Entities of Earth: ONLY those species who get off of this Earth, out of this solar system, and out of this galaxy might continue to survive further. Everybody else eventually dies and goes extinct. Currently, no exceptions. 3 basic ways out of this galaxy to potentially continue to survive, (as a species or whatever evolves from our species): 1. Long way: Outward through the galactic plane. 2. Medium way: Outward through the angled solar system's plane. 3. Short way: Outward, about 90 degrees from the galactic plane, as adjusted for the galactic magnetic lines of flux for a smoother ride. (Basically 'rise above' the collapsing spiral shaped galaxy). * And music, don't forget music. It's going to be a long trip.
@@charlesbrightman4237 First, you prove to me that the entire universe isn't a festering infection on a drunken bums pinkie toe. You can't. You cracked out hack.
I've been inside the Buran, including the cockpit, and, well, it's rather, umm, different... If you had a stereotype of what a Soviet space shuttle would look like on the inside and what the quality of engineering would be like, then it would not disappoint you!
They created a completely new programming language, called DRAKON, for the software for it. It was a completely graphical language, where programming in the language looked an awful lot like creating a flowchart. Considering the fact that it flew its one and only mission pretty much flawlessly, I'd say it was some pretty good tech.
Thank you! I was curious about the flight controller it used and figured it had to be somewhat revolutionary, given when it was made. Drakon will shave some search time off that for me, so thanks again.
It's sort of inaccurate. DRAKON first release was in 1996, and it was to replace multiple systems (SIPROL, DIPOL and LAKS) used during Buran development.
You're gonna hit some limitations eventually pushing it for programming but as far as processing big chunks of data in pre-defined standard ways... well there's a reason pretty much every 3D or Video processing suite uses a node-based workflow somewhere these days. Realtime astronavigation and physics calculations would fit nicely into that mold. Bulk data needing to be calculated on the same way many times per second, not unlike a video.
You forgot one of the most important differences. The Shuttle was a dead stick glider on return whereas the Buran had jet engines on board which allowed it to actually perform powered flight. Making it possible to abort a risky landing or divert to an alternate landing site if needed. Something the shuttle wasn't able to do. That also meant it could potentially be used as a long range sub-orbital transport as well as taking stuff into LEO.
@@quantumsneak1773 Is it true that the Buran had a single test flight where it aborted its approach, circled and landed? 12:20 ruclips.net/video/qSIdbKM4adk/видео.html
He actually did say this. He stated that that in its first flight it aborted and did a go around. But the Buran could never be used for a sub-orbital flight. Those engines were only to abort a landing, little more.
They had some trouble shielding the (TU fighter jet) engines so they where removed for the orbital flight test and planned to be added back in. Empty of payload and OMS fuel it had a fair bit of range. For a flying brick.
I have seen a scale model of a version of the Buran that had own rocket engines, like the spaceshuttle. This was in the Moscow Aviation Institute. The USSR definitely considered a design with build-in rocket engines.
One thing with "For All Mankind" that really bugged me was that they made a major plot point about Buran copying one aspect of the Shuttle design that they absolutely did not copy in reality.
I think I heard the reason for that was due to the fact that the N1 wasn’t cancelled and so Buran was more of an after thought. This meant it was mostly copied from the space shuttle instead of being developed entirely from scratch. Also from a production stand point it was probably easier just to say it was completely copied
@Author B.L. Alley The divergence was Sergei Korolev not dying - which in real life happened in 1966. So there's plenty of time for _Apollo_ 10 to become different.
I recall watching a documentary that featured the Buran. One of the interviewees was a former NASA Space Shuttle designer who said that the plans for the Space Shuttle weren't classified, so they very well may have sent them to the Russians at some point.
It’s a ceramic coating plane to withstand heat of breaking through the atmosphere, and withstand vacuum, yeah, there are not many ways to do it that we haven’t improved the design on it to this very day. Of course upgrades with new technologies comes along but so far, still same design. It’s the same with 5th gen Air Force, they start to look the same as they implement stealth coating. They have the tech, but how can it work? Larger wing spans, flat bottom area to break into atmosphere, pointy nose to reduce drag, flaps that is about the same as Private Jets, YES… RUSSIA STOLE FROM US.. It’s like questioning Indy vs Formula 1, even cars looks the same if they want to go really fast, difference is one is built to target all sorts of corners with fast acceleration and the other to have top speed with only two types of corners. Space shuttles have one objective, break out and break in. Next we gonna question why all busses are rectangles, the entire world stole from Britain, I don’t know where busses originated. I know carts were invented throughout the world that never met each other, difference is, different animal pulling them. Indonesia largely uses buffalos to pull their cart which is kinda fascinating, they eat grass and require less attention but you can’t ride them without the cart as you can with horses.
Years ago, I took a tour of Buran in Sydney led by a pretty if downbeat Russian girl. Sadly it didn't attract enough visitors to make the visit lucrative for them but neither could Russia afford to fly it home for another year and a half so it just sat around in storage. A bad luck project from beginning to end and beyond, then, despite its perfect engineering. The way it flew itself around the Earth then landed itself was very impressive indeed.
I really wanted to see the Buran have a longer career. The competition could have helped improve the design of future reusable vehicles. (The flying the whole mission without a crew was fairly impressive at the time.)
@@RS-ls7mm - For all the debates between Soviet and US technology? one thing that nobody can deny - not even the most patriotic American - is that the Soviet Union were kings of landing gear! you can land a Mig-29 in a field if you really need to - and take off again ;)
@@JohnnyWednesday Agreed. The US has to do FOD checks before a runway can be used. Even a bottle cap could damage an engine. The USSR planes didn't care, they took in air from above and avoided all the FOD issues.
I mean, Buran performed a fully automated takeoff + flight, did 2 orbits around earth and landed by itself exactly at set coordinates. In 1988. WITH NO HUMAN ASSISTANCE. How amazing is that!
@@FTL1511 ... Elon musk's space x rockets are far different than space shuttles.. Elon musk did take a lot of inspiration from Russian space tech though as they have always been pretty superior to nasa
There were two more Burans under construction when the USSR disintegrated. I am pretty sure that one is located at the aircraft research institute in Ramenskoye Russia. It is at what is now called Zhukosky airport which is just SE of Moscow. Since I can't attach a screen shot on RUclips, here are its coordinates from Google Earth. It is parked in an open storage area next to the main taxiway. It is amid several other aircraft. 55 34 16 N 38 08 34 E I also liked the classic shot of the Baikonur launch pad in the video. It sure looks like the 1957 B&W U-2 photo of it.
uhh as well as the X wing, SST, "Backfires" etc !?!? Omg... all out in the open like that!? Thanks for the co-ords! Also thanks to "Google Earth" (ha ha) for the peek!
@@transistor754 When you use Google Earth Pro, you can use the history mode to go back to the 5/10/21shot of this place. There are 3 Su-57 stealth fighters taking off on the main runway.
Simon forgot to mention the musical spinoff of the Soviet space program, Buran Buran! I love their magical hits from the 1980s. Hungry Like the Woflski!
2:15 - Chapter 1 - The declining USSR 3:20 - Chapter 2 - The space race 4:50 - Chapter 3 - Development 6:15 - Mid roll ads 7:40 - Chapter 5 - Construction 9:15 - Chapter 6 - The buran 12:00 - Chapter 7 - The 1st (and only) flight 13:25 - Chapter 8 - The age of the buran 14:50 - Chapter 9 - Rip off or superior spacecraft ?
I'm really impressed with the scientists and engineers that worked on the Buran, the capability to fly fully automatically and the successful automatic landing are amazing
The real tragedy in this was loosing the Energia. Had they ditched the shuttle and focused on Energia the Russians might have the most impressive launch vehicle today. That is especially if the proposed Energia II had seen the light of day as it was designed to be fully reusable, including the side boosters! After detaching the payload they would open wings that had been stowed away and glide to a landing strip.
Even Robert Zubrin suggested using Energia in The Case for Mars/Mars Direct. A proven heavy lift launch vehicle that could carry the adequate amount of payload
Fun fact, Russian space agency is currently working on reusable rocket designs which are surprisingly similar in their idea to the improved Energia. Which implies that Energia legacy might live on after all these years, as well as shows just how impressive and ahead of its time this technology was, that it looks very sound even 40 years later.
The Soviet paranoia was somewhat justified, as their cost analysis clearly showed that NASA was lying about the shuttles capacity and commercial function being cheaper than a rocket. And maybe they also knew that the shuttles final design was largely dictated by the needs of the NRO & NSA. (See Payload Specialist). Anyway, they weren’t wrong, but not quite right either. But in the end, I’d say the Buran was a better craft and a real showcase of Russian engineering. The autonomous landing blows my damn mind! Sad that it lived such a short life..
One of the "payload specialists" from memory was the astronaut/cosmonaut born in Australia (Andy Thomas) - and he had previously worked at Lockheeds' "skunk works"... So the OP may indeed be right about the space shuttles actual purpose.
@@havoc3742 lol yes, the Buran orbiter is smaller than the whole space shuttle stack. But this segment was about the orbiters and actually quoted the correct figures for the Buran orbiter.
