]

Tom thx He was left to rot, because the USSR was destroyed. What is incomprehensible. Do you think that the Soviet Union collapsed? This is not how it was done with the help of the United States and corruption in the elite circles of the USSR. Many projects, like factories, were destroyed. The US gained access to the most secret and transferable developments of the USSR and Russia in the 1990s. Today, the US uses them and issues for their own. I can give many examples. This system was expensive and not practical to use, this was known in the USSR long before the appearance of the Shuttle. Therefore, she developed many other systems that the US currently uses. Buran was needed only as an answer to the Shuttle. To have the same capabilities (capturing satellites and delivering a nuclear strike) that's all its advantages.

[@richhill451]

leakycheese Was b

[@philipcoffman4372]

What American technology dude? Even so called your American technology designed and engineered by Russian immigrants. I'm not saying anything big like helicopter by sikorskiy , I'm talking about your American icons Harley Davidson ( harlamov and Davidov ) , John deer tractor ( Ivan kozlov) ... Until then deer was able to produce plows and lawn mowers... But she's right in the 90's Americans stole s lot of technology like yak 141 vtol propultion that they used on f35b etc... But even with all scietntific potential from not American education but from h1b visa and immigrants that studied abroad , today in rocket technology and nuclear Russia is around 20-30 years in lead of the states. I don't wanna argue just remember only 6 elements since 2000 were added in table of elements. All synthesized in Russia . 1/15 th of American military budget has hypersonics , nukes that go thru American bullshit shield and that's why everyone in NATO wants s400 and Americans still buying Russian made 1980 rd181 engines for their atlas because cannot invent better for themselves. Once again , don't argue. You have google : search the names I provided and info .

[@kb8wfh]

Have a friend of mine that worked for the Air Force along with NASA starting in the Apollo program. I asked him about the "People's Shuttle-ski" and he said that NASA knew the Soviets were sneaking design details. So they supplied them with some....with a few small mistakes they knew would never be detected. As such, the Buran has several design flaws that caused problems that couldn't be fixed once the thing was built. It "worked" but had too many problems that made it impractical and dangerous. That's what'cha get when you cheat by looking at someone else's work!

[@jshepard152]

Oh, how I hope this is true.

[@rickravenrumney]

The Russians figured out rather quickly that aship that can do many things mediocre and not just one thing great except drain money. Granted it did have a very big cargo bay that was a great asset. I don't believe the breakup of the USSR was the reason it was retired. It was a Tech Dead end. While the shuttle was flying the USA could have continued upgrading Apollo Capsules, Developing Blue Gemini, or Large Gemini and launching from California on an Air Force Delta 5 Rocket that was ready. A lot was learned from the shuttle, but the X-20 Dyna Soar or X-15 Could have done the samething. The Crago bay for the USA was the Big asset, but could have flown on the cheap on the Delta 5's or Titan II that were being retired from Military Service. This is what pisses me off. The Soviets didn't have to build Buran. The ISS could have just been a smaller way station so larger crafts to the moon, mars and the asteroids could have been build jointly by the USA and Russia and other nations who wanted to pay an equal share to join us. Imagine, Diamond asteroid mines. Venus with its pressure got of have those shiny crushed cabon rocks too. Or Gold, Silver and other hard to find minerals here on Earth. If Gold or Platinum were found on Asteroid Ceres, the Private sector would be on its way to building a craft to check it out.

[@biglouie121]

Exactly. Thts why we dont use the space shuttle any longer and the Russians are still using the same same tech. The shuttles were a waste of money. They looked cool but honestly they sucked

[@rickravenrumney]

They weren't a total waste. If you saw the original plans where it was to be launched from a as a parasite ship from piggyback like advanced composites did with spaceship 1 or whatever they called it. But then the DOD needed the big cargo bay and that fucked up everything. The Delta 5 was ready to go to do heavy lifts over polar orbits. A lot was learned with the shuttles but could have been done much cheaper with other tech. When Apollo 1 burned on the pad, there were plans, not just plans but an operational gemini capsule with a gemini lunar lander. Thats all we really needed, but Von Braun wanter his Saturn 5. A one off Rocket with one mission. How many did they build? 20-25? Hemini Titan II's or Centaur or Titan 5's could have been built and have been built until now. A ship like the one in deep impact was being researched..the original project Orion. There was no was that it would have been launched with tiny nuke pellets to orbit; but a polar launch? We could have sent crews to orbit Mars, the Roid belt, moons of Jupiter. Done safely and cheaply. The Soviets had Salyut and we had Skylab with the universal docking port that could have been a ship and Hab to the planets. The Soviets would have cooperated, even if it took till the 90's. Think, Big Gemini, Soyuz. The solar system would be crowded with exploration, exploitation by many countries and the private sector. Fucking waste of time and talent and PRIDE!

[@prairiewanderer5040]

Bear in mind the chief reason why diamonds, gold, and platinum are so valuable is their rarity.

[@rickravenrumney]

prairie wanderer Well said.

[@prairiewanderer5040]

Rick Raven Rumney Thank you. Gold and platinum are used in industrial products, so there is a market beyond "bling". That raises the issue of whether or not those materials could be obtained from extraterrestrial sources at rates feasible to tap the industrial market. Interesting concept that I'd never considered. :)

[@petronius5931]

I actually heard at the time of Buran flying that the Soviets bought copies of shuttle blueprints, which were available to anyone. That might explain some of the incredible similarity of design between Buran and shuttle.

