Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Incredible Pics Of The Russian Space Shuttle!  
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2925 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9209 times:

http://englishrussia.com/?p=1362

it looks very similar to the U.S. shuttle......


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
73 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9213 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter):
it looks very similar to the U.S. shuttle......

Quite so, yet the Buran had a bigger cargo hold and was capable of carrying a slightly larger payload. Also, slightly more advanced than the shuttle in the sense that its first and only flight was unmanned, using autopilot.


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9210 times:

Incredible when seeing the launch platform being powered by two desiel locomotives.


They still use them to take rockets to the launch pad. Well as "they" say- what ain't broke!


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 2):
They still use them to take rockets to the launch pad. Well as "they" say- what ain't broke!

So did Titan IV at Cape Canaveral. I'm not sure if Atlas V still does.


User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 838 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9135 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 1):
Also, slightly more advanced than the shuttle in the sense that its first and only flight was unmanned, using autopilot.

Hardly. The reason it was unmanned was that there was no life-support system on board and there was no software installed for the CRT displays:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html

IMO, that made it considerably less advanced than the US Shuttle.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 4):
Hardly. The reason it was unmanned was that there was no life-support system on board and there was no software installed for the CRT displays:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html

IMO, that made it considerably less advanced than the US Shuttle.

while the shuttle is only launched at extremely favourable weather conditions and requires a 10 km runway, the Buran was launched under conditions we could describe as "bad" , and landed with an autopilot on an only 4 km runway..

The russians launch when they say launch, I believe they don't even have a countdown.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5):
while the shuttle is only launched at extremely favourable weather conditions and requires a 10 km runway, the Buran was launched under conditions we could describe as "bad" , and landed with an autopilot on an only 4 km runway..


The Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center has a 15,000 foot (4.5 km) runway, not 10 km.

The U.S. Shuttle is fully capable of autolanding. Pilots are only required to deploy the air data probes, lower the landing gear, and pop the drag chute (irreversible actions NASA doesn't trust to a computer). These tasks would be computerized (with a hot wire system) for an emergency landing if a Shuttle were damaged in orbit and the crew took refuge on the Space Station. But pilots being pilots, they don't want computers flying their ship, so they have thwarted NASA's autolanding demonstrations in the past (it was scheduled for STS-52 in 1992.) Pilots usually take over control of the landing when the Shuttle drops below Mach 1.

Buran's thermal protection system didn't hold up well on its only flight and some underlying structures were dangerously weakened, which is why it never flew again. The TPS had to be beefed up for Buran 2 (which was largely finished but never flew.)

Buran's payload advantage was largely due to center-of-gravity constraints resulting from Buran not having 18,000 lbs. of Main Engines in its aft end where the U.S. Shuttle does. Payload bay size is essentially the same. The U.S. considers bringing the engines home for inspection and re-use to be a useful design feature.

The U.S. has learned from hard experience that launching into bad weather is stupid. Russian can continue to roll its dice it if wants to.

[Edited 2007-10-11 10:24:33]

User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
which is why it never flew again.

lol! I think it has more to do with the falling appart of the Soviet Union and funding cuts.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
The U.S. has learned from hard experience that launching into bad weather is stupid. Russian can continue to roll its dice it if wants to.

Russians have the best reliability rate with the Soyuz. They simply have a very good understanding of what they can do. They don't roll dices.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9020 times:

Quote:
Russians have the best reliability rate with the Soyuz. They simply have a very good understanding of what they can do. They don't roll dices.

Which is why they crammed three of their cosmonauts into a Voskhod capsule (designed for two) without pressure suits just to make a record. That wasn't a roll of the dice? I'd like to gamble with you.  stirthepot 



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

I read on youtube, that the Russian Buran shuttle, named Ptichka is said to be put into launch. Is this really true ?

read about that spaceshuttle here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Ptichka


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7):
lol! I think it has more to do with the falling appart of the Soviet Union and funding cuts.

The timetable doesn't match up with the fall of the USSR. Buran 1 flew in 1988. The USSR collapsed in 1991. Why do you suppose Buran 1 did not fly again in that three year interim? (Columbia flew three times in its first year.)

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7):
Russians have the best reliability rate with the Soyuz. They simply have a very good understanding of what they can do. They don't roll dices.