I think thats because the space shuttle means the entire thing complete woth the external tank where buran only means the orbiter. Burans rocket is Energia
Would I be correct in saying the buran had 2 jet engines installed? so if need be it could abort a landing and go around for another attempt. I do remember reading that somewhere, it did seem like a feature that would be incredibly useful! Also the buran had a larger payload capacity. And the energia system meant the buran could be kept in service more frequently whereas shuttles system meant a full engine refurb between flights. Buran was better, it just didnt have the chance to prove itself.
Russia made excellent rockets. The best engines for them for sure. Russian rocket engine tech has been finally matched with the new raptors from SpaceX
@@rohesilmnelohe actually... after fall of the USSR the Americans outrightly sent people to Russia to find and purchase previously secret space and experimental equipment for NASA and the military. At the time the most efficient rocket ever designed was Russian, the yanks bought some and took them home to use what they couldn't work out 🤣
Just wanted to share - my grandfather was programmer of blocks that was defending buran from overheating,he was director of small group of engineers. They programmed models of those little squares and there are a lot of challenge to do that - the thing is, while buran was on the ground and sky his wings were not straight,and those little squares should be placed properly not to parallax with each other in the ground or in the sky. They also flew a small models (1:49) if I remember properly to test that, and after two flights ,only on first flight only one square was missing ,on second flight of model they accomplished their task. He told me,that for the buran project was working all Soviet union on the time
The Buran most definitely was not a rip-off. Whilst its outer appearance is very similar to to that of the Spaceshuttle for reasons addressed in the video (spying and aerodynamics), the interior and especially the propulsion system was a lot different. As partially explained in the video, the Spaceshuttle had its main engines used for the ascend to orbit on itself and just carried a huge external fuel tank, as well as boosters to aid on lift-off, under its belly. Buran however was strapped to the side of an independent rocket that in fact could also carry other payloads. Buran only had smaller orbital maneuvering engines for changing orbit and de-orbiting for return to earth. In this sense it’s more similar to the x 37. It should also not be forgotten that in fact the US copied earlier sovjet space plane designs that would later evolve into the Spaceshuttle and resembled the Dreamchaser spacecraft currently being developed by SNC.
copycat is a copycat , so long it happened LATER and was "inspired" by earlier ! LEFTISTS COMMIES should not help russians and commies white wash this simple FACT
Simon! You did it! You managed to do a video where you didn't annoyingly say dimensions in 2 scales. I loved it, you are the best, keep up the great work!
Actually the shuttle plans were not classified and easy for them to find. The Buran was a version 2 craft. They had the benefit of hindsight while developing the craft. The Energia was also not designed to carry their shuttle, it was adapted and was a better design than the shuttle launch system.
It was a plot point in "For All Mankind" that the Buran had the same O-Ring problem that doomed the Challenger IRL, however, the schematics they showed had it using the Energia launch system too, so it wouldn't have the flawed SLS boosters.
Yes I thought the show runners could have gone in a very different direction with that plot line, particularly given the actual payload and events of the first Energia launch but that would have involved acknowledging that Buran wasn't a shuttle knock off.
How i fucking like seeing all the already existing in English words being retyped, so, it's like "in Original". Not Energy. But Energia. Pierce my eyes, please.
Nicely done and well presented I did learn a few details I was not aware of and helped me understand that situation. I had forgotten that the Russians were using liquid boosters. The Energia was an impressive rocket but did not get a chance, much as Buran, to demonstrate how good it was (or not). Yes, the US Shuttle had some issues, trying to be too many things to too many people and safety was not given its proper due and the 'race to space' overrode many of the concerns. WE were lucky we lost on two crews. Thanks for the piece.
I think the buran is one of the most fascinating stories in rocketry. Also fun fact the energia which the buran flew on was independent of the buran and had significantly higher lift capacity than the shuttle system which was required to have the orbiter
Thanks Simon. Another 'project' I knew nothing about. Love how you keep expanding my knowledge now I am a retiree. It is uncanny how similar the ships look.
The Energia launch vehicle died with Buran, but the engines continued, until at one point, the US became completely reliant on them after the shuttles retired.
Buran had a lot going for it: jet engines for atmospheric flight, much better orbital engines than the Shuttle and in a better position, the Energia rocket could launch on its own with payloads on the side rather than Buran and there was even talk of making the four boosters recoverable by deploying big wings and flying them to a runway. Unfortunately it has no real purpose and a few key disadvantages compared to the Shuttle too: the Shuttle brought the expensive booster engines back with it whereas Energia was expended each time it launched, the Shuttle’s disposable bits were much cheaper to make than Energia and the huge expense of making Buran with all its advanced features probably played a not inconsequential role in the ultimate collapse of the USSR.
For everyone intrested in the Buran or space-flight in general: Some of the pictures of the Buran in this video e.g. at 11:07 are taken at the "Technik Museum" in Speyer, Germany. Since a few years visitors can see a real Buran there that has sadly never seen space.
Buran means snow blizzard with winds. The speciality of the Buran space shuttle was that:: test driving of the space shuttle did not necessarily need a pilot or driver. It can fly PILOTLESS. It can carry passengers and aven pilots and astronauts, WHO CAN CHANGE the space shuttle to a navigable aircraft. No pilot is needed to navigate the shace shuttle. HOWEVER, WITH NO PILOT OR ASTRANAUT, it can also fly two and half times around the earth and land safely on a runway in a specific City and LAND on a particular airport. With a more advanced modern computer or super computer inside this space shuttle, Buran could have flown around many more times than just two times that it flew around the earth without a pilot, and landed safely on a runway while Gorby was in power.
Another major advantage of liquid-fueled rockets for crewed spaceflights is in safety. Unlike solid rocket motors, which can't be shut down or throttled down once they've been lit, liquid fuel rockets can be shut down and restarted at any point. While that capability never would have necessarily become useful in either shuttle disaster, it's been argued that that would be the safer approach. SLS still uses solid motors, but they stack the crew capsule on top of the rocket, where it's less susceptible to foam strikes, and better able to pull itself away from a disaster using the escape tower that neither the shuttle nor the Buran had.
One big issue with liquid fuel tanks is fuel sloshing. You want the fuel at the "bottom" of the tank. Not an issue when you're standing on the launch pad. Also not an issue when under acelleration. But once you are in freefall, the fuel can be anywhere. So to reignite you basically need to get the fuel back to the bottom. Which means you need to accelerate before igniting the engines.
The one piece of unknown information your presentation gave to me, that the Buran was able to do a go-around at its landing was a surprise. I would have liked to know what powered it for that go-around. The Shuttle, which glides to a landing does not have that ability as far as I know. It glides like a rock, with all that extra weight of its main engines aboard, but no way to power them. If the Shuttle's orbital maneuvering engines could have done a go-around with extra hypergolics added, I doubt. The Soviets choice of the un-manned flight profile and the generally worse weather in which all their spacecraft have to perform may have factored into that lighter design, which had similar sized de-orbit engines, but probably enough hypergolic fuel to do both de-orbit and that one go-around. Note that they did try turbojet auxiliary engines for some versions that they tested, unlike the Shuttle.
Hey...YEAH!! That's a very good question! Ours did glide like a freakin' rock!! Wow! You got this "jr. astronaut club member's" gears aturnin'! That, from anything Ive ever learned isn't possible for a shuttle ta do!?!? \m/
Without seeing any documentation that it actually made a full approach or a powered one, I'd say it likely used a landing circle prior to approach similar to the US version. I'd guess it established on the final vector, found the winds not to its liking, and did a circle to see if things improved. It probably would not have had the energy to do a second circle after that. US Shuttles burned a lot of energy in the circle and had only one shot at landing afterwards, but burned off a lot of remaining energy on final with the speed brakes and flaps, so there was still some there. They had enough energy entering the circle for two or three turns, as I recall, and this was the primary place they burned off extra energy prior to approach.
They had two jet engines for Landing and Flying that bird - in those white bulk at the end :) they even had a aviation prototype that could take off like a plane
It didn't actually go around, but it decided to change course while it still could. It landed in opposite direction on the same landing strip as it was supposed to. It's decision surprised the chase pilot and everybody else. Later analysis revealed it has chosen the optimal route for the conditions. In later flight he could go around, since it was planned to be fitted with two jet engines.
When you say at 9:21 that Buran is 20m shorter than the Space Shuttle, you compare two different things. The length of the entire Space Shuttle system is indeed about 20m longer than the Buran spacecraft, however, this includes the extarnal tank and the boosters. The orbiter itself is about the same dimension than the Buran orbiter (1m longer only).
What not many on both sides know and which they sometimes find uncomfortable was the degree of co-operation between the Russians and the US in their respective space programs. The Russians engines were better and more controllable, and the US was better at guidance systems. They swapped tech regularly. So it made sense that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were so similar.
Yup, the RD-180 from the Energia turned into the RD-170 on the Atlas V. And there is obviously the ISS, with the russian-side core module Zvezda (DOS-8) being basically the core for the Mir II, which was developed from the core of the Mir (DOS-7), which was developed from the core of the Salyut stations (the last one being DOS-6 and already looking extremely familiar) And then the Shuttle-Mir program. And before that the Apollo-Soyuz program. let's hope that peaceful cooperation continues in the future.
As an American, even I have to admit that the Soviets built a better shuttle than we did. Also, a friend of mine actually saw and photographed the OK-7M from the Buran Program when he visited Moscow back in February of 2018.