[@danielmoraine6755]

Cosmonaut - Buran Buran Please tell me someone somewhere has made that parody album

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

Oh my god I can't believe I didn't see that before that's awesome! Oh, love it. Good on ya!

[@danielmoraine6755]

To be fair, Astronaut by Duran Duran came out in 2004, so it's probably pretty obscure. I didn't even know it existed, I just knew I needed to make a Duran Duran pun, and lo, I was blessed with a perfect setup!

[@tomthx5804]

Why was the Soviet space shuttle left to rot?

[@thetruthhurts4054]

Tom thx no gas money to lift off. Kinda like why north Korea hasn't tried to invade south Korea. Kim jong ding dong don't have the gas money to reach his own border.. 😂

[@patb9375]

Vintage space How come Major Tom didn't make it back through the Van Allen belt? :^ {)

[@alanbdee]

I had a co-worker who immigrated here from Kazakhstan and he had a part of the heat shield from one of them. It was really light like a piece of foam but had a texture more like a brick. The edges were surprisingly sharp. He explained that people were stripping parts like that off the shuttle to sell on ebay. It was probably the coolest space related item I've actually held.

[@WOTArtyNoobs]

I remember reading a book by a defecting officer the Soviet GRU, their military intelligence agency. Part of their function was to acquire Western (specifically American) technology and then pass this to the Soviet arms industry. The Space Shuttle was a priority on their shopping list and the CIA and NSA were aware of this through various spies. To make the Soviets waste vast amounts of funds, they provided their GRU double agents with detailed design drawings that they were supposed to have 'acquired' for bribes. These drawings were produced by the same people who developed the actual Space Shuttle and were correct in all aspects (just in case the Soviets did a verification), but there were slight errors that would not show up even on close inspection which made the design unworkable. The Soviets promoted their agents for a job well done and they were able to provide even more useful information to the CIA/NSA as a result. The Soviets used these designs as the basis for the Buran, which is why the designs were so similar, but the deliberate mistakes in the designs took the engineers years to correct and huge amounts of money to rectify. In the end, the Soviets had to redesign much of the Buran and that's why it looks somewhat different to the American Shuttle. The Soviets were also short of key components that they needed to make the shuttle a realistic program. They underestimated the sheer cost of the operation. The Americans were able to sell the shuttle because of the prestige, but also the commercial space for satellites, but even they made mistakes. Hence the disasters for Challenger and Columbia. The break-up of the Soviet Union showed that there simply wasn't the funding to keep the project alive and with the Buran facilities not being maintained, the hangar containing the orbiter collapsed and destroyed it. I read other stories about how the GRU were fooled by Americans. One US Army officer even handed over a nuclear artillery shell so that the Soviets could look at it overnight. Only when they opened it up, it turned out to contain radioactive waste, not a bomb. The GRU officers had paid tens of millions of dollars to inspect the nuclear warhead, but when they searched for the officer, he had retired back to the States that same day and they were unable to find him.

[@1pcfred]

That's a lie. The Soviets simply walked into a toy store and purchased an accurate scale model of the US Space Shuttle. Made in the west the model was of course perfect in every detail.

[@chownful]

First LiveJournal page that I have visited since 2004

[@yaniratangoart]

Some facts are missing from this brief history of the US ? Soviet Space race to the Moon. NASA's expensive Apollo budget had nothing to do with its cancelation. After the Moon the US Gov simply thought it won against the Soviets and cancelled the program. The Shuttle was developed for Cold War space technology "Star Wars" coined by Ronald Reagan. It shipped military cargo into space. NASA is supposed to be civilian program but the US Gov was wiling to pay more to make it happen. Cold War was the reason for the Shuttles not cheaper technology. Otherwise the Shuttle would have been going to the Moon or Mars.

[@jshepard152]

Baloney. Shuttle development was in process during the latter Apollo flights, years before Reagan took office in 1981.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

You did get something wrong here, Amy, the Buran wasn't mounted on an external tank it was mounted on super heavy-lift rocket called the Energia which had four LOX/LH2 fueled RD-0120 engines in its core-stage in addition to the four boosters (Powered each by a four-chamber LOX/RP-1 RD-170 engine). The Energia only flew twice and it had an LEO capability of 110 short-tons.

[@BD12]

Ptichka might be the cutest name ever given to any spaceship.

[@AtilaElari]

***** that's Russian for "little bird", just in case.

[@BD12]

I'm aware, haha. It's lovely in either language.

[@rouymalic4463]

BarryDennen12 Ptichkachu

[@TheRadical42]

Wow! I didn't think you did Shuttle stories! I'm glad you did this one. Its a good story.

[@bigsteve6200]

If you Google Earth Moscow theres a park with one of the Buran on display.

[@jaytee-134]

steven romero where specifically ?

[@josephschembri4811]

Gorky Park, Moscow. I've stood under it and touched it.

[@ged-4138]

Not anymore, sadly..

