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.
Which Russian Cargo plane is bigger
- Thread starter B-17engineer
- Start date
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.
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
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 artical had quotes from American scientist and aviation officials from that time.
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.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Trust the internet. I like that one.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
NASA favoured an air-launched vehicle but the Space Shuttle was favoured because it was big and expensive and secured jobs!
The Soviets would have also known that an air-launched vehicle would also be superior but they copied it anyway.
Air launched X-15 style if you were wondering.
The Soviets would have also known that an air-launched vehicle would also be superior but they copied it anyway.
Air launched X-15 style if you were wondering.
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.
As Matt pointed out it is all about "You have it, so do I".
The Russians are not the only ones guilty of it. Everyone during the Cold War: USA, Russia, England, NATO, Warsaw Pact. Everyone...
Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
Nor do I but particulary here it's NOT a Soviet articels Adler! I already told you they're written in 2000ies using open archives data.
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!
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 :
WHat you see on the internet site is just a compilation from some of them. Look at the literature used on this site:
âÉÂÌÉÏÇÒÁÆÉÑ
solid enough I guess? THAT's what you need for a cerious research! Most of the sources are already scanned and clickable , so take your time while using an automatic translator and start some serious research, if you wish. there're TONS and TONS of information.
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.
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:
"исключить возможную техническую и военную внезапность, связанную с появлением у потенциального противника многоразовой транспортной космической системы "Space Shuttle" - принципиально нового технического средства доставки на околоземные орбиты и возвращения на Землю значительных масс полезных грузов"."
it's the only part of the document where the Space Shuttle is mentioned.
Buran in Tushino, Moscow, picture made several days ago, 56K warning:
ru_aviation: Ð'уран в Тушино
Matt308
Glock Perfection
.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.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Phew, what a discussion.
One thing I must say is that the Buran was the first to make a Automated flight into space and back without a crew. The tiles is also a bit better than the US one, but yes the Soviets did copy the US space shuttle, but it does have it's differences from the US space shuttle.
The Soviet Union did copy a sh!t load of things from the rest of the world. Look at the Copy's of the Me-163, Me-262 and the B-29 bomber just to use some examples.
One thing I must say is that the Buran was the first to make a Automated flight into space and back without a crew. The tiles is also a bit better than the US one, but yes the Soviets did copy the US space shuttle, but it does have it's differences from the US space shuttle.
The Soviet Union did copy a sh!t load of things from the rest of the world. Look at the Copy's of the Me-163, Me-262 and the B-29 bomber just to use some examples.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
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.
Henk
Master Sergeant
I agree with you.
Exactly.
Henk
Master Sergeant
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.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Solo, go back to page 1, my friend. The original question of which was bigger An-124 vs An-225 was answered.
So what "info" do you want to know?
yardbird78
Airman
The biggest difference between the US Space Shuttle and the Russian Buran is that the Space Shuttle works. The Buran doesn't. The USSR stopped funding the Buran because they knew it was a dead end project.
Darwin, O.F.
Darwin, O.F.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I don't recall that Buran was a technical failure. Rather is was a development for which there was no clear purpose other than political expediency. Too much cost too little benefit.
Thank you for info. This is what I want to know.
P.S. Don't worry Matt my question was answered.(so far...)
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Lucky me... 
Henk
Master Sergeant
Thank you for info. This is what I want to know.
P.S. Don't worry Matt my question was answered.(so far...)
Pleasure mate.
The Buran did work, but like Matt said it was just something the Soviets wanted to show off to the world and had no purpose at all, just a lot of money wasted on nothing.