@9:22 "at 36.37 meters in length it was 20 meters shorter than the space shuttle" ??? Space shuttle orbiter length = 37.24 m (122.2 ft) Buran orbiter length = 36.37 m (119.3 ft) @9:31 "with a wingspan of 23.92 meters just over 10 meters less than the Nasa's vehicle" ??? Space shuttle orbiter wingspan = 23.79 m (78.1 ft) Buran orbiter wingspan = 23.92 m (78.5 ft) (even bigger than the shuttle !!!) Data taken from wikipedia.
The other advantage of the Buran, is that it had turbines built in with the intention of a wider window of reentry. The shuttle upon reentry was basically as a dead stick glider. The Buran was capable of more of a guided/powered flight, allowing it to land, well, everywhere.
That moment when the airplane design to transport your spacecraft, long outlives the spacecraft it was designed to transport. We need a Megaprojects of the Mira
There is already a Megaprojects video on Mriya. What I would very much like to see is a Sideprojects video on the other plane that's been shown a couple of times during this video (12:05 for example). It's the VM-T "Atlant" (Atlas), an ad-hoc converted 3M strategic bomber that was used to carry Energiya parts (including the gigantic fuel tanks) and Buran itself all the way until An-225 was ready (which means for the most part of the Buran program). The way VM-T flies with the payload strapped on its back being bigger than the plane itself shows just how impressive that plane is
@@abuseclaws7471 hmm, I know I've missed a few videos, can't believe I missed once as massive as that 🤔 I'll have to look for it for sure then. There's plenty of planes I'd love to see a Megaprojects, or even just a Sideprojects video on
I saw Buran as a kid! After its maiden flight, it was flown on top of the huge Antonov plane (Mrija) with one landing in Prague. We travelled with my father to see it. It was impressive and I am sad that space shuttles were discontinued.
It was definitely a better design in having the main engines on Energia, that surely simplified and lightened Buran. If we had done that we'd have had a separate heavy lift capability independent of the shuttle, one that could even still be in use today.
Yeah my thoughts too as soon as I heard Buran was simpler(no major engines to service continually at high cost) and lighter it is clearly a winner, full automation back then and jet engines so landing is not totally passive in case of trouble and a bonus separate rocket program. It’s amazing. Plus the name Buran fires the imagination in a way space shuttle never could.
@@andygriffiths9916 Late but hope that with time you kind of picked up that a lot of what you mentioned, are false or the shuttle program also had those. The Shuttle also had a cargo variant that never went anywhere, NASA and the world also had that automation technology, the shuttles had it for their landings (STS-2 utilized it and it took place in 1981, buran only flew in 1988), also only the important stuff were manual, like chutes and stuff, because those it is actually important that there is no error in an automation system that causes them to deploy at any other time, the same way planes are automated but operating the landing gear, flaps and reverse thrusters are still manually operated due to concern about crew safety. Also I hope you know that there is no evidence of the buran containing jet engines for its orbital flights, the buran with engines were there for atmospheric testing, a similar mistake that can be construed would be looking at a space shuttle on the 747 and then believing that NASA intended to launch the shuttles from 747s.
Aerodynamics are funny thing: they work perfectly both in USA and SSSR. Thats why things that fly through atmosphere looks alike. And some espionage couldn't do no harm.
In this case, the aerodynamics is exactly how we know it's a copy. The reason the wings are shaped like that on Shuttle is for a very specific military application. That application was launching into a polar orbit from Vandenberg AFB, deploy a payload, and land in one orbit. By the time you're back on the other side of the earth, you're way out in the pacific. The shape of the wings gives it enough cross range to make it back to California for a landing. The Soviet Union didn't have this issue and didn't need this shape. They could have optimized the shape. I'm sure Soviet engineer's superiors mandated to recreate the space shuttle's capabilities.
I've been in the Buran ship in Speyer... the museum there is brilliant if you're a Transport geek! The Buran, the 747 jet and the German U-Boat were my favourites!!!
Oh yeah, of course, thank him for another not propaganda episode, in the very beginning of which he voices some Facts just to keep you up-to-date and being knowledgeable.
I remember that the Buran could do one thing the Shuttle couldn't: they performed unmanned test flights, while the Shuttle couldn't fly unmanned. Given the quality of Soviet manufacturing, it's a good thing it had that feature!
there were 2 Buran's :D You can visit the Museum Speyer in Germany where they have the other Buran with the jet engine's (they wanted the Buran to be able to fly under it's own power with jet engine's but they ended up not going further with that)
The engines were meant to aid the landings approaches. The americans could only miss the airport once and try again once, before they'd have to bail out. These engines were meant to make it nearly as easy to land as a normal plane.
@@RS-ls7mm - It was both - they fitted them for testing but a specially modified setup was to be installed to aid landing during normal operations. (Or rather that was the intention - at least at one stage)
@@JohnnyWednesday Seems the story has changed, not surprising given all the secrecy of the time. When I first read about it they were only for flight testing. Now it seems they had a whole program trying to make them survive in space.
Something which is also worth mentioning is that while the price tag for the Buran was huge, it also created the Enugia rocket which was in many ways the equivalent to the modern day SLS, some 30-40 years ahead of the Americans. It was at the time the second most powerful rocket ever built behind the Saturn V, and faaaar more capable than the shuttle was at launching dumb payloads to space.
They started with the basic design and made their own changes. Interestingly, the one that flew once did not have any crew or life support capability and was just a flight demonstrator. They built several including one fitted with jet engines for atmosphere testing (We launched ours un-powered off the back of a Boeing 747). They never did complete a fully capable version before the program was cancelled. Why did they build it? Because they could not figure out why we made ours so large and assumed it must be for a military mission. In a way it was, but only to carry up and recover huge spy satellites.
In fact it really was designed for military use, the payload Bay is the exact size it is because that was the size of the US spy satellites. It just happened to be the perfect size for hubble because, well, hubble was a modification of the spy satellite design... the shuttle was also designed to be able to recover soviet satellites, it was a use they never used it for, but that was one of the design requirements. Scott Manley has a video on it somewhere
Early on, there were so many different design ideas and configurations for a reusable space plane and I bet several of them could've been developed, such as several lifting body shapes, but the USSR knew the Space Shuttle was an already proven design and did copy the main concept. Yes, they made improvements, but that's much faster, cheaper, and easier than doing it all from scratch. Let's not pretend that other greatest hits like the TU-144 or TU-160 would've come out looking like they did if designed in a vacuum. Soviet espionage was on top of the Concord and B-1 designs and no one can deny the TU-4 wasn't a carbon copy. Obviously China is all over that game.
@@Phrancis5 Yah, We had the X-20 and the Soviets had the BOR-4, which was loosely based on our lifting body experiments. But the US military forced NASA to build a huge shuttle and the soviets figured it must have some military weapon deliver use and decided they better make one too now and figure out what to do with it later. Such a waste it was never put to use. They're so old now that it's probably cheaper to build a new Russian shuttle than refurbish an original airframe.
There is the shell of a Buran in Gorky Park in Moscow. I have been inside it, although it is over ten years ago, so it may have been removed now. I think it vas just like any other exhibit you may klimb into, if I remember it correctly.
I have been waiting for this video for a year! Didn’t disappoint! I wish Russia had used it as part of building the ISS. The refinements made to it were brilliant
Funny fact, U.K. authorities noted Russian spy’s had suspicious activities around BAE system at Filton runway, Bristol during the development of the Concordes tires. So they let race car manufacturers use the runway for testing as well. They noticed that the Russians were actually collecting samples of the runway but later during the Tupolev development, their tires kept blowing up. Turned out that the Russian spy’s most likely got the race car tire samples instead of the Concorde 😂
And the US government never steals Other counties resources, land, and tax revenue's? Both sides were and are equally guilty. One just has more power to control who here’s about it.
Concorde was not "stolen". In fact, engineers who designed Concorde and Tu-144 held 5 conferences sharing knowledge before the initial release. Concorde inherited Tu-144 fuel pumping from the wing to the tail at M>2.
The second version always comes out better. You get to add the things you want and corr3ct the things you don't. Remind me again, when did the shuttle first fly? Wasn't it like a decade before the Buran?
Several years ago I read an article accusing the Chinese of copying a US stealth jet fighter and in photos they look similar. The majority of the comments accused the Chinese of spying but a aviation engineer jumped in. The engineer explained that was only so many ways to physically build a stealth jet so similarities were inevitable. I think it the same with the Space Shuttle and the Buran.
Simon, sorry, you mixed up the dimensions . The Shuttle Orbiter Vehicle has a length of 37.4m (Buran: 36.7m) and a span of 23.8m (Buran: 23.9m) So, the were pretty much the same size. In case of the STACKED orbiter the Shuttle had been a little bit higher than Buran on Energija.
I recall reading Air&Space Technology magazine then and just before the Buran flight someone said, if they launch it they’ll never see it again. Must have been a real surprise after the flight. I kinda wish like the N-1 it had been successful because it drives us more when we feel under the gun.
I’ve seen the OK-GLI Testbed model at Speyer. Simon’s right, you walk around, look inside and you do start noticing the differences. Please correct me. But even NASA engineers where impressed and some even commented that the Buran was better in everyway.