[@AstronomerRob]

I believe I first saw the Buran in the Guinness book in the late 80's. I love space as much as you Amy! I stumbled upon your AST Vintage Space when I was looking up Gravity Assist on youtube to share with friends. Keep up the great work Amy! :)

[@Gromit801]

The shuttles look similar because the laws of physics and aerodynamics are a constant.

[@MrRandomcommentguy]

not necessarily, it could have looked pretty different but to save time they based it closely on the US design which by that stage had been proven to work.

[@josephgibbons1631]

Gromit801 clearly reverse engineered off the NASA project.

[@genec2235]

@Goettschwan the space shuttle specs at that time were not considered classified information and therefore public, and quite easily acquired

[@sonnyburnett8725]

Goettschwan , It truly is public knowledge the Soviets purchased the plans of the STS vehicle and in so doing copied it as much as possible. However, the Soviets could not duplicate the reusable engines which required the use of a one use design. That required them to relocate the wing for C.G. Reasons and the nose gear. There were many differences between the two spacecraft and it was a shame the world didn’t get the opportunity to see it in orbit along side our STS shuttle as it would have been quite a site.

[@MaverickSu-35]

Amin!

[@whalers59]

This reminds me of the best book I have ever read..."Storming Intrepid" by Payne Harrison. The books starts off with a seemingly routine and successful mission of Buran, and then things go way crazy. The research Harrison did to make the book accurate as possible is amazing. Absolutely find it and read it! I was fascinated when I learned about the shuttle program and taken back by how blatantly they copied the American schematics. I was also pretty bummed when I found out Buran was destroyed when the building it was housed in collapsed. That should have been in a museum. Thanks for this! I always love finding out new tidbits on the Soviet shuttle program.

[@r08800]

At least the Antonov An-225, which was built to carry it, survives and is a favourite of plane spotters all over the world. There's actually two of them but only one flies.

[@hawkeye-vv4kb]

+Robbo Yeah, but why did they had to build such a massive plane to carry the Buran? The Americans has proved that the 747 is perfectly capable to carry the Shuttle.

[@r08800]

+hawkeye0248 coz the Russians looovvvee making things BIG. ha ha ha

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

hawkeye0248 Maybe due to weigth, Buran had 2 strap on jet engines for gliding tests, so maybe that extra weigth meant they needed a larger plane

[@DamirAsanov]

Buran(62 tons) was lighter than Shuttle(68 tons). Buran's Energia booster parts were also airlifted by Antonov. Big plane with big inner volume for big boosters.

[@puncheex2]

No, sorry, only the one. They were thinking about putting together another in the early 2000s, but it never happened.

[@skyprop]

I heard "BURAN" translated to (in my research) as "Snow on the Stepps" (Amy), "Snowstorm" and "Blizzard"(My Mom) their second shuttle "Pitchka" I learned ment "Little Bird"...(I have a tile from it!!) Nevertheless it's all so neat!!

[@maltekoch1632]

One Buran can be visited in germany

[@johannes914]

Malte Koch Yes, I have seen it at the Speyer Museum next to Karlsruhe.

[@thorstenkrell6038]

I've seen Buran at Speyer Museum. The museum hoped to get one NASA-Shuttle to set Buran and Shuttle into exhibition next to each other.

[@htintin85]

I hope Columbia will be shown.

[@jochenschrader7051]

check here: speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran

[@Knochenbrigade]

Is one allowed to enter it, so, to see the inside?

[@danlew1906]

I can look at the pictures of the Buran. Breaks my hart that something so magnificent can be left in that state.

[@TarasLomakin]

Actually Buran means blizzard or snowstorm. But not a "Snow on the steps"

[@CountArtha]

+Тарас Ломакин That's "steppes." Basically the Great Plains of Asia.

[@DekVester1]

Snowstorm on steppes :)

[@paulwittekind5071]

Buran does mean snow storm and also snow on the STEPPES. Its a Russian thing.

[@Y2Drifter]

Buran means "Stupid" or "Uneducated" in western Slavic languages!

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

Closer to snow storm

[@frankoz7327]

I remember seeing a video about the abandoned Ruskin space shuttle and was amazed to think that they just left it sitting untouched, so glad to see yet another video from you. love ya, -Gordon

[@Les537]

I like this content, but this short and fast format is kind of annoying. It's a bit like eating popcorn and not very filling. I would love to see these topics expanded into longer videos.

[@peterloftus6259]

Personally I like the format. I really enjoyed looking at the pictures

[@ITER345]

Im definitely less likely to click on short videos.

[@TiberiusTormentia]

C'mon, give a gal a break, Amy's a busy lady, gotta lot of irons in the fire, I'm sure. Not enough hours in the day to produce 30-minute-to-one-hour-long videos of space history. Gotta get your space fix in little niblets.

[@ITER345]

She does great work but I have a preference.

[@TCSC47]

I like the format. If you want to expand on anything discussed, it is a simple matter to go surf for the extra info. You are sitting in front of the machine that can do it for you!! We, the viewer, are in so much more control We have a TV program here in the UK, "Horizon" that is touted as our premier TV science program. However, it often takes one small science or technology topic and stretches it out for an hour, often repeating itself and stating the bleeeding obvious. Amy's science bites are far more informative and accessible.

