Just like you, we have posted info from our side of the world that says differently. You consider it propoganda, we consider your info propoganda. It is a dead issue.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Gents, I do suggest we'll close our discussion regarding alleged Soviet copying of Buran and some other planes by now unless you'll come with some serious arguments.
Just like you, we have posted info from our side of the world that says differently. You consider it propoganda, we consider your info propoganda. It is a dead issue.
negative, I didn't say a NY Times article from 1988 is a propaganda. It's only a incompetent article from some mass media which lacks both of any useful information and comptence. No way a historical research could be done with the help of some newspaper article even from such solid newspaper like NY Times.
Now on the other side you've a internet site with a compilation of some latest researches done in Russia on that issue, updated , very detailed ond very informative - and you call it a propaganda, probably without translating a word. How's that Adler? Only because it was written by some Russian autors? It's kind of a strange approach..
The Soviets would have also known that an air-launched vehicle would also be superior but they copied it anyway.
As for the Soviet articals. I happen to be very skeptical about anything from the Soviets during that time. Sorry but I dont take a lot of their stuff with a grain of salt.
there're some suggestions and nothing more. And as we see, they couldn't hit even a 50 percent quote! No history of development, no design description, no historical background, no nothing. That's NOT a research!The artical had quotes from American scientist and aviation officials from that time.
they're are NOT internet articles - they were written in some Russian science magazines like Aviacija i Kosmonavtika etc and in some books, in that one for example :Trust the internet. I like that one.
exactly , no way you can put 200 tons or even 100 tons into orbit from an air launch. Not with today's technology I mean, and sure not with the 70ies technology.NASA favoured an air-launched vehicle but the Space Shuttle was favoured because it was big and expensive and secured jobs!
Yes, but the Ministry of Defence never spoked about a copying of the Shuttle unlike Stalins' order to copy the Tu-4. Here's the quote from the requirements specification from 1973:Exactly and Russian's who worked on the project even stated that they did not prefer the Space Shuttle idea, however the military pushed for it to stay on parity with the United States.
.The Buran was a marvelous piece of engineering just like the Space Shuttle , developed for the same mission profile ,what dictated the similarity in the aerodynamic shape but with completely different design.The first variant of the Buran - OS-120 ,
developed in the 1975 was indeed a complete copy of the Space Shuttle - similar engine and booster design , similar launch concept etc.
Agreed Henk. Nobody ever argued that it was a one-to-one copy like the Tu-4. The Tu-4/B-29 example was only used to support the premise that copies were not beyond Russian engineering. But the Buran was a blatant copy nonetheless. Arguments otherwise are superfluous.
Agreed Henk. Nobody ever argued that it was a one-to-one copy like the Tu-4. The Tu-4/B-29 example was only used to support the premise that copies were not beyond Russian engineering. But the Buran was a blatant copy nonetheless. Arguments otherwise are superfluous.
Are we talking about An-225 or The Buran?
(it seem that I get more info of Buran than An-225)
He he he... The An-225 was designed to piggy back the Buran like NASA's B-747. So they go can actually go under the same topic. Antonov plan to build some more An-225 in the future.
Thank you for info. This is what I want to know.
P.S. Don't worry Matt my question was answered.(so far...)