There's no rule that dictates that a copycat of something has to be lower quality. The buran was kinda badass but it was only badass because they saved billions by stealing the design leaving money to go to different systems upgrades
Buran is a clear copy of Space Shuttle with some tweaks that were implemented to accomodate Soviet space tech. And it wasnt the only tech Soviets stole from USA - there is atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, Tu-144, Tu-160 just to name a few.
The only time I've heard of the Buran is in the novel “Back to the Moon”, written by Homer Hickam (yes, the same man from the movie “October Sky”, where he’s portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal). In the novel, after the shuttle pilot is accidentally killed, another NASA astronaut hitches a ride in a Russian Soyuz, accompanied by a cosmonaut who was trained to pilot the Buran. The cosmonaut ends up landing the shuttle at the end of the story.
I will keep saying it, you need one more channel. You could call it something along the lines of Soviet Works, or Soviet Projects, or something. You could do an entire channel to the Soviet Union, the various programs, projects, inventions, discoveries, etc. Considering how well the Cold War and Soviet videos tend to do, I cannot help but feel as though I am not alone in this desire. Considering you are Simon "I don't know how many channels I have" Whistler, you are the perfect man for the task at hand.
But if to be sincere, hell with you, my dear nation of monolinguistical Karens. You only can bullshit about others nonetheless cannot do even a shit in others' languages. Only say a pair of swear words, or even one more and look like You Did accomplish Something. And the example of Simon is one of the most showcasing. Three years of not even care. Such a cringe and lame. And why do I feel embarrassed due to his deeds?
Thanks for pointing this out. They're virtually identical in size and shape. This is probably a good indicator that the Buran was to a high degree just a ripoff of the Space Shuttle Orbiter.
Americans and metric units - the same old story over and over 😅😅😅 Based on the video, Buran would be 1/3 of the Shuttle - cool size for a single seat jet fighter :D Other than that it’s a good video as always.
@@phamnuwen9442 the Buran was about as much of a ripoff of the Orbiter as our microwave ovens are a ripoff of the sun. Physics dictates certain things that are unavoidable. For instance, blunt nose versus pointy nose for re-entry.
Yes you did the soviet space shuttle! Another 1 I suggested a while ago I think on a previous video! May have been on the American 1 Crude but cool looking Copy like concordski, Exellent 👍👍👍👍
@@worldoftancraft No, it was nicknamed that for its Russian/soviet 🇷🇺🇨🇳 distinction, TU-144 was aptly nicknamed Concordski as a reference to it being a blatent copy of Concorde with less quality..
The jet engines were used so that pilots could take off like a regular aircraft for landing tests. Initially, the pilots flew all the way to wheelstop, but near the end of the tests, the pilots only brought the plane to altitude and the computers landed it hands off.
@@atomicskull6405 The problem is that the Russkis didn't even make toasters, washing machines, or microwaves, & the few cars they built were always over 20 years out of date. They focused on the technology that grabbed the headlines, not the technologies that are actually useful to people's lives
@@bigmedge no it’s cute, you good. I find it funny. It reminds me the story about Rome Censor Cato. No matter what was the discussion about, always ended his speech with the call : “Carthago delenda est”
Buran looks similar to the shuttle for the same reason that a shark looks like a dolphin and both look like icthosaurs. The differences are mainly on the inside because form follows function. It is the internal systems that show the design heritage
Haha sure. If I'm an engineer (I am) and I'm constantly pounded on by my superiors with impossible cost and schedule directives ... and someone hands me detailed plans of a successful design ... hells yeah my finished product is going to look like the other.
Not entirely sure I'd call the space shuttle career stellar. It had a much longer turnaround time and higher cost than projected. But more than that, it had a very high failure rate. The Russian Soyuz was far safer, despite popular opinion, and cheaper as well. The Space Shuttle did have an edge in carrying capacity, which is why it kept operating until the ISS was completed. But a basic rocket like the Soyuz is a far more efficient and safe way to create a space transport system. Which is probably why the USA is going to traditional rockets again as well - albeit with self-landing boosters if Elon Musk has anything to say about it. I grew up watching the space shuttle so for me, that will always have a sort of magic to it. But yeah, from a program management perspective it didn't exactly achieve what it set out to do (make trips to space easier and cheaper)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
Entities of Earth: ONLY those species who get off of this Earth, out of this solar system, and out of this galaxy might continue to survive further. Everybody else eventually dies and goes extinct. Currently, no exceptions.
3 basic ways out of this galaxy to potentially continue to survive, (as a species or whatever evolves from our species):
1. Long way: Outward through the galactic plane.
2. Medium way: Outward through the angled solar system's plane.
3. Short way: Outward, about 90 degrees from the galactic plane, as adjusted for the galactic magnetic lines of flux for a smoother ride. (Basically 'rise above' the collapsing spiral shaped galaxy).
* And music, don't forget music. It's going to be a long trip.
@@charlesbrightman4237 you aren't THAT 'Bright'-, man.
@@amberbracken7128 Okay, I am willing to learn. Please show me where the above is wrong, if you are smart enough to.
Hello. Turn on automatic subtitles please.
@@charlesbrightman4237 First, you prove to me that the entire universe isn't a festering infection on a drunken bums pinkie toe.
You can't. You cracked out hack.
I've been inside the Buran, including the cockpit, and, well, it's rather, umm, different... If you had a stereotype of what a Soviet space shuttle would look like on the inside and what the quality of engineering would be like, then it would not disappoint you!
That sounds amazing!
I expect there to be photos of Lenin everywhere.
@@megaprojects9649 Those marble statues of Stalin probably didn’t help with the payload capabilities.
when did you see that?
@@megaprojects9649 I'm still wondering the relevance of Lenin to @EEVblog's comment.
They created a completely new programming language, called DRAKON, for the software for it. It was a completely graphical language, where programming in the language looked an awful lot like creating a flowchart.
Considering the fact that it flew its one and only mission pretty much flawlessly, I'd say it was some pretty good tech.
Thank you! I was curious about the flight controller it used and figured it had to be somewhat revolutionary, given when it was made. Drakon will shave some search time off that for me, so thanks again.
That’s fascinating! I had no idea.
It's sort of inaccurate. DRAKON first release was in 1996, and it was to replace multiple systems (SIPROL, DIPOL and LAKS) used during Buran development.
You're gonna hit some limitations eventually pushing it for programming but as far as processing big chunks of data in pre-defined standard ways...
well there's a reason pretty much every 3D or Video processing suite uses a node-based workflow somewhere these days.
Realtime astronavigation and physics calculations would fit nicely into that mold. Bulk data needing to be calculated on the same way many times per second, not unlike a video.
Yes - they managed to copy SIMULINK, too. Well done!
You forgot one of the most important differences. The Shuttle was a dead stick glider on return whereas the Buran had jet engines on board which allowed it to actually perform powered flight. Making it possible to abort a risky landing or divert to an alternate landing site if needed. Something the shuttle wasn't able to do. That also meant it could potentially be used as a long range sub-orbital transport as well as taking stuff into LEO.
You say this as though it saw service.
@@quantumsneak1773 Is it true that the Buran had a single test flight where it aborted its approach, circled and landed? 12:20 ruclips.net/video/qSIdbKM4adk/видео.html
He actually did say this. He stated that that in its first flight it aborted and did a go around. But the Buran could never be used for a sub-orbital flight. Those engines were only to abort a landing, little more.
They had some trouble shielding the (TU fighter jet) engines so they where removed for the orbital flight test and planned to be added back in. Empty of payload and OMS fuel it had a fair bit of range. For a flying brick.
@@mgjk *IF* IS A KEY WORD
The wooden Buran they used for wind tunnel testing is pretty cool looking. It is a 1/3 scale of the full size.
The jet-propelled training version they built was pretty cool. Don't know if that survives.
Why does everyone not say it? The design was leaked. The heat shield design was not. The latter, failed, spectacularly, twice
@@akizeta The OK-GLI did indeed survive, and is currently an exhibit at the Technik Museum Speyer in Germany.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Cool, I'll have to go see that, if things ever return to normal.
I have seen a scale model of a version of the Buran that had own rocket engines, like the spaceshuttle. This was in the Moscow Aviation Institute. The USSR definitely considered a design with build-in rocket engines.
One thing with "For All Mankind" that really bugged me was that they made a major plot point about Buran copying one aspect of the Shuttle design that they absolutely did not copy in reality.
I think I heard the reason for that was due to the fact that the N1 wasn’t cancelled and so Buran was more of an after thought. This meant it was mostly copied from the space shuttle instead of being developed entirely from scratch. Also from a production stand point it was probably easier just to say it was completely copied
In the show, Buran development was accelerated, and so they didn’t learn the lesson about that aspect in 1986
History and fiction aren't the same thing. 🤦♂️
YES. I FELT LIKE SUCH A BIG BRAIN WATCHING IT. My wife was like "shhhh, I'm trying to watch the show"
@Author B.L. Alley The divergence was Sergei Korolev not dying - which in real life happened in 1966. So there's plenty of time for _Apollo_ 10 to become different.