Their Space Shuttle Buran was generally similar to the U.S. Shuttle, including Thermal Protection System. There is a good reason the U.S. doesn't launch its Shuttle in the rain. Buran would share that weakness. Their Shuttle, like ours, was in no way an all-weather system. They rolled the dice on that one.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 9):
I read on youtube, that the Russian Buran shuttle, named Ptichka is said to be put into launch. Is this really true ?

No. Their Shuttle ("Buran") died in the early 1990s. The only thing left of Energiya/Buran are the Zenit ("Zenith") rockets that Energiya/Buran used as boosters. The Russians spent the last two or three years talking about a new manned spacecraft called Kliper ("Clipper") that was a bit like a mini-Shuttle. Kliper quietly died sometime in the last year.

[Edited 2007-10-11 13:09:56]

User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

I hate to be the KharmaSuck, but the last three photos are a product of PhotoShop. Great stuff, though!!!

User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

Yes, but there were several spaceshuttles built or planned to be built in the PROJECT named Buran. According to the Wikipedia, one of these spaceshuttles are the 95-97% complete " Ptichka ", property of Kazakhstan, at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, in the MIK Building.

If it's in good condition and placed in a hangar or museum, the Russians could start it up again... wild thought I know, but not impossible I think...


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 12):
If it's in good condition and placed in a hangar or museum, the Russians could start it up again... wild thought I know, but not impossible I think...

It needed Energiya to launch it. Energiya is dead, Russia has moved on to the Angara family as its next-generation launcher.

The Buran that flew in 1988 was destroyed in the 2002 hangar roof collapse. The second orbiter, which was close to being flightworthy in 1991-92, might still be salvagable, but after this much time and neglect, I doubt it. The Russian Shuttle is dead. It was always a response to the U.S. Shuttle, which they thought (incorrectly) was really a weapons system. By the time they found out otherwise, it was too far along to cancel, so they went ahead with it. But the problems with Buran's first flight and the long delay to modify the second (and third) Shuttles pushed the Buran program beyond the end of the USSR, and so the Shuttle program died.

Energiya might have been useful, but even the Soviet-era space program didn't have enough large payloads to justify it. Buran could do nothing that Soyuz/Almaz/Mir couldn't for much less cost. Since Russia had a flying, viable alternative, the Russian Shuttle died.


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8778 times:

The Soviets certainly are the best at copying US designs and trying to improve them. It has been proven time and time again.

I appreciate remarkable Russian technology and innovation when it isn't stolen.


User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8748 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 14):
The Soviets certainly are the best at copying US designs and trying to improve them. It has been proven time and time again.

I appreciate remarkable Russian technology and innovation when it isn't stolen.

Oh c'mon now! Similar designs will always come about when similar goals and objectives are laid out (or whatever that rationalization is that always comes up during these types of threads).  Yeah sure
Sarcasm aside, I agree with you. A LOT of Russian equipment looks suspiciously like American equipment. I think the whole B-29 thing speaks for itself. They found a way to cut corners and save costs so they did. And as a result, that mentality stayed with them. Is it wrong, not really. It makes them look kinda pathetic, but whatever floats their boat. And yes Russians have come up with their own great designs and blah blah blah. But thats not what we're talking about.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8748 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 15):
Is it wrong, not really.

If it was done in a free market environment it would be a violation of patents. Intellectual property isn't protected for no reason.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8752 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 14):
The Soviets certainly are the best at copying US designs and trying to improve them. It has been proven time and time again.



Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 15):
Oh c'mon now! Similar designs will always come about when similar goals and objectives are laid out (or whatever that rationalization is that always comes up during these types of threads).



Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 15):
A LOT of Russian equipment looks suspiciously like American equipment. I think the whole B-29 thing speaks for itself.

A lot?. Really?. The Su-25 looks similar to the A-10?. Or the Tu-95 looks similar to the B-52?. Hmm, didn't know that.
Ah, yes, they all have wings and a fuselage.
The only true copies the soviets made aside the Nene engine, was the Tu-4/B-29 and the AA-2/AIM-9B.


Please, care to point us to that "lots of copies" you speak of.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Big surprise...another thread where the conclusion is that Russia just copied everything  Yeah sure

User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8591 times:

Forgive my ignorance, but from looking at the pics of the assembled Energiya/Buran, are the four boosters attached to the main rocket solid or liquid fueled?

