Buran transport from 1980's
Discussion
Found this while looking around the retro site(from the argos catalogue thread in the lounge). It features some photos of russia's orbiter being transported on an an-225:
http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/2011/10/ussr-shut...
http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/2011/10/ussr-shut...
Interesting to reflect how the USSR always copied the West and never quite made it.
Concordski:
Lunar module:
Space shuttle (as above)
Copying/stealing technology to try to win the race is doomed to failure because the opponent has to build it first!
NB While looking for a photo of the module I found this forum with some retard called 'piratenews' denying the moonlandings - just to get Eric going
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=...
Concordski:
Lunar module:
Space shuttle (as above)
Copying/stealing technology to try to win the race is doomed to failure because the opponent has to build it first!
NB While looking for a photo of the module I found this forum with some retard called 'piratenews' denying the moonlandings - just to get Eric going
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=...I don't bother reading such lunatic (no pun intended) writing anymore. It's moronic beyond comprehension.
The Buran was actually more advanced in some ways than the Space Shuttle, mainly in the fact that it could fly (and did) completely unmanned. However, by 1989/90 the Russians didn't have the resources anymore to properly develop it.
More interesting to me was their heavy lift launcher, Energia, which would have been very useful for all sorts of missions.
The Buran was actually more advanced in some ways than the Space Shuttle, mainly in the fact that it could fly (and did) completely unmanned. However, by 1989/90 the Russians didn't have the resources anymore to properly develop it.
More interesting to me was their heavy lift launcher, Energia, which would have been very useful for all sorts of missions.
Simpo Two said:
Interesting to reflect how the USSR always copied the West and never quite made it.
Concordski:
Lunar module:
Space shuttle (as above)
Copying/stealing technology to try to win the race is doomed to failure because the opponent has to build it first!
NB While looking for a photo of the module I found this forum with some retard called 'piratenews' denying the moonlandings - just to get Eric goinghttp://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=...
I'm sick and tired of you overly prideful Brits (or Americans, as far as the moon landing) pissing on the Russians. Perhaps you learn a different version of history there, but this is fact:Concordski:
Lunar module:
Space shuttle (as above)
Copying/stealing technology to try to win the race is doomed to failure because the opponent has to build it first!
NB While looking for a photo of the module I found this forum with some retard called 'piratenews' denying the moonlandings - just to get Eric going
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=..."The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2."
Now you can cry foul and make foolish statements about stolen plans or otherwise, but the Soviet Union had incredibly smart engineers who were more than capable of holding their own against any of the western powers. The moon landing is pretty much the only challenge that the Soviets "lost," but they conquered everything else in their path. In fact, an overly complicated design and internal strife in the program are likely the only two things that prevented a successful moon shot, not a lack of technology or incredibly talented people to harness it.
tog said:
Eric Mc said:
The Buran was actually more advanced in some ways than the Space Shuttle, mainly in the fact that it could fly (and did) completely unmanned.
I thought the first Shuttle test flights were also unmanned?I am pretty sure that will never happen again.
AUDIHenry said:
I'm sick and tired of you overly prideful Brits (or Americans, as far as the moon landing) pissing on the Russians. Perhaps you learn a different version of history there, but this is fact:
"The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2."
Now you can cry foul and make foolish statements about stolen plans or otherwise, but the Soviet Union had incredibly smart engineers who were more than capable of holding their own against any of the western powers. The moon landing is pretty much the only challenge that the Soviets "lost," but they conquered everything else in their path. In fact, an overly complicated design and internal strife in the program are likely the only two things that prevented a successful moon shot, not a lack of technology or incredibly talented people to harness it.
You'll never catch me doing that."The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2."
Now you can cry foul and make foolish statements about stolen plans or otherwise, but the Soviet Union had incredibly smart engineers who were more than capable of holding their own against any of the western powers. The moon landing is pretty much the only challenge that the Soviets "lost," but they conquered everything else in their path. In fact, an overly complicated design and internal strife in the program are likely the only two things that prevented a successful moon shot, not a lack of technology or incredibly talented people to harness it.