I recall watching a documentary that featured the Buran. One of the interviewees was a former NASA Space Shuttle designer who said that the plans for the Space Shuttle weren't classified, so they very well may have sent them to the Russians at some point.
that seems to be closer to the truth. watch this excellent video, with some key details missed in this one: ruclips.net/video/XLOCQw5s9Uw/видео.html
Also the rules of physics ain't classified as well, wondering why Boeing and Airbus planes look the same.
It’s a ceramic coating plane to withstand heat of breaking through the atmosphere, and withstand vacuum, yeah, there are not many ways to do it that we haven’t improved the design on it to this very day. Of course upgrades with new technologies comes along but so far, still same design. It’s the same with 5th gen Air Force, they start to look the same as they implement stealth coating. They have the tech, but how can it work? Larger wing spans, flat bottom area to break into atmosphere, pointy nose to reduce drag, flaps that is about the same as Private Jets, YES… RUSSIA STOLE FROM US.. It’s like questioning Indy vs Formula 1, even cars looks the same if they want to go really fast, difference is one is built to target all sorts of corners with fast acceleration and the other to have top speed with only two types of corners. Space shuttles have one objective, break out and break in. Next we gonna question why all busses are rectangles, the entire world stole from Britain, I don’t know where busses originated. I know carts were invented throughout the world that never met each other, difference is, different animal pulling them. Indonesia largely uses buffalos to pull their cart which is kinda fascinating, they eat grass and require less attention but you can’t ride them without the cart as you can with horses.
Exactly. As I recall their design bureau reportedly purchased a copy of the engineering drawings from NASA and nobody had a problem with it.
@@altergreenhorn Pretty much, as soon as the Boeing Nose was not economically viable anymore they ended up with the same nose shapes.
Years ago, I took a tour of Buran in Sydney led by a pretty if downbeat Russian girl. Sadly it didn't attract enough visitors to make the visit lucrative for them but neither could Russia afford to fly it home for another year and a half so it just sat around in storage. A bad luck project from beginning to end and beyond, then, despite its perfect engineering. The way it flew itself around the Earth then landed itself was very impressive indeed.
I really wanted to see the Buran have a longer career. The competition could have helped improve the design of future reusable vehicles. (The flying the whole mission without a crew was fairly impressive at the time.)
Yes, fully agree with you. The automatic reentry was one of the kind.
Landing in a 30 kph crosswind was impressive, on its first try. The US shuttle never could do that, pretty feeble landing gear.
@@RS-ls7mm - For all the debates between Soviet and US technology? one thing that nobody can deny - not even the most patriotic American - is that the Soviet Union were kings of landing gear! you can land a Mig-29 in a field if you really need to - and take off again ;)
@@JohnnyWednesday Agreed. The US has to do FOD checks before a runway can be used. Even a bottle cap could damage an engine. The USSR planes didn't care, they took in air from above and avoided all the FOD issues.
@@RS-ls7mm - I sense we both obsessively watch all the same series of aircraft documentaries ;)
I mean, Buran performed a fully automated takeoff + flight, did 2 orbits around earth and landed by itself exactly at set coordinates.
In 1988.
WITH NO HUMAN ASSISTANCE.
How amazing is that!
So the Soviets beat Musk 40y ago ? 🤣💀
Definitely not soviet propaganda lies.
@ actually, it’s Wikipedia
@@alexandersokolov7001 🤣🤣🤣
@ read in the operational history section en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
@@FTL1511 ... Elon musk's space x rockets are far different than space shuttles..
Elon musk did take a lot of inspiration from Russian space tech though as they have always been pretty superior to nasa
There were two more Burans under construction when the USSR disintegrated. I am pretty sure that one is located at the aircraft research institute in Ramenskoye Russia. It is at what is now called Zhukosky airport which is just SE of Moscow. Since I can't attach a screen shot on RUclips, here are its coordinates from Google Earth. It is parked in an open storage area next to the main taxiway. It is amid several other aircraft. 55 34 16 N 38 08 34 E I also liked the classic shot of the Baikonur launch pad in the video. It sure looks like the 1957 B&W U-2 photo of it.
Thanks for the cool tip! A lot of interesting junk there, including the Su-47!
@Michael Parsons a little to the right of the Buran is this beauty en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47
That is so so cool! Thank you for sharing. :)
uhh as well as the X wing, SST, "Backfires" etc !?!? Omg... all out in the open like that!? Thanks for the co-ords! Also thanks to "Google Earth" (ha ha) for the peek!
@@transistor754 When you use Google Earth Pro, you can use the history mode to go back to the 5/10/21shot of this place. There are 3 Su-57 stealth fighters taking off on the main runway.
Simon forgot to mention the musical spinoff of the Soviet space program, Buran Buran! I love their magical hits from the 1980s. Hungry Like the Woflski!
Don't forget the appearance in Barbarella.
2:15 - Chapter 1 - The declining USSR
3:20 - Chapter 2 - The space race
4:50 - Chapter 3 - Development
6:15 - Mid roll ads
7:40 - Chapter 5 - Construction
9:15 - Chapter 6 - The buran
12:00 - Chapter 7 - The 1st (and only) flight
13:25 - Chapter 8 - The age of the buran
14:50 - Chapter 9 - Rip off or superior spacecraft ?
I'm really impressed with the scientists and engineers that worked on the Buran, the capability to fly fully automatically and the successful automatic landing are amazing
I agree.
The real tragedy in this was loosing the Energia. Had they ditched the shuttle and focused on Energia the Russians might have the most impressive launch vehicle today. That is especially if the proposed Energia II had seen the light of day as it was designed to be fully reusable, including the side boosters! After detaching the payload they would open wings that had been stowed away and glide to a landing strip.
There's one or two of those prototype boosters in museums. They even had a small jet engine to help out. The strap on ones with the folding wings.
@@221b-l3t Wait I didn't know that they ever manufactured them? If so that's amazing!
Even Robert Zubrin suggested using Energia in The Case for Mars/Mars Direct. A proven heavy lift launch vehicle that could carry the adequate amount of payload
damn that's such a cool idea
Fun fact, Russian space agency is currently working on reusable rocket designs which are surprisingly similar in their idea to the improved Energia. Which implies that Energia legacy might live on after all these years, as well as shows just how impressive and ahead of its time this technology was, that it looks very sound even 40 years later.
The Soviet paranoia was somewhat justified, as their cost analysis clearly showed that NASA was lying about the shuttles capacity and commercial function being cheaper than a rocket. And maybe they also knew that the shuttles final design was largely dictated by the needs of the NRO & NSA. (See Payload Specialist). Anyway, they weren’t wrong, but not quite right either. But in the end, I’d say the Buran was a better craft and a real showcase of Russian engineering. The autonomous landing blows my damn mind! Sad that it lived such a short life..
You can think it was better but it wasn't. Sorry to burst your Soviet loving bubble.
@@jasonzielsdorf7080 Cost wise the shuttle was a money pit, lol. And two blew up.
@@myballsitchsomethingfierce6319 They actually used the Shuttle. They idiot commies spent there money for nothing.
One of the "payload specialists" from memory was the astronaut/cosmonaut born in Australia (Andy Thomas) - and he had previously worked at Lockheeds' "skunk works"... So the OP may indeed be right about the space shuttles actual purpose.
Better than what? It flew ONCE, un-manned. The Shuttle flew 133 successful missions over a 30 year period.
9:27 the Buran is about 1m shorter than the space shuttle, not 20m. They are of very similar size, though the Buran is significantly lighter.
it's 20m shorter, if you include the space shuttle's fueltank vs Energia
@@havoc3742 lol yes, the Buran orbiter is smaller than the whole space shuttle stack. But this segment was about the orbiters and actually quoted the correct figures for the Buran orbiter.
I guess he wanted to say 20 centimeters?
I think thats because the space shuttle means the entire thing complete woth the external tank where buran only means the orbiter. Burans rocket is Energia
As you rightly say, the orbiters themselves were very similarly sized.
Would I be correct in saying the buran had 2 jet engines installed? so if need be it could abort a landing and go around for another attempt.
I do remember reading that somewhere, it did seem like a feature that would be incredibly useful!
Also the buran had a larger payload capacity.
And the energia system meant the buran could be kept in service more frequently whereas shuttles system meant a full engine refurb between flights.
Buran was better, it just didnt have the chance to prove itself.
They got removed for redesign and never put back on but yes.
The Buran was better but didn't have a chance to prove itself?
Check your logic.
Excellent choice of topic. The dead Burans are great urban exploration and their story needs some mainstream attention.
Just happy to be here, love this subject matter
The Buran was quite the Megaproject! It does prove that Russia/USSR were good rocket scientists.
Russia made excellent rockets. The best engines for them for sure. Russian rocket engine tech has been finally matched with the new raptors from SpaceX
@@rohesilmnelohe actually... after fall of the USSR the Americans outrightly sent people to Russia to find and purchase previously secret space and experimental equipment for NASA and the military.
At the time the most efficient rocket ever designed was Russian, the yanks bought some and took them home to use what they couldn't work out 🤣
Yeah stealing technology secrets
Not good enough to build a successful moon rocket.
The 'Kreosan English' channel recently made some videos about it and they even pitched a fecking tent on the wing of one of the Buran models. Dank!!