[@Padoinky]

Amy - love your videos and admire your understanding of the quirks and idiosyncrasies of NASA and the space program

[@jam63112]

And this is because of Buran they also upgraded an AN 124 to AN 225

[@NeoDerGrose]

The AN 225 is a totally different plane and only one of its purposes was the transport the Buran. It was manly intended to transport ballistic missiles.

[@valentinalexandru8890]

+NeoDerGrose do You think so? the wings are an124 ,they added a few meters at the fuselage and a extra engine on each side.

[@NeoDerGrose]

Valentin alexandru Still the body is different to, for me that makes it a different plane.

[@jam63112]

But when you watch how they did the an225 it's what they say

[@ShadowFalcon]

The fuselage was lengthened, wings up-sized from 73.3m to 88.4m, two engines added, and the tail-section altered (no rear-ramp, and twin rudders, to make room for the Buran). Other than that, the An-225 was very much an upgrade of the An-124.

[@j.mangum7652]

So did the Soviets basicly find out what an expensive space pick-up the shuttles were?

[@vladimirvovk8284]

being a russian, its very depressive to realise that hopes and dreams of entire generation are lost forever

[@randyhutchinson9910]

Vladimir Vovk not lost, just on hold for a while

[@jojo-fu4xh]

LOST

[@vladimirgoryachev3707]

John Rackley yes

[@jaygill5582]

John Rackley Vietnam was a shithole country that kicked the shit out of you superpower, and now Afghanistan another shithole country is doing the same to the almighty God loving superpower.

[@GoldenPantaloons]

As an American, I hope that once our governments are finished pissing all over each other we can work together to make some real progress in space flight.

[@SecretSquirrelHD]

I just discovered your channel. This is like my 15th video in a row. Keep up the good work!

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

Buran was designed to return from orbit and land on a runway under power like a civilized member of the industrialized world. Not using some savage scheme of gliding to a landing with no go around capability. :) Too bad the program died, I'd have loved to have seen what could have become of Buran. The Russians applied fixes to a lot of the mistakes the US made with it's STS. That said, STS flew more than any manned system out there, including Soyuz.

[@antonioklaic2740]

+Andrew Tubbiolo The shuttle worked but it was too expensive, i don't think adding more fuel and gadgets would help the cost anyways. And the gliding scheme isn't savage at all, it was designed for it, since its close to a spaceplane, meaning it can serve somewhat like a plane in the Atmosphere and a rocket in space. The big wings are very important for it, and is the reason why planes can survive even when their engine dies, they can just glide to the the ground and maybe even on water if they maneuver it properly. This would make a craft cheaper, requiring less fuel and gadgets and still being able to recover.

[@antonioklaic2740]

Dennis Vance both worked, but the shuttle did have issues, it was made to save as much money as possible but it was way more expensive than expected. That's probably the reason it got dismissed. The Buran was great aswell but wasn't used much. I love the shuttle style rockets, they always seemed cool to me. Currently they are the closest things to spaceplanes until Skylon gets finished. Imagine a plane that aswell operates in space, and is 100% recoverable . That would save so much money .

[@johnkoshoffer4550]

Dennis Vance

[@stenbak88]

Never seen this channel but I love it already

[@RobKMusic]

I think I definitely prefer the pre-bangs Amy... but it's all good. Love your videos. You rock!

[@ChrisTopheRaz]

Rob K Music I don’t know I think she looks incredible either way but more mature with the long hair.

[@AltonRowell-gb1lb]

I wounder is gimbal lock similar to a aircraft gyro being out of position from true north. Or does precision have an effect on gimbal lock. I know on some aircraft u have to reset your directional gyro to compensate for procession. And from experience I have seen DG's get out of calibration due to aerobatic maneuvers. Just wondering about that comparison.

[@rayhernandez9874]

I could nt focus on what you were saying because of your over whelming beauty.

[@Coyote0874]

Where do you get your spacecraft models?

[@Auxodium]

Turned out the Apollo program was more than 3 times cheaper to launch than launching shuttles. The shuttle program was butchered so it was to become very expensive and very dangerous.

[@forwardplans8168]

And of course the Apollo program could carry 20 -40 tons of cargo to build the ISS. A major issue with the shuttle and ISS was Congressional year-to-year funding of projects that take multi-years on just to line up manufacture of components. Baseline of the Intel 386 CPU with a Math coprocessor for Shuttle CPU was a major event because it (Intel 386) could be rad-hardened for orbit. A rad-hardened 486 CPU, orbit certified CPU, was 2-3 years awayfor Shuttle and ISS motherboards, let alone all the private experiments , training, simulations, to prepare or a specific flight,

[@forwardplans8168]

The Shuttle computers came from the B-52. I doubt eBaywould have Space Certified Rad-hardened CPUs, especially sinceeBay didn't appear until the mid-90's.

[@CaptainDangeax]

Doubt or not, the shuttle did use a lot of 8086 CPU's available at the time.

[@stargazer7644]

The Apollo program cost $180 billion (in 2011 dollars) over 13 years and launched 10 test flights and 7 operational flights. The space shuttle program cost $196 billion (in 2011 dollars) over 33 years and launched 135 times. Please do explain how Apollo flights were cheaper? All of this is public information out there. All you have to do is Google.

[@stargazer7644]

The 8086 CPUs that NASA stockpiled were for ground support equipment, not for the Shuttle GPCs. Those computers use radiation hardened chips. You don't get those on eBay.

[@juanenfermobastardo337]

The US space shuttle was crap. In terms of cost per pound of lifting payload to orbit the Saturn V beat the crap out of the shuttle program. Adjusted for inflation, the Saturn V could lift 310,000 pounds to LEO at a cost of $3,744/lb, whereas the shuttle could only bring 60,600 lbs to LEO at a cost of between $7425/lb (assumes $450 million per launch) and $24,752/lb (at $1.5 billion per launch). NASA had developed the concept of the shuttle as a 'reusable' system so it could get political support with the public and with Congress. Sure, the tech was kinda cool, but in the end, "it's the economy, stupid." Trading lower cost access to space for higher cost has set the ability to establish a permanent manned presence back by decades. Consider; one Saturn V lifted SkyLab into orbit. How many missions did it take the shuttle to bring up all the parts for the ISS? The current net mass could have been handled by 4 Saturn V's with nearly 100,000 pounds to spare.

[@jshepard152]

Preach!

[@abrahamchapman]

My problem is that the space shuttle program was canceled before a replacement was ready to launch our scientists into space. Now we have to pay the Soviets through the nose to get up there. There were complaints about the shuttles being obsolete or worn out. All bull. First off, the shuttles were made to go up 50 times a year, but the one sitting to rot in a museum here in Los Angels went up only 25 times; it is far from worn out. The accusation of obsolesce is also nonsense. For example, instead of canceling the M1 Abrams tank, leaving the army without a tank force for several years without a replacement ready to go, the M1 Abrams fleet is being upgrade into a modern tank. And then there is the B-52, a totally modern aircraft in spite of the fact that the frames of the fleet are sixty or more years old; the planes are so different and so modern, compared to what they were when they first left the factories they were built in, the men who flew them in the 1950-1970 would be completely incapable of flying the very same vehicle today. The truth is, if NASA had even just a tiny fraction of the funding the military gets, the space shuttle could have continued at least another thirty years. If indeed it is a priority to have the best working space equipment sitting in museums, then at the very least NASA should buy up the Burans and fly those. They are brand-new, and since they are not yet complete, completing them will result in them being filled with completely modern technology.

[@vrendus522]

abrahamchapman The shuttle is an older technology ship.Newer spacecraft are planned.There was a burn-through on the wingtip of the Discovery a while back, not sure of the exact shuttle, but the hole in the wing tip was big enough to fit a tennis ball through.They came within a hair's breath of loosing that particular ship.As a matter of fact they had red hot exhaust gases just inches away from fluid filled lines that would have combusted.Search entry of the (Aviation Week Space Technology Magazine, burn through on shuttle wing tip shown on return.

[@abrahamchapman]

vrendus522 What ever heat shield technology is being built for the next generation of space vehicles can be added to the space shuttle. That's what they did with the B-52. You don't think those things came off the factory floor with computer guidance systems and GPS navigation do you?

[@vrendus522]

abrahamchapman This violates protocols as the shuttle series was technically a test flight series of air-spacecraft, just as the X series of air-space planes before them.The airframe technologies are dated. There may have also been overstress in the flight profiles, as the shuttle airframes withstood loads externally with the heatshield-thermal protection layer held on well past the speed of sound.If I were manager for a brand new program, I would let the shuttles rest.They've done their duties.They are now wisely, museum pieces.

[@abrahamchapman]

vrendus522 The space shuttles have NOT done their duties! They were built to go up 50 times a year, 50. The one sitting on display did half that many in it's entire working life. Not a year, it's entire working life! Right now we have nothing. Something costs money and time to develop. It is a reasonable excuse to have nothing when nothing is what existed prior to the project that is years away from completion. There is NO excuse to have nothing when something only a tiny fraction of the way through it's working life span is just sitting in a museum doing nothing. Or, in the case of the Buran, is brand-new and just waiting to start it's working life! FYI, the so-called "new" replacement for the space shuttle is nothing more than a fatter version of Apollo. That's old-tech from the 1960's, not 21st century new-tech. The space shuttle is more capable than the junk that NASA is claiming will be available in the near future.

[@EricIrl]

abrahamchapman They may have been built with the INTENTION of each craft flying over 50 times - but the reality was that they could not be used at that rate. With a 50 launches per vehicle flight rate, the Shuttle programme should have achieved at least 300 to 400 missions. They only achieved 135 and that was with a massive struggle and the death of 14 astronauts. It was right to retire the Shuttles. It was wrong not to have a replacement ready to go when the Shuttles stopped.

[@macsenpuma]

Buran was actually destroyed in 2002 when the hanger it was being stored in at Baikonur collapsed during maintenance. The collapse also killed several workers.

[@agnotwot7997]

The DOD's involvement is one of the starting factors that doomed the US shuttle's design and life span sadly.

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

I know! I need to do some shuttle digging (when I have time!) and trace the DOD's history with the program. It's one of the few elements of shuttle I'm really fascinated by!

[@capworld]

I heard DOD is the reason why the Shuttle had wings.