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8593 times:

Buran was an unmitigated disaster for the Soviet space programme.
It was, quite literally, built in error.

We know how the original concept of NASA's Shuttle, was distorted to meet the needs of the DoD, not that they had a choice if they wanted a Shuttle, and if they wanted a manned space programme after 1975, they had to have a Shuttle.
However, this military need was about deploying and servicing large spy satellites, in time, really even before the loss of Challenger , this idea had faded.
The Shuttle did fly some military related missions, but never from the intended launch facility at Vandenburg, CA.

The construction of the Shuttle launch facilities at Vandenburg, however convinced the Kremlin that the NASA Shuttle could take off from Vandenburg and release some king of nuclear weapon soon after reaching orbit, for a decapitation attack on the Kremlin!
Nonsense of course, but they believed it.
One reason they did, was because they had worked out for themselves that the touted figures for NASA Shuttle, in launch costs, frequency of use, were BS.

The Soviets might have been Communist, but they could count, they simply could not figure that the agency who had got to the Moon, could replace that still new Apollo/Saturn capability-with so much more growth potential, with such a dubious enterprise as the Shuttle.
They had junked N-1 and with it, any Moon programme, but that had not worked so far, would take a long time to work, had little military spin offs.

So billions of roubles were spent on a Soviet Shuttle counterpart, it's unclear whether a direct copy of this imagined hostile role for the NASA Shuttle, got anywhere near being even designed for the Soviet counterparts.
But inertia, the often chaotic nature of Soviet planning, meant what became Buran ploughed on, soaking up money and resources.

All the while, those who had put the USSR well in the lead in orbital stations, long endurance spaceflight, happily carried on, with no sign of a Buran in Thier planning.
Later, when it became clear that they had been madly wrong about the NASA Shuttle, there might have between an attempt to shoehorn Buran into the Mir/planned Mir replacement programmes, but it was too late, the USSR was coming apart.

NASA of course, hopefully, are now on track to do what they should have been allowed to do 35 years ago, develop further the basic ideas behind Apollo/Saturn, but the passage of time since has meant a clean sheet approach.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8591 times:

Quoting Legs (Reply 19):
Forgive my ignorance, but from looking at the pics of the assembled Energiya/Buran, are the four boosters attached to the main rocket solid or liquid fueled?

Liquid (Liquid Oxygen / Kerosene). They are today the first stage of the Zenit rocket used by the SeaLaunch consortium.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8592 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
So billions of roubles were spent on a Soviet Shuttle counterpart, it's unclear whether a direct copy of this imagined hostile role for the NASA Shuttle, got anywhere near being even designed for the Soviet counterparts.

There is a little more to it. Buran was nothing but payload on an Energiya launcher (compared to the US Orbiter which is an integral part of the Shuttle launch vehicle.) And the Soviet military wanted Energiya's payload capability to counter the anticipated threat from the then-going-strong U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars").

The first Energiya launch carried a prototype orbital battleship called Polyus. Polyus failed to reach orbit (it has been conjectured that its failure was deliberate to avoid making clear to the world that the USSR was blatantly militarizing space at a time when they were casting themselves as "peace-loving, anti-Star Wars people.") So the military happily supported the Buran program, giving a "peaceful" fig leaf for the military Energiya project, which had no other realistic uses except to launch space laser weapons and the like.


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8486 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 18):
Big surprise...another thread where the conclusion is that Russia just copied everything

No. Just the Bear, shuttle, Tu144, AN124, and a few others.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8485 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):
A lot?. Really?. The Su-25 looks similar to the A-10?.

No, it looks similar to the Northrop YA-9, which lost to the YA-10 in the A-X competition. Not enough to really be considered a copy though.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 18):
Big surprise...another thread where the conclusion is that Russia just copied everything

It would REALLY help the Russian cause if, just once, their versions of similar aircraft came first. Even Tu-144 was arguably behind Concorde, even if it did fly first.

In the case of Buran, it is damned difficult to see how Russia followed the exact same train-wreck of decision making, budget cuts and political wheeling and dealing that created the Columbia-class Shuttle in the U.S. in order to arrive at the almost identical Buran series a decade later. That calamity just couldn't have happened twice on opposite sides of the world. Further Buran's payload bay of 15x60 feet was identical to that of the Columbia-class, but the Columbia-class size was dictated by U.S. spy satellite sizes and the need to launch Space Station modules... two influences the USSR did not share (they launched smaller, more frequent spy satellites compared to the US large, infrequent ones and didn't need Buran to launch Space Station modules since they had Energiya.) So why did Buran so closely approximate the U.S. Shuttle?