Just wanted to share - my grandfather was programmer of blocks that was defending buran from overheating,he was director of small group of engineers. They programmed models of those little squares and there are a lot of challenge to do that - the thing is, while buran was on the ground and sky his wings were not straight,and those little squares should be placed properly not to parallax with each other in the ground or in the sky. They also flew a small models (1:49) if I remember properly to test that, and after two flights ,only on first flight only one square was missing ,on second flight of model they accomplished their task. He told me,that for the buran project was working all Soviet union on the time
The Buran most definitely was not a rip-off. Whilst its outer appearance is very similar to to that of the Spaceshuttle for reasons addressed in the video (spying and aerodynamics), the interior and especially the propulsion system was a lot different. As partially explained in the video, the Spaceshuttle had its main engines used for the ascend to orbit on itself and just carried a huge external fuel tank, as well as boosters to aid on lift-off, under its belly. Buran however was strapped to the side of an independent rocket that in fact could also carry other payloads. Buran only had smaller orbital maneuvering engines for changing orbit and de-orbiting for return to earth. In this sense it’s more similar to the x 37. It should also not be forgotten that in fact the US copied earlier sovjet space plane designs that would later evolve into the Spaceshuttle and resembled the Dreamchaser spacecraft currently being developed by SNC.
Dreamchaser by design is a pure Soviet project "Spiral".
copycat is a copycat , so long it happened LATER and was "inspired" by earlier ! LEFTISTS COMMIES should not help russians and commies white wash this simple FACT
Simon! You did it! You managed to do a video where you didn't annoyingly say dimensions in 2 scales. I loved it, you are the best, keep up the great work!
I have seen a whole lot of video's about the Buran. But still Simon my dude, you always give great new content about every topic 😄
Actually the shuttle plans were not classified and easy for them to find. The Buran was a version 2 craft. They had the benefit of hindsight while developing the craft. The Energia was also not designed to carry their shuttle, it was adapted and was a better design than the shuttle launch system.
It was a plot point in "For All Mankind" that the Buran had the same O-Ring problem that doomed the Challenger IRL, however, the schematics they showed had it using the Energia launch system too, so it wouldn't have the flawed SLS boosters.
Yes I thought the show runners could have gone in a very different direction with that plot line, particularly given the actual payload and events of the first Energia launch but that would have involved acknowledging that Buran wasn't a shuttle knock off.
How i fucking like seeing all the already existing in English words being retyped, so, it's like "in Original". Not Energy. But Energia.
Pierce my eyes, please.
Energia Energia Energia Energia ya monolingual twerp.
Nicely done and well presented I did learn a few details I was not aware of and helped me understand that situation. I had forgotten that the Russians were using liquid boosters. The Energia was an impressive rocket but did not get a chance, much as Buran, to demonstrate how good it was (or not). Yes, the US Shuttle had some issues, trying to be too many things to too many people and safety was not given its proper due and the 'race to space' overrode many of the concerns. WE were lucky we lost on two crews. Thanks for the piece.
I think the buran is one of the most fascinating stories in rocketry. Also fun fact the energia which the buran flew on was independent of the buran and had significantly higher lift capacity than the shuttle system which was required to have the orbiter
Thanks Simon. Another 'project' I knew nothing about. Love how you keep expanding my knowledge now I am a retiree. It is uncanny how similar the ships look.
The Energia launch vehicle died with Buran, but the engines continued, until at one point, the US became completely reliant on them after the shuttles retired.
Buran had a lot going for it: jet engines for atmospheric flight, much better orbital engines than the Shuttle and in a better position, the Energia rocket could launch on its own with payloads on the side rather than Buran and there was even talk of making the four boosters recoverable by deploying big wings and flying them to a runway.
Unfortunately it has no real purpose and a few key disadvantages compared to the Shuttle too: the Shuttle brought the expensive booster engines back with it whereas Energia was expended each time it launched, the Shuttle’s disposable bits were much cheaper to make than Energia and the huge expense of making Buran with all its advanced features probably played a not inconsequential role in the ultimate collapse of the USSR.
For everyone intrested in the Buran or space-flight in general: Some of the pictures of the Buran in this video e.g. at 11:07 are taken at the "Technik Museum" in Speyer, Germany. Since a few years visitors can see a real Buran there that has sadly never seen space.
Buran means snow blizzard with winds. The speciality of the Buran space shuttle was that:: test driving of the space shuttle did not necessarily need a pilot or driver. It can fly PILOTLESS. It can carry passengers and aven pilots and astronauts, WHO CAN CHANGE the space shuttle to a navigable aircraft. No pilot is needed to navigate the shace shuttle. HOWEVER, WITH NO PILOT OR ASTRANAUT, it can also fly two and half times around the earth and land safely on a runway in a specific City and LAND on a particular airport. With a more advanced modern computer or super computer inside this space shuttle, Buran could have flown around many more times than just two times that it flew around the earth without a pilot, and landed safely on a runway while Gorby was in power.
Another major advantage of liquid-fueled rockets for crewed spaceflights is in safety. Unlike solid rocket motors, which can't be shut down or throttled down once they've been lit, liquid fuel rockets can be shut down and restarted at any point. While that capability never would have necessarily become useful in either shuttle disaster, it's been argued that that would be the safer approach. SLS still uses solid motors, but they stack the crew capsule on top of the rocket, where it's less susceptible to foam strikes, and better able to pull itself away from a disaster using the escape tower that neither the shuttle nor the Buran had.
Doesn’t SLS actually have to fly to be able to say it uses something?
Buran also had ejection seats in design, though never tested, because ejecting at hose speeds could be deadly on it's own...
One big issue with liquid fuel tanks is fuel sloshing.
You want the fuel at the "bottom" of the tank. Not an issue when you're standing on the launch pad. Also not an issue when under acelleration.
But once you are in freefall, the fuel can be anywhere. So to reignite you basically need to get the fuel back to the bottom. Which means you need to accelerate before igniting the engines.
The one piece of unknown information your presentation gave to me, that the Buran was able to do a go-around at its landing was a surprise. I would have liked to know what powered it for that go-around. The Shuttle, which glides to a landing does not have that ability as far as I know. It glides like a rock, with all that extra weight of its main engines aboard, but no way to power them. If the Shuttle's orbital maneuvering engines could have done a go-around with extra hypergolics added, I doubt. The Soviets choice of the un-manned flight profile and the generally worse weather in which all their spacecraft have to perform may have factored into that lighter design, which had similar sized de-orbit engines, but probably enough hypergolic fuel to do both de-orbit and that one go-around. Note that they did try turbojet auxiliary engines for some versions that they tested, unlike the Shuttle.
Hey...YEAH!! That's a very good question! Ours did glide like a freakin' rock!! Wow! You got this "jr. astronaut club member's" gears aturnin'! That, from anything Ive ever learned isn't possible for a shuttle ta do!?!? \m/
Without seeing any documentation that it actually made a full approach or a powered one, I'd say it likely used a landing circle prior to approach similar to the US version. I'd guess it established on the final vector, found the winds not to its liking, and did a circle to see if things improved. It probably would not have had the energy to do a second circle after that. US Shuttles burned a lot of energy in the circle and had only one shot at landing afterwards, but burned off a lot of remaining energy on final with the speed brakes and flaps, so there was still some there. They had enough energy entering the circle for two or three turns, as I recall, and this was the primary place they burned off extra energy prior to approach.
@@chrismaverick9828 Oooh! I was not aware. Thanks very much for a great explanation! Much appreciated! \m/
They had two jet engines for Landing and Flying that bird - in those white bulk at the end :) they even had a aviation prototype that could take off like a plane
It didn't actually go around, but it decided to change course while it still could. It landed in opposite direction on the same landing strip as it was supposed to. It's decision surprised the chase pilot and everybody else. Later analysis revealed it has chosen the optimal route for the conditions. In later flight he could go around, since it was planned to be fitted with two jet engines.
"...the heady days of Sputnik, and Yuri Gagarin.." Nice movie drop, Captain Ramius...
When you say at 9:21 that Buran is 20m shorter than the Space Shuttle, you compare two different things. The length of the entire Space Shuttle system is indeed about 20m longer than the Buran spacecraft, however, this includes the extarnal tank and the boosters. The orbiter itself is about the same dimension than the Buran orbiter (1m longer only).
What not many on both sides know and which they sometimes find uncomfortable was the degree of co-operation between the Russians and the US in their respective space programs. The Russians engines were better and more controllable, and the US was better at guidance systems. They swapped tech regularly. So it made sense that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were so similar.
Yup, the RD-180 from the Energia turned into the RD-170 on the Atlas V.
And there is obviously the ISS, with the russian-side core module Zvezda (DOS-8) being basically the core for the Mir II, which was developed from the core of the Mir (DOS-7), which was developed from the core of the Salyut stations (the last one being DOS-6 and already looking extremely familiar)
And then the Shuttle-Mir program.
And before that the Apollo-Soyuz program.
let's hope that peaceful cooperation continues in the future.
Its almost like physics can dictate the appearance of something
They made an exact replica of our b29 also!
Russians, initially, made 4 versions of our B-29. Those 4 appeared, with Eisenhower present, as we were retiring our own.
As an American, even I have to admit that the Soviets built a better shuttle than we did. Also, a friend of mine actually saw and photographed the OK-7M from the Buran Program when he visited Moscow back in February of 2018.