[@nyosgomboc2392]

The DOD killed not one, but two space shuttle programs. One directly, and one through defeating the USSR financially. :)

[@JustaPilot1]

MMMMM no

[@CaptainDangeax]

You can add a third one : the european Hermes which was never built. However, Ariane 5 remains and it's a damn good a reliable rocket (when French locals are not on strike)

[@martin_in_the_alps]

The Buran is displayed in the Technical Museum in Speyr, Germany. I highly recommend to visit the Museum in combination with the Technical Museum in Sinsheim, that's just 30 kilometers away.

[@stefangottsche3092]

"Soviet Union responded with its own, nearly identical version". Yeah, judging by the cover, those books are about the same. Maybe have a look under the hood, it would enlighten you.

[@jojo-fu4xh]

They stole that too. Thieves

[@ant8504]

Benjamin Wilson boi, the interior and engine block was completely different. And if you think the US owns right to cargo bays then you are on something whack.

[@asarand]

I am aware of the Buran, and have read before everything in your video here. It is an interesting piece of space history, and I am glad to see you cover it. It seems most of your videos are years old, so I may be commenting for nothing if you don't read these anymore.

[@SantiagoTM1]

Love the Red Hair! It truly does suit you. I adore your knowledge of our American Space Program. It would honor if we both could spend an evening together, looking through my very expensive telescope. It cost me more than most people's new cars. I love my telescope, & the things one could see. Paul Hardcastle music in the background, Tennessee flavor Honey ages Whisky, & each with a Pomegranate/Chocolate flavored Blunt. OMG the substance of our conversations...… The next day @ the Police Station: "Officer, she fisted me!, but I don't remember saying "No""

[@franknomustard]

I had seen some of the same photos and read about a "Russian Space Shuttle" mentioned in some of the "Science Nerd" magazines that I would come across but other than that, nothing really concrete was available about it. It was 1987 and I was wrapped up in rock music and trying to survive the Reagan recessions! Love you like a lost niece! Keep this stuff coming!!

[@RBXGT2]

Sorry, there's false facts in here. Please do not include false facts. Actually the Buran did not have an external tank assisted by external boosters. If anything the Buran's engines were orbital maneuvering units, that would not provide any power to take off, unlike the Space Shuttle, which used it's powerful engines and an external fuel tank assisted by solid rocket boosters, the Buran was a payload for the external Energiya rocket, assisted by 4 external liquid fuel rockets. This is fundamentally different approach. "Buran" actually means "snow blizzard". All the similarities are mostly visual, which is logical since both orbiters were designed to complete the same task - get a payload into orbit, get payload off orbit, or do a suborbital dive and deliver a weaponized payload onto the ground, a.k.a. orbital bombardment. There aren't many variables to the best possible design when it comes to aerospace technology.

[@verybiggray]

orbital bombardment? with shuttle? are you nuts? when you have an icbm you dont need a shuttle to deliver bombs

[@RBXGT2]

Do you truly believe that the whole space program was given a go ahead because the government was very interested to put a person in space? All rockets were dual purpose, they could carry space capsules or they could carry weapons. Also yes, actual orbital bombardment. The idea was to lower the periapsis to enter the atmosphere, deliver payload while appearing too late for any radar to pick you up and delivering a strike before a retalliation strike can be done and leaving at a speed no rocket can intercept. Secondary idea was to position laser based weapons (ones to destroy spy satellite, not the pew pew type) in orbit. In fact Shuttle has completed one of those faux bombardment runs as a political intimidation maneuvre (proving it can).

[@WelshWidgetMan2O1O]

What a complete waste of money to build such large shuttles only to fly one of them ONE TIME.

[@itzdaman]

Because shuttles are inherently useless (unless you use it as a bus and keep it tiny) .

[@1978Prime]

There was one of these in a museum in Sydney in 2001. I'm not sure whether or not its still there.

[@alittlebitintellectual7361]

Just to get it right. The buran Shuttle is still existent and stationary in teh Technology Museum Speyer in Germany. What about the others. Well i think since they didnt get completed and arent in a good shape today... i think they dont see a usefull use of them... even giving it to a museum...

[@RoboticTable]

The Buran shuttle was destroyed in a hangar collapse in the early 2000's. The thing in Germany is a test vehicle.

[@alittlebitintellectual7361]

just realized that ._. thanks BURAN Prototyp OK-GLI

[@yurys6685]

Another one is in Moscows Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy(VDNKh)

[@AudioArcturia]

I heard about buran a couple years ago, made it my desktop background shortly after. It was a badass rocket by design. Would have loved to see launch in my time.

[@rickrickster7448]

Great video. But lets face it. The space race is dead. Deader than a doornail. The new version of getting into space is using 60's technology. Except now the capsule holds four astronauts. So,, were' back in the 60's. Launch this giant rocket to get four guys into space, have them return by screaming into the atmosphere in a super heated capsule, then use parachutes to land on water requiring the cost of ships , helicopters and manpower to retrieve four guys who have been doing important experiments, like watching bees in zero gravity, at a huge cost to taxpapers. The scientists are stumped. Stump-a-rola - boondogled. They simply do not know what to do next and have come up with nothing new. You would think by now, they have improved technology to get into space and return without having the navy and old school parachutes involved. Face it.. they simply cannot advance it at this time. Kudos to all their hard work,, but time to realize space travel is indeed not moving forward at this time.

[@patrickmeyer2802]

Wow, you literally know nothing about space travel, or science.