25 Fumanchewd : Not to mention that the Russians acquired plans and diagrams of the Concorde via espionage. A Russian agent was caught with plans and there were cert
26 GDB : The whole 'spying on Concorde' thing is over-emphasied, yes they did, but once French intelligence found out, they allowed some doctored info to be su
27 N74jw : One example would be the Mig-25 / F-15 designs. You have to admit, they look a great deal alike. The Americans created a better wing, and cockpit lay
28 GDB : But, Mig-25 and F-15 had different roles. Mig-25, with it's emphasis on speed and ceiling to the exclusion of nearly everything else, was a counter to
29 Thorny : But the MiG-25 looks even more like a North American A-5 Vigilante than the F-15 looks like a MiG-25... Put a second vertical stab on an A-5 and pres
30 Post contains images Cloudy : I believed them at the time. I have an excuse of course, I was in early grade school . Seriously, I don't think NASA officials realize just how many
31 Zvocio79 : Why not copy what's good, it doesn't necesarily need to be a US design.....in any event, how could you design an space shuttle or an aircraft that wo
32 Post contains images Sovietjet : Bear?!!? Explain to me what the Bear copied. I'm really curious to see the Western "original" of it. And don't say B-29, you very well know that thos
33 GDB : Cloudy, I don't really blame NASA for bigging up the Shuttle, they had no choice really, given the unreasonable demands, both in terms of Pentagon int
34 FlyUSCG : I didn't say that. It was Fumanchewd
35 Post contains images Thorny : Actually, that would be "copied" from the YF-17, not the F-16. As I said, it would sure help the Soviet/Russian cause if they arrived at one of these
36 Thorben : Yes, it looks very similar. However, the Buran was not really a success.
37 Post contains links and images Eksath : ...AND it is rotting away in a cold dark dilipated corner of the world while OV-103,104,105 are on approx. the 118th flight. I think it is a moot poi
38 Post contains links Fumanchewd : Ok, how about the Bull? It has been documented that Russia copied the design. The Bull lead to the Bear. 2+2=4 Kevin Myers: Put the cold war back on
39 Tu114 : Have you actually ever looked at a photo of a Tu95? I would argue more thoroughly, but I really haven't the energy.
40 A342 : LOL! First of all, the Bear has a range of 10,000 miles if it's empty. Carrying a meaningful payload, it drops to about 7500 miles. And there's even
41 Post contains images SLCPilot : I have been on a search for many years now. It's buried in my memory, and I've probably even asked about it in this forum before, but.... Does anybody
42 Post contains links Fumanchewd : Time or evidence? Provide the evidence and I will concede the point. Otherwise don't even bother posting if you don't show evidence. So it must be wr
43 KBFIspotter : While the Tu-95 is not a direct copy of the B-29 (Tu-4), the original concept of the aircraft was based on the B-29. When one looks at the Bear, you c
44 Sovietjet : I never said the Tu-4 wasn't a copy of the B-29. The Tu-95 uses the same general alyout, but that's about it. They are completely different aircraft.
45 StealthZ : This whole B29/TU-4 evolution into the TU-95 is quite interesting and probably deserving of it's own thread. If we accept that the TU-4 was a rivet fo
46 Wvsuperhornet : The F-15 was built as to a response to build something better than the MIG-25 The US thought the mig-25 had more capabilities than it did. The 2 airc
47 Sovietjet : Completely agree with you StealthZ, in fact the UUSR did try to make a bomber with turbojets...it was the Myasischev 3M/M-4 of which about 120 were ma
48 StealthZ : Hell SovietJet, now you have opened up a whole new can of worms with the B-1/TU-160, XB-70/Sukhoi T-4 thing!! This could go on forever and surely doe
49 Fumanchewd : It involves large elements of copied design. That's all I meant. The 727 and the Trident? The B17 and the Lancaster? The B17 and the Lancaster were n
50 Post contains images A342 : How many different way were there to build a metal fuselage with a given cross-section at that time? Assuming the Tu-4 and Tu-95 have the same fusela
51 Pelican : You should not forget that the US also used or "copied" a lot of foreign design ideas at the beginning of the jet age... pelican
52 KBFIspotter : Very true... The X-5 is almost a carbon copy of the Messerschmitt P.1101. The main difference is that the X-5 had in-flight variable sweep wings, whi