Not to mention ours was built by the lowest bidder.
yes, a friend taking pictures definitively makes it a better shuttle
Lol it was better?? Compare the usa shuttle from the 60s to something from the 80s. Humm
@@dwizzleusa4202 time to build a new shuttle together.
@9:22 "at 36.37 meters in length it was 20 meters shorter than the space shuttle" ???
Space shuttle orbiter length = 37.24 m (122.2 ft)
Buran orbiter length = 36.37 m (119.3 ft)
@9:31 "with a wingspan of 23.92 meters just over 10 meters less than the Nasa's vehicle" ???
Space shuttle orbiter wingspan = 23.79 m (78.1 ft)
Buran orbiter wingspan = 23.92 m (78.5 ft) (even bigger than the shuttle !!!)
Data taken from wikipedia.
They even had plans to add wings on the Energia side boosters and fly them back to the launch site.
The other advantage of the Buran, is that it had turbines built in with the intention of a wider window of reentry. The shuttle upon reentry was basically as a dead stick glider. The Buran was capable of more of a guided/powered flight, allowing it to land, well, everywhere.
😂
I always enjoy a good buran doc! Hell, any Soviet space program story is the proverbial “train wreck that you can’t look away from”.
Spaceplanes in sci-fi look like works of art.
Spaceplanes irl look like bricks with wings.
That moment when the airplane design to transport your spacecraft, long outlives the spacecraft it was designed to transport. We need a Megaprojects of the Mira
There is already a Megaprojects video on Mriya. What I would very much like to see is a Sideprojects video on the other plane that's been shown a couple of times during this video (12:05 for example). It's the VM-T "Atlant" (Atlas), an ad-hoc converted 3M strategic bomber that was used to carry Energiya parts (including the gigantic fuel tanks) and Buran itself all the way until An-225 was ready (which means for the most part of the Buran program).
The way VM-T flies with the payload strapped on its back being bigger than the plane itself shows just how impressive that plane is
@@abuseclaws7471 hmm, I know I've missed a few videos, can't believe I missed once as massive as that 🤔 I'll have to look for it for sure then. There's plenty of planes I'd love to see a Megaprojects, or even just a Sideprojects video on
I saw Buran as a kid! After its maiden flight, it was flown on top of the huge Antonov plane (Mrija) with one landing in Prague. We travelled with my father to see it. It was impressive and I am sad that space shuttles were discontinued.
Simon is the kind of guy you just wanna have a beer with and chat.
You'd never get a word in...
It was definitely a better design in having the main engines on Energia, that surely simplified and lightened Buran. If we had done that we'd have had a separate heavy lift capability independent of the shuttle, one that could even still be in use today.
Yeah my thoughts too as soon as I heard Buran was simpler(no major engines to service continually at high cost) and lighter it is clearly a winner, full automation back then and jet engines so landing is not totally passive in case of trouble and a bonus separate rocket program. It’s amazing. Plus the name Buran fires the imagination in a way space shuttle never could.
@@andygriffiths9916 Late but hope that with time you kind of picked up that a lot of what you mentioned, are false or the shuttle program also had those. The Shuttle also had a cargo variant that never went anywhere, NASA and the world also had that automation technology, the shuttles had it for their landings (STS-2 utilized it and it took place in 1981, buran only flew in 1988), also only the important stuff were manual, like chutes and stuff, because those it is actually important that there is no error in an automation system that causes them to deploy at any other time, the same way planes are automated but operating the landing gear, flaps and reverse thrusters are still manually operated due to concern about crew safety. Also I hope you know that there is no evidence of the buran containing jet engines for its orbital flights, the buran with engines were there for atmospheric testing, a similar mistake that can be construed would be looking at a space shuttle on the 747 and then believing that NASA intended to launch the shuttles from 747s.
Aerodynamics are funny thing: they work perfectly both in USA and SSSR.
Thats why things that fly through atmosphere looks alike.
And some espionage couldn't do no harm.
The Su-25 Frogfoot and the A-10's competitor, the YA-9, look very similar for that exact reason. Form follows function.
@@chrismaverick9828 Absolutely correct
In this case, the aerodynamics is exactly how we know it's a copy. The reason the wings are shaped like that on Shuttle is for a very specific military application. That application was launching into a polar orbit from Vandenberg AFB, deploy a payload, and land in one orbit. By the time you're back on the other side of the earth, you're way out in the pacific. The shape of the wings gives it enough cross range to make it back to California for a landing. The Soviet Union didn't have this issue and didn't need this shape. They could have optimized the shape. I'm sure Soviet engineer's superiors mandated to recreate the space shuttle's capabilities.
You can see the Buran prototype in the "Technikmuseum Speyer" in Germany
have been there.. one can be seen in Moscow as well ..have been there too.
I've been in the Buran ship in Speyer... the museum there is brilliant if you're a Transport geek! The Buran, the 747 jet and the German U-Boat were my favourites!!!
Yes he's finally covering the Buran! Been looking forward to this
Also solid shout out to For All Mankind, such an amazing show
Oh hi Beardy!
Nice to see the director of the soviet space program here.
@@johnmurphy5689 where else would I be? :P
Oh yeah, of course, thank him for another not propaganda episode, in the very beginning of which he voices some Facts just to keep you up-to-date and being knowledgeable.
"The heady days of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin..." a fitting homage to Captain Third Rank Marko Ramius of the Red Banner Northern Fleet.
I was fortune enough to have seen both Space Shuttle Discovery and the Buran. Fantastic engineering!
I remember that the Buran could do one thing the Shuttle couldn't: they performed unmanned test flights, while the Shuttle couldn't fly unmanned. Given the quality of Soviet manufacturing, it's a good thing it had that feature!
there were 2 Buran's :D You can visit the Museum Speyer in Germany where they have the other Buran with the jet engine's
(they wanted the Buran to be able to fly under it's own power with jet engine's but they ended up not going further with that)
The engines were meant to aid the landings approaches. The americans could only miss the airport once and try again once, before they'd have to bail out. These engines were meant to make it nearly as easy to land as a normal plane.
The engines were there for test purposes, never intended for space.
I didn’t know Germany had some!
@@RS-ls7mm - It was both - they fitted them for testing but a specially modified setup was to be installed to aid landing during normal operations. (Or rather that was the intention - at least at one stage)
@@JohnnyWednesday Seems the story has changed, not surprising given all the secrecy of the time. When I first read about it they were only for flight testing. Now it seems they had a whole program trying to make them survive in space.
Something which is also worth mentioning is that while the price tag for the Buran was huge, it also created the Enugia rocket which was in many ways the equivalent to the modern day SLS, some 30-40 years ahead of the Americans. It was at the time the second most powerful rocket ever built behind the Saturn V, and faaaar more capable than the shuttle was at launching dumb payloads to space.
They started with the basic design and made their own changes. Interestingly, the one that flew once did not have any crew or life support capability and was just a flight demonstrator. They built several including one fitted with jet engines for atmosphere testing (We launched ours un-powered off the back of a Boeing 747). They never did complete a fully capable version before the program was cancelled.
Why did they build it? Because they could not figure out why we made ours so large and assumed it must be for a military mission. In a way it was, but only to carry up and recover huge spy satellites.
In fact it really was designed for military use, the payload Bay is the exact size it is because that was the size of the US spy satellites. It just happened to be the perfect size for hubble because, well, hubble was a modification of the spy satellite design... the shuttle was also designed to be able to recover soviet satellites, it was a use they never used it for, but that was one of the design requirements. Scott Manley has a video on it somewhere
Like a James Bond movie...
@@static-audio Moonraker!
Early on, there were so many different design ideas and configurations for a reusable space plane and I bet several of them could've been developed, such as several lifting body shapes, but the USSR knew the Space Shuttle was an already proven design and did copy the main concept. Yes, they made improvements, but that's much faster, cheaper, and easier than doing it all from scratch. Let's not pretend that other greatest hits like the TU-144 or TU-160 would've come out looking like they did if designed in a vacuum. Soviet espionage was on top of the Concord and B-1 designs and no one can deny the TU-4 wasn't a carbon copy. Obviously China is all over that game.
@@Phrancis5 Yah, We had the X-20 and the Soviets had the BOR-4, which was loosely based on our lifting body experiments. But the US military forced NASA to build a huge shuttle and the soviets figured it must have some military weapon deliver use and decided they better make one too now and figure out what to do with it later.
Such a waste it was never put to use. They're so old now that it's probably cheaper to build a new Russian shuttle than refurbish an original airframe.
There is the shell of a Buran in Gorky Park in Moscow. I have been inside it, although it is over ten years ago, so it may have been removed now. I think it vas just like any other exhibit you may klimb into, if I remember it correctly.
I have been waiting for this video for a year! Didn’t disappoint! I wish Russia had used it as part of building the ISS. The refinements made to it were brilliant
Funny fact, U.K. authorities noted Russian spy’s had suspicious activities around BAE system at Filton runway, Bristol during the development of the Concordes tires.
So they let race car manufacturers use the runway for testing as well. They noticed that the Russians were actually collecting samples of the runway but later during the Tupolev development, their tires kept blowing up. Turned out that the Russian spy’s most likely got the race car tire samples instead of the Concorde 😂
They stole the B-29, the atom bomb, the Concordski, and the Space Shuttle
And the US government never steals Other counties resources, land, and tax revenue's? Both sides were and are equally guilty. One just has more power to control who here’s about it.