[@MrBlueSkyMrNight]

The re-usable Space Shuttle concept is still relevant since the X37 is still around and NASA has approved the Dream Chaser space plane.

[@samovarmaker9673]

BFR BFR BFR BFR

[@findkip]

But none of that worked and had the worst safety record in space history... All that for what 100 billion?

[@Jack_Torrance.]

The American Space Shuttle program was so problematic that it is considered a failure. The Soviet Union, being more practical, found that the space shuttle was not very practical, safe, nor economical. They went with a far more reliable, safer, and economical rocket. Today, the United States of America uses the Russian Rocket to get to space. Soyuz is the most reliable and safest of all rockets. It is also far more economical to operate than the space shuttle. The space shuttle was more of a rocket powered gamble than a success. It did have some small scale successes but at great price. The Soyuz could have launched what the space shuttle launched far cheaper and with greater reliability. At the end, it seems it was more a publicity stunt. The British space shuttle, Churchill, never made it off paper. The British deemed it too expensive and risky a design.

[@jessicabrodie]

Ridiculous rationalizations. Yeah, the USSR copied it because in their practical wisdom, they knew it was not very practical, safe or economical. Truth is, they were unable to compete.

[@Jack_Torrance.]

Clark Griswold More like, they did not want to compete with the American space shuttle. They found out the Soyuz Rocket was far more efficient, practical, safer, affordable and could lift heavier loads. They dabbled around to see if it was a worthy design and stopped production and went on producing the most reliable, affordable, economical, and safest rocket ever produced. Today, Americans get to the space station mostly on the Soyuz rocket because all support for the obsolete space shuttle has stopped. It had an incredible failure rate. I question if the Americans kept the space shuttle running more out of prestige than need.

[@RonJohn63]

The -American Space Shuttle- Soviet Supersonic Transport program was so problematic that it is considered a failure. The -Soviet Union- United States, being more practical, found that the -space shuttle- SST was not very practical, safe, nor economical. (See, two can play that game.)

[@pilotguy22641]

30 years of operation and 133 successful flights with 2 failures and that is an incredible failure rate? I hope you don't do risk analysis, bud.

[@pilotguy22641]

Since we're talking "incredible failure rates", lets talk about the N1, shall we? 4 launches, 4 failures, 100% failure rate. That, my friend, is an incredible failure rate. Meanwhile, the shuttle clocks in at a 1.48% failure rate.

[@raymonroe1983]

I never heard the name of Buran, but I saw these pictures about a year ago. I thought it was sad that anyone left something so cool to rot like that.

[@Knightfang1]

raymonroe1983 sadly the flown Buran shuttle was destroyed in 2002 when the hangar it was being stored in collapsed due to pour maintenance during a storm

[@glensmith654]

Personally im glad the shuttle program is finished and we are moving forward out of low earth orbit missions. Time to put man or woman back on the moon and on to mars.

[@stargazer7644]

I don't see the point in wasting such an enormous amount of money to go to mars.

[@tom5051666]

They still can't live on our own planet in a desert with space suits and no help for 12 months. How do they expect to do this on another planet?

[@1pcfred]

Why should we pay for expensive crewed space flight? Why do people have to fly in space? We have unmanned missions doing far more meaningful science than humans have ever done in space.

[@rogervoss4877]

Because manned exploration/expansion means a future for people in the long run. Take away the frontiers and humanity will eventually wither & die on the one Earth. In the mean time even those not participating directly gain benefits from indirect knowledge/participation. The cynical viewpoint is that there would be no $ for unmanned missions without the possibility of manned ones.

[@1pcfred]

What do you base your theory on that manned space exploration is the only viable path open to humanity? On what proof? Perhaps it is our fate to manage as best as we can on the planet where we sprang from? Why is that so impossible for us to do? If we can't make it here, why should we make it anywhere? What kind of a cancer do you take us for?

[@JeremiahDirt]

Amy, why are/were the hangers housing the two Russian orbiters (in R.Mirebs pics) so high? I counted 12+ stories high when the two crafts seemed like they could have fit in a structure 5-6 stories high. I'm dumb about space stuff. And curious about all the stuff I'm dumb about. Thanks.

[@dunnestgaming1415]

Is this the girl from d news

[@reel60frames45]

lol...pretty face for the hits

[@Cnightz]

I am very curious if you could find any sources, that maybe able to provide any videos of this launching and returning to earth.

[@craigchriston5084]

I think you're much prettier without make-up, hint, hint.

[@valenrn8657]

It's natural since normal human male is wired to look for it.

[@charlestorruella8591]

Really your worried about her make up.let her where what ever she wants.she is smart enough to not have to worry about not whereing makeup just for you.

[@acajaxcospan4]

I recall reading magazine articles about the Soviet shuttle back in the 1980's when it was being developed. One significant difference was the crew/cargo vehicle had only minimal engines, reducing cost and complexity and allowing a bigger payload. Most of the work of getting it into orbit was done by the booster rocket that took it to the edge of space.Originally, the plan for the United States shuttle program consisted of two reusable vehicles, one would fly itself and the orbiter to the edge of space, then return and land like a conventional aircraft. The orbiter would have had only enough power to give itself a nudge into orbit and to maneuver a bit while circling the Earth. But costs were astronomical for such an ambitious project. So the boosting engines were moved to the orbiter and their power was increased. But the orbiter alone couldn't carry enough fuel to get into space. So the external fuel tank was born. But it was so heavy, the orbiter engines couldn't push the whole thing into orbit. So along came the solid rocket boosters.The soviet design was similar to what the Americans planned originally, except they had the advantage of having learned from the forced redesigns the Americans faced. So they planned their program with a light, low power orbiter, and a huge powerful, disposable rocket to push it into space.I always had the impression that NASA got stuck heading down a road they didn't plan to be on, in terms of design. Specifically, cobbling together the booster system consisting of the external fuel tank and the solid rocket boosters.Sadly, it was the challenges of those two components that led to both of the American shuttle disasters. The first because one of the solid rocket boosters sprang an exhaust leak that impinged on the external tank, causing it to explode during launch. The second because huge chunks of ice flaking off the external tank damaged a critical thermal tile on the orbiter, allowing the reentry heat to eat into the orbiter, causing it to break apart.

[@NXAussie500]

Look much better with this hair style.

[@bgm-1961]

You gotta admit... That they were able to launch the Buran, have it execute it's orbits, then return to a runway, all autonomously, and in 1988, mind you... was extremely impressive considering the less than stellar resources they had.

[@greggutierrez5930]

Love the red hair, such pretty eyes

[@beresfordthompson1370]

The red hair looks great on Amy, then again anything looks great on Amy. Great eyes, great everything.

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

Can someone explain how Buran compensates torque? Having trouble building Buran in KSP

[@tonyennis3008]

The Shuttle was a boondoggle. Good riddance.

[@RobynHarris]

Tony Ennis Yep, almost 200 billion dollars spent on the space shuttle program and 14 lives. Why that's almost 1/30th the six trillion dollars we are spending to get 4,491 Americans uselessly killed in Iraq

[@fisharmor]

Indeed, at one point one must admit that the end result of both actions is the same - failure, wasted funds, and death - and the only difference is scale. But I suspect that was probably not your point.

[@RobynHarris]

fisharmor My point being that [draws a long breath]: if we had not tried to meet the Air Force's needs and the NRO's needs and the DIA's needs and the NSA's needs and the CIA's needs and the NGA's needs and the Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton Administrations' political needs and Democratic/Republican Congressional Bash the Space Budget needs and Fossil Fuel Industry's Bash the Climate Science needs and NASA's bureaucratic needs and the contractors' and subcontractors' profit needs and had not tried to fund the entire operation by holding a bake sale [draws another long breath]. That we could have had a space program that we deserved. Instead of an ROI of *only* 40 or 50 to 1 we would have had an ROI of thousands to 1. Which is a number that even Mr. Proxmire would have difficulty pouring derision upon and pouting about. Yes the space program does cost time and dollars and effort and sometimes lives How many great achievements in life don't have any cost?

[@fisharmor]

I guess I just don't see winning a dick-wagging contest with the USSR as a great achievement. Taking your own reasoning here: we get weekly video of our citizens getting gunned down in the street by code enforcers. And it's been happening for over a century. Isn't that something we ought to have cleaned up long before jettisoning billions of dollars into the air?

[@Randomadventuresebike]

Tony Ennis the shuttle was very very very successful 135 launches. one launch failure and one ice caused re-entry accident

[@Perseus109]

Did it have the same heat tile tech as STS? Did the have same issues with glue as we did at first?

[@brucegoodwin634]

I knew about Buran (a beautiful name ) & think history may owe much to the Mirebs for his documentation. These should be preserved as monuments of the 20th century. Gimbals!

[@terrylambert8149]

I thought there was a buran on static display in a Moscow park. two questions about the Saturn v. why are the engines started 2 or 3 seconds before lift off? did they go ahead with updating the f-1 engines?

[@austint4501]

They were started early to ensure that they were all functioning properly before the craft was unsupported. Otherwise, if they released the gantry and base supports, without properly functioning engines, the rocket would collapse under it's own weight and become a big bomb.

[@awuma]

All liquid-fueled engines start early. The Soyuz starts about 8 seconds early. Only solids start "instantly". Yes, there has been work done in recent years on updating the F-1 engines, but I don't think it's getting much funding right now, because SLS will be using up the existing Shuttle engines and then a simpler derivative of them. SLS is LH2-fuelled (plus SRB's), whereas the F-1 is a kerosene-fueled engine, as are Merlin and RD-180/181. The next generation of big Space X and Blue Origin engines will probably be much better than the F-1 (throttleable, restartable, more efficient and probably burning methane). The F-1 is BIG, and why it actually works is not well understood. Furthermore, it is unsuitable for a reusable booster.

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

I saw the display Buran flying on top of An-225 at Paris Airshow in 1989. Now I realise what a rare sight that was. BTW a second An-225 Buran Carrier was built and it is unused in a shed somewhere

[@mmicoski]

Fantastic vídeo!! I saw the test of the soviet space shuttle on TV, but I never knew why they constructed it and abandoned so expensive device. You shocked me telling about these other unfinished shuttles. When I saw the test on TV I was amazed by the resemblance with the American shuttle and always wondered if scrathing Buran's painting one would not find a Nasa logo, rsrs