The Russian space programme relied very little on copying other countries' efforts.
They relied very much on their own in house design teams and were very reluctant to trust what foreign programmes were doing. Even when they had access to German technicians in the late 1940s and early 1950s, they were inclined to use them as "checkers" of Russian engineering ideas and principles.
The Tu144 is a different matter. It really did rely on subterfuge - with the British and French even feeding false data to the "spies", sending the Russian programme in the wrong direction at times.
The fact that the prototype Tu-144 was almost an entirely different aircraft to the production model (there were massive differences in the basic design) shows that they were floundering around a bit with their SST programme. Also, the fact that it never properly entered revenue service with Aeroflot speaks volumes.
AUDIHenry said:
I'm sick and tired of you overly prideful Brits
What pride? We have nothing to offer the world anymore, we gave/threw it all away. We are not allowed pride any more, the EU has banned it.I was in fact championing American technology and I normally stand up for Americans and give them the benefit of the doubt, as anti-Americanism is sadly popular over here since the Blair years. Many 'Brits' think all Yanks are stupid and have sex with their cousins.
Anyway, there is a first time for everything and you are the first American I don't like. The exception to the rule. Well done.
ETA: Seems you have a bit of a problem with the English www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=10... If you don't like it, go and play on an American forum. Or maybe a Russian one, as they are much better of course.
Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 15th October 14:04
AUDIHenry said:
I'm sick and tired of you overly prideful Brits (or Americans, as far as the moon landing) pissing on the Russians. Perhaps you learn a different version of history there, but this is fact:
"The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2."
Now you can cry foul and make foolish statements about stolen plans or otherwise, but the Soviet Union had incredibly smart engineers who were more than capable of holding their own against any of the western powers. The moon landing is pretty much the only challenge that the Soviets "lost," but they conquered everything else in their path. In fact, an overly complicated design and internal strife in the program are likely the only two things that prevented a successful moon shot, not a lack of technology or incredibly talented people to harness it.
You really don't know anything about the Concorde programme do you. What you do know, however, is how to p"The prototype first flew on 31 December 1968 near Moscow, two months before the first flight of the Concorde. The Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 June 1969, and on 15 July 1969 and became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2."
Now you can cry foul and make foolish statements about stolen plans or otherwise, but the Soviet Union had incredibly smart engineers who were more than capable of holding their own against any of the western powers. The moon landing is pretty much the only challenge that the Soviets "lost," but they conquered everything else in their path. In fact, an overly complicated design and internal strife in the program are likely the only two things that prevented a successful moon shot, not a lack of technology or incredibly talented people to harness it.
s off a whole community of people. You must understand, I'm not asking you a question there, I'm telling you. Go away, read books on the development of Concorde, then come back and apologise.
Eric Mc said:
You'll never catch me doing that.
The Russian space programme relied very little on copying other countries' efforts.
They relied very much on their own in house design teams and were very reluctant to trust what foreign programmes were doing. Even when they had access to German technicians in the late 1940s and early 1950s, they were inclined to use them as "checkers" of Russian engineering ideas and principles.
The Tu144 is a different matter. It really did rely on subterfuge - with the British and French even feeding false data to the "spies", sending the Russian programme in the wrong direction at times.
The fact that the prototype Tu-144 was almost an entirely different aircraft to the production model (there were massive differences in the basic design) shows that they were floundering around a bit with their SST programme. Also, the fact that it never properly entered revenue service with Aeroflot speaks volumes.
Stalin knew how to build an atomic bomb before his scientists did via the espionage activities of Claus Fuchs but as you say he made them discover how for themselves before checking their work to the stolen data. Partly as you say out of mis-trust but also so that the scientists really had to learn about their respective fields.The Russian space programme relied very little on copying other countries' efforts.
They relied very much on their own in house design teams and were very reluctant to trust what foreign programmes were doing. Even when they had access to German technicians in the late 1940s and early 1950s, they were inclined to use them as "checkers" of Russian engineering ideas and principles.
