Video

Indeed. I would also like to see what the Soviet engineers and scientists could achieve with the same budget as their US counterparts. Of course, one of the reasons why the Soviets were quite creative in their engineering approach (multi-combustion chamber rockets, staged combustion cycle, etc), was because of limited resources. The USSR, despite all its flaws, was a very technocrat-led country in certain aspects. Many political members had engineering/STEM backgrounds. China (where I now live/work, as en engineer) takes this to a new level. They're far better at setting industrial policies than their western counterparts with liberal arts/soft degrees. The mayor of my City has a Ph.D. in metallurgy, and worked for a large steel making plant.

@@energiam880 respect for beeing an engeener 👌 im also in engeering indeed indeed, good poings Im sad to say but it seems usa pushes forward only when there is competition compromizing theyr values, not suprising, its a human instinct to be better. For this reason i hope china and india keep breaking the barriers, not only to advance techology, but to motivate competition again.. After all, space is for all mankind, its to big for single coutrys, let alone private individuals. (Individualism is a bit of a plague if in a to big "dose" if you ask me) I dont know china to well, im a simple balkan european who was born in war times and have to say, china at this moment seem to have an almost perfect balance between industrial focus and, as you put it, liberal/soft degrees.. meybe to much industrial focus, but thats good for general progress in a seemingly stagnating world. Not gonna lie, liberal degrees are necessary for people to prosper and industial focus for a coutry to prosper, a balance of both is ideal... went to much in politics on a technical video, my apologys

Boosters were designed to be reusable, but it was never implented due time shortage. Buran was lucky (or unlucky) to even fly once 🙁

@@tehice23 и как же спасались водородные двигатели?

because it is the Soviet eq. to RS-25 SSME

It's GTAW/TIG

Unless you disagreed with a dictatorship or were "lesser race" according to Stalin at which point you were tortured, gulaged and/or killed ... kinda sounds like another Nazi Germany with a Hitler in power when you think about it like that.

Neat part is, it was less complicated, that´s the main reason why it was better

ngad vs su 75

Based on the Energia rocket, it was planned to create a Vulcan rocket with a payload capacity of up to 200 tons. Instead of 4 side blocks with RD-170 engines, it was supposed to install 8, and also add a third stage. Currently, Russia is developing the Yenisei rocket, which is a continuation of work on superheavy missiles

Существовал проект Шаттл-С, саrgo, тоже без "самолётика". Надо бы - сделали бы.

Буран не российский, а советский космический челнок

I've heard that the NASA actually considered using the Buran after the Columbia disaster. But the only Buran that ever flew to space was destroyed by this time. All the other orbiter that never got completed got their components used for other projects, scrapped or abandoned.

a: if the space shuttle failed, then why did it complete 135 missions? b: its this thing called 'cold war' dont know if youve heard of it

Wich was actually an improvement The shuttle was MORE expensive to repair, than just use an expendable rocket The soviets made engines more powerfull and as efficient as the shuttle's, but far less complex and cheaper to build The Shutle engines where also dead weigth in orbit

- One big engine is more expensive then 2 smaller ones. - The boosters and big tank were designed to be reusable - It flew just once as a test, autonomusly, becouse the coutry was collapsing - It was not a copy, it was an improved design by learning the shuttles drawbacks/issues, mainly srbs and orbiter. - It would have the capabitly to get to the moon in final iteration

Он вообще то один раз летал на орбиту Земли в автоматическом режиме и вернулся оттуда на аэродром, сомневаюсь что ваш шаттл был способен на это, так что глупости не пишите, раз не в курсе всего...

Every space flight is a MISSION!

@@BadmaOchirov50 и толку, что он слетал? Мкс строили шатры, а не бураны.

@@yurakondratuk253 тут под этим видео некоторые писали что он вообще не летал, поэтому и написал что он всё таки разок слетал, а причём тут строительство МКС? Речь вообще не о нем.

@@BadmaOchirov50 у шатла был автопилот,на сколько я знаю. Так что приемущество автопилота очень спорное. Буран не стал рабочей лошадкой в космосе

Did you know there are attempts to bring it back?

That's lovely, but this isn't really an ego-measuring contest. It's just my artwork But thanks for your expert opinion anyway. However, think it's probably best if you kept them to your self :)

@@energiam880 my comment refers to the delusional commenters below me not your modelling work

Неправда, Буран один раз слетал в космос в автоматическом режиме и он был явно лучше вашего шаттла

If you already insist on formalities: Buran had one mission. Buran's safety record is 100%. Shuttle's safety record is 98,52%. Buran has 0 losses, Shuttle has, how many, 14 lost lives? So far, 24 astronauts in American missions, 5 astronauts in Soviet and 1 astronaut in Russian missions have died.