Concorde was not "stolen". In fact, engineers who designed Concorde and Tu-144 held 5 conferences sharing knowledge before the initial release. Concorde inherited Tu-144 fuel pumping from the wing to the tail at M>2.
The second version always comes out better. You get to add the things you want and corr3ct the things you don't. Remind me again, when did the shuttle first fly? Wasn't it like a decade before the Buran?
The Energia rocket was designed for other payloads besides the Buran and could have sent men to the moon.
Love the way Simon says: Thank you !!!
Several years ago I read an article accusing the Chinese of copying a US stealth jet fighter and in photos they look similar. The majority of the comments accused the Chinese of spying but a aviation engineer jumped in. The engineer explained that was only so many ways to physically build a stealth jet so similarities were inevitable. I think it the same with the Space Shuttle and the Buran.
hey Simon here is one for your bucket list : The Falkirk Wheel
Can honestly say I'd never heard of this before- glad I clicked on the video. Surprised no space billionaire has tried to buy it for themselves.
this is a better video, with some key details missed in this one: ruclips.net/video/XLOCQw5s9Uw/видео.html
It does have a private owner. He owns all three Soviet shuttles.
Simon, I love “For All Mankind!” So creative and well-written! I can’t believe it hasn’t gotten much acclaim with the Emmy people!
Simon, sorry, you mixed up the dimensions .
The Shuttle Orbiter Vehicle has a length of 37.4m (Buran: 36.7m) and a span of 23.8m (Buran: 23.9m)
So, the were pretty much the same size.
In case of the STACKED orbiter the Shuttle had been a little bit higher than Buran on Energija.
I recall reading Air&Space Technology magazine then and just before the Buran flight someone said, if they launch it they’ll never see it again. Must have been a real surprise after the flight. I kinda wish like the N-1 it had been successful because it drives us more when we feel under the gun.
I’ve seen the OK-GLI Testbed model at Speyer. Simon’s right, you walk around, look inside and you do start noticing the differences.
Please correct me. But even NASA engineers where impressed and some even commented that the Buran was better in everyway.
There's no rule that dictates that a copycat of something has to be lower quality. The buran was kinda badass but it was only badass because they saved billions by stealing the design leaving money to go to different systems upgrades
Buran is a clear copy of Space Shuttle with some tweaks that were implemented to accomodate Soviet space tech. And it wasnt the only tech Soviets stole from USA - there is atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, Tu-144, Tu-160 just to name a few.
Thank you for doing the Burian, you should also do the ITER nuclear fusion reactor. :3
OMG YES guys like his comment this video idea is good.
Would LOVE to see that.
No one:
Megaprojects: b'yuran
USSR: Can I copy you?
USA: Sure, but don't make it too obvious
No worries, we will make it better
The only time I've heard of the Buran is in the novel “Back to the Moon”, written by Homer Hickam (yes, the same man from the movie “October Sky”, where he’s portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal). In the novel, after the shuttle pilot is accidentally killed, another NASA astronaut hitches a ride in a Russian Soyuz, accompanied by a cosmonaut who was trained to pilot the Buran. The cosmonaut ends up landing the shuttle at the end of the story.
I wish it wasn’t destroyed and it was put into a museum. I’m sure a lot of people would have loved to see it
Loved your unbiased analysis!
It’s a shame that these didn’t really have more opportunities and were left sitting in isolated warehouses succumbing to ceiling collapsing on them
The first US space shuttle was the Enterprise. The Columbia was to replace the Challenger
Simon, the "Let them eat cake" is first attested in a book by Rosseau published in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was NINE.
Very interesting. I love the insights into the engineering differences between the shuttles.
I will keep saying it, you need one more channel. You could call it something along the lines of Soviet Works, or Soviet Projects, or something. You could do an entire channel to the Soviet Union, the various programs, projects, inventions, discoveries, etc. Considering how well the Cold War and Soviet videos tend to do, I cannot help but feel as though I am not alone in this desire. Considering you are Simon "I don't know how many channels I have" Whistler, you are the perfect man for the task at hand.
But if to be sincere, hell with you, my dear nation of monolinguistical Karens.
You only can bullshit about others nonetheless cannot do even a shit in others' languages. Only say a pair of swear words, or even one more and look like You Did accomplish Something.
And the example of Simon is one of the most showcasing. Three years of not even care. Such a cringe and lame. And why do I feel embarrassed due to his deeds?
for all mankind is a SICK show cant wait for next season
9:20 The US Shuttle was 37 meters long - not 20 meters longer than Buran. 80cm at best…
Thanks for pointing this out. They're virtually identical in size and shape. This is probably a good indicator that the Buran was to a high degree just a ripoff of the Space Shuttle Orbiter.
he only reads his script
Americans and metric units - the same old story over and over 😅😅😅 Based on the video, Buran would be 1/3 of the Shuttle - cool size for a single seat jet fighter :D Other than that it’s a good video as always.
@@marekandrejs1398 Simon should have his scripts checked by a European. His “empire” scriptwriters keep screwing up their metric units.
@@phamnuwen9442 the Buran was about as much of a ripoff of the Orbiter as our microwave ovens are a ripoff of the sun. Physics dictates certain things that are unavoidable. For instance, blunt nose versus pointy nose for re-entry.
Yes you did the soviet space shuttle! Another 1 I suggested a while ago I think on a previous video! May have been on the American 1
Crude but cool looking Copy like concordski, Exellent 👍👍👍👍
What "Concordski", kringeneiner? Was that a Polish word? Use English, please, dear monolinguist.
@@worldoftancraft No, it was nicknamed that for its Russian/soviet 🇷🇺🇨🇳 distinction, TU-144 was aptly nicknamed Concordski as a reference to it being a blatent copy of Concorde with less quality..
@worldoftancraft So, have you found any1 else to give any smart arse responses to this past 1 1/2 years?
Ja?
Nein?
Da?
Niet?
Si?
Non?
Oui? 😏
Well done USSR, this thing's capabilities are absolutely mind-boggling.
The jet engines were used so that pilots could take off like a regular aircraft for landing tests. Initially, the pilots flew all the way to wheelstop, but near the end of the tests, the pilots only brought the plane to altitude and the computers landed it hands off.
The Soviets did pretty good with their space program. After our shuttle went defunct we spent a fortune having the Russians take us to space.
The soviets has closed cycle kerosene/oxygen engines decades before the west did, look up "the engines that came in from the cold"
@@atomicskull6405 The problem is that the Russkis didn't even make toasters, washing machines, or microwaves, & the few cars they built were always over 20 years out of date. They focused on the technology that grabbed the headlines, not the technologies that are actually useful to people's lives
@@bigmedgeare from Poland my friend? Where ever Russia or Russian is mentioned, you need to add something bad… 😅😅😅😅
@@Igoraharonov sorry that the facts hurt your feelings 🤷🏻♂️
@@bigmedge no it’s cute, you good. I find it funny.
It reminds me the story about Rome Censor Cato. No matter what was the discussion about, always ended his speech with the call : “Carthago delenda est”
Recently found this channel, binge watching every thing. Absolute Gold Mine
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Buran looks similar to the shuttle for the same reason that a shark looks like a dolphin and both look like icthosaurs. The differences are mainly on the inside because form follows function. It is the internal systems that show the design heritage
Haha sure.
If I'm an engineer (I am) and I'm constantly pounded on by my superiors with impossible cost and schedule directives ... and someone hands me detailed plans of a successful design ... hells yeah my finished product is going to look like the other.
@@MrTexasDan the outer shape of the shuttle was aerodynamically the perfect one - the same reason a Boeing looks very similar to an Airbus.
All three of those animals use different methods of propulsion, but, ya, they do swim and stuff.
In what universe does a shark look like a dolphin? Not even in silhouette.
Holy crap, ones even a mammal!
I guess, they are both ... wet.
@@simonm1447 Boeing looks similar to Airbus because they've been building off each other for decades.
if the space shuttle can sing, obviously it would be called the Buran-Buran.
*facedesks*
I will hand you this upvote, do not let it go to your head lol
Not entirely sure I'd call the space shuttle career stellar. It had a much longer turnaround time and higher cost than projected. But more than that, it had a very high failure rate. The Russian Soyuz was far safer, despite popular opinion, and cheaper as well. The Space Shuttle did have an edge in carrying capacity, which is why it kept operating until the ISS was completed. But a basic rocket like the Soyuz is a far more efficient and safe way to create a space transport system. Which is probably why the USA is going to traditional rockets again as well - albeit with self-landing boosters if Elon Musk has anything to say about it.
I grew up watching the space shuttle so for me, that will always have a sort of magic to it. But yeah, from a program management perspective it didn't exactly achieve what it set out to do (make trips to space easier and cheaper)
It was originally meant to be much smaller, but the USAF payload requirements were something like triple what NASA had envisioned.
Yeah but you need a shuttle to deploy space telescopes like the Hubble. Soyuz won't cut it. Look at what a nightmare the james webb telescope has been
Just when I think I have found all of Simon's great work, a lovely surprise appears! Simon, I love your work and the geek in me thanks you! cheers!
As a space fanatic the Buran is one of the most infuriating what-ifs of history