53 EMBQA : What shocks me is that there is this much excitement about the Buran design which is 25+ years old and has not left the ground in what....?? over 10 y
54 Post contains links and images F27Friendship : in the early days everyone gambled problems didn;t suddenly rise up in 1991. In 1988 things were going rather difficult already right.. The Soyuz was
55 Post contains links RIXrat : Here is some interesting information on the B29 and the Soviet copy of it. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1852
56 StealthZ : I know very well where those concepts came from, if you read my post correctly I think I make it clear that this "technology transfer" was not limite
57 SCAT15F : This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For starters, the US got most of its advanced aerospace technology from captured Germans, and it w
58 Thorny : That's a little strong. It wasn't in technology that the US trailed the USSR, it was in implementation. The U.S. suffered in the early space age beca
59 Post contains links Eksath : ...and where did the German's get their ideas from? Robert Goddard " the father of modern rocketery" was an American! http://www.nasa.gov/centers/god
60 Prebennorholm : No, the Su-25 is a near carbon copy of the Northrop YA-9 which competed against the A-10, and lost. The Tu-95 is a near carbon copy of the B-52 proje
61 Post contains links and images OlegShv : Educate yourself a little bit about Tsiolkovsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky May be the US just copied it?
62 Wvsuperhornet : Thats not totally true. The US has the F-86 and North American FJ Fury drawn up and being tested before the END of WWII. They were never massed produ
63 Scbriml : While singing the praises of the shuttle, let's not turn a blind eye to the 40% vehicle failure rate and the lost lives.
64 Thorny : Two of the five "vehicles" were lost, but neither loss was due to the vehicle itself. STS-51L was due to Solid Rocket Booster failure (after launch i
65 Post contains images Sovietjet : What? They look nothing alike, even if the Tu-95 had turbojets. Your definition of copy is quite broad IMHO. Ok, using that judgement so is the F-86
66 Scbriml : The reasons are pretty much irrelevant, since you cannot separate the shuttle from the whole system. The fact remains, 40% of active shuttles have be
67 Thorny : It is irrelevant, because losing 40% of your vehicles does not equal losing 40% of the payloads it carried or 40% of the crews. But Shuttle cannot be
68 Scbriml : Absolutely, but losing 40% of the vehicles in a reusable system is a very significant proportion. Shuttle crews have my utmost admiration. There isn'
69 Post contains links StealthZ : If you put aside your admirable loyalty to the dominance of Soviet original thought and take a glance at this image of an early B-52 concept http://w
70 Sovietjet : I do see similarities, you are right. But there is a difference between similarities and outright copying. I'm not saying all Russian planes have 100%
71 Eksath : With such a small number of orbiter, the mere loss of one skews the statistics hence it is more appropriate and stastically sound to look at mission
72 Post contains links and images Acheron : I think you should read better what it says there. The Tu-95 was built around the ENGINES of the That's just bollocks, they don't look alike other tha
73 F27Friendship : rather dumb example. While developing great new technologies, Goddard kept his work so secret, that his findings were only learnt after his dead, whe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Incredible Pics Of The Russian Space Shuttle!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Best Space Shuttle? posted Sat Mar 18 2006 04:16:15 by GREATANSETT
Russian Space Shuttle Article (with Video) posted Wed Oct 26 2005 20:36:21 by Alberchico
Pictures Of The Space Shuttle Reentry? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 11:16:13 by Keta
Eventual Fate Of The Shuttle Carrier 747 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 09:30:42 by RobertS975
STS-135: Final Space Shuttle Touchdown 'The End' posted Thu Jul 21 2011 03:22:52 by ZKNCL
Bring The Space Shuttle To NYC? posted Tue Mar 23 2010 06:42:00 by jfklganyc
Fire On The Space Shuttle? posted Sun Feb 21 2010 19:25:21 by liedetectors
Space Shuttle Journey To The Launchpad posted Thu Feb 18 2010 15:52:19 by alasdair1982
What Is The Deal With The Space Shuttle? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 21:01:20 by BR715-A1-30
Landing The Space Shuttle posted Thu Jun 14 2007 00:37:56 by Trinxat

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format