The Tu144 is a different matter. It really did rely on subterfuge - with the British and French even feeding false data to the "spies", sending the Russian programme in the wrong direction at times.
The fact that the prototype Tu-144 was almost an entirely different aircraft to the production model (there were massive differences in the basic design) shows that they were floundering around a bit with their SST programme. Also, the fact that it never properly entered revenue service with Aeroflot speaks volumes.
AUDIHenry said:
I'm sick and tired of you overly prideful Brits (or Americans, as far as the moon landing) pissing on the Russians. Perhaps you learn a different version of history there, but this is fact:
Speaking as someone with just a passing interest and very little knowledge of this, could you tell me please; was it pure coincidence that Concorde and the TU144 had more than a superficial likeness? Or did one lot of designers copy the other? And if so, who copied who? 7mike said:
Speaking as someone with just a passing interest and very little knowledge of this, could you tell me please; was it pure coincidence that Concorde and the TU144 had more than a superficial likeness? Or did one lot of designers copy the other? And if so, who copied who?
On the whole, The Tu-144 was quite a bit different to Concorde. The wing shape was a double delta, rather than an ogival form. The wing also lacked the complex leading edge shapes of Concorde as the Russians had not fully understood how Concorde's wing actually worked - especially in the sub-sonic and low speed regime. The Tu-144 used turbofans. Concorde used turbojets.As I mentioned earlier, the prototype Tu-144 was so woefully inadequate as the bais for a practical airliner, it had to be completely redesigned - almost from sratch.
Look at the prototype Tu-144 and then look at the later development and service versions and they are almost like two copmpletely different aircraft.
Not sure the Yanks did take all the glory. The Shuttle, in my opinion, more or less nobbled the US manned programme and has efectively left it dead in the water. Maybe Russians saw that, in reality, a winged spaceplane was actually a bit of a dead end and they were happy to pull the plug on theirs.
In the years after Buran was cancelled, the Russians perservered with their Soyuz spacecraft and the Mir space station - which has helped a lot in the ISS project. And, at the moment, the Soyuz is now the only way of geting people to and from the ISS.
Who's going to have the glory now?
In the years after Buran was cancelled, the Russians perservered with their Soyuz spacecraft and the Mir space station - which has helped a lot in the ISS project. And, at the moment, the Soyuz is now the only way of geting people to and from the ISS.
Who's going to have the glory now?
Eric Mc said:
Not sure the Yanks did take all the glory. The Shuttle, in my opinion, more or less nobbled the US manned programme and has efectively left it dead in the water. Maybe Russians saw that, in reality, a winged spaceplane was actually a bit of a dead end and they were happy to pull the plug on theirs.
In the years after Buran was cancelled, the Russians perservered with their Soyuz spacecraft and the Mir space station - which has helped a lot in the ISS project. And, at the moment, the Soyuz is now the only way of geting people to and from the ISS.
Who's going to have the glory now?
What I was saying was that the yanks have had the limelight with the shuttle programme without competition, Buran would have been a direct competitor for the shuttle, nobody else did it therefore in terms of reusable space travel the yanks were on their own.In the years after Buran was cancelled, the Russians perservered with their Soyuz spacecraft and the Mir space station - which has helped a lot in the ISS project. And, at the moment, the Soyuz is now the only way of geting people to and from the ISS.
Who's going to have the glory now?
It's a shame really, if Buran had been successful then the last 20 years of manned / reusable space exploration may have been more exciting.
Eric Mc said:
And, at the moment, the Soyuz is now the only way of geting people to and from the ISS.
Who's going to have the glory now?
I was going to say 'the tortoise', but just going up to the ISS and back isn't going to capture any glory. No doubt if you asked 100 random passers-by if they knew what 'ISS' stood for, few would know. Great achievement though it is, it's strangely absent from the news.Who's going to have the glory now?
If it's glory in the eyes of the public you're after, it has to be the Moon or Mars. As the human race, what DO we want to do and why?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff