Author Topic: Buran vs USA's space shuttle (Read 2192 times)

davidpt40 · « **Reply #75 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:26:32 PM »

The Russians failed miserably at landing on the moon. IIRC, they *crashed* 3 robotic landers onto the moon. One actually crashed while Apollo 11 was there.

As for the Buran, did it actually carry 120-130 tons on its one flight? If not, then that payload is THEORETICAL. Russians are notorious for exaggerating.

Suave · « **Reply #76 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:48:38 PM »

Our space monkeys would kick their space dogs tulips !

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #77 on:** January 14, 2003, 10:56:10 PM »

USA (my home)

USSR (our ideal enemy)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #78 on:** January 14, 2003, 11:04:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Deja,

The WW2 ACM sim I thought about designing and building was the best in the world.

I just never did it.

Lame...

I designed AND built the best WW2 ACM sim ever. I even tried it once, but then deleted it because I couldn't afford a CD-ROM to save it on and I had to free up space on my hard drive for SimAnt.

AKDejaVu

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #79 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:24:58 AM »

a blank cd is only worth a dollar or 30 cents;)

john9001 · « **Reply #80 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:37:23 AM »

""I designed AND built the best WW2 ACM sim ever. I even tried it once, but then deleted it because I couldn't afford a CD-ROM to save it on and I had to free up space on my hard drive for SimAnt.""

good one AK, i actualy started to code a race car sim, after about 2 -3 months work i found i could buy one for $20 , but of course mine would have been better

J_A_B · « **Reply #81 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:46:18 AM »

The F-15 is probably better than the F-22 for our current needs. It's cheaper than the F-22 to keep operational (this may change as the F-15's age) and it carries more ordnance. The F-22 was designed for a battle we may never have to fight.

J_A_B

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #82 on:** January 15, 2003, 12:57:55 AM »

Quote

Yupp, but don't you think the F-22 will prove to be the superior? If not ... why develop it?

The Buran doesn't look like the next generation space craft
and it won't be .
USA is probably coming with a new craft in the future wich make the buran look like old school.

New space craft will be cost effective and the space shuttle and buran ain't

further development of the buran would be waste of money.
Hey and the space shulte for now is further developed and already so much used , that it is first choice to get things in space why would we do that with the buran wich isn't full operational?

The Buran just looks like a copy of the space shutle wich could highly alitle bit better.

It probably is.

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #83 on:** January 15, 2003, 02:24:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The F-22 will be operational in 2005 (if they don't get more problems).

the condition of US economy would dictate the year of the operational service

NUKE · « **Reply #84 on:** January 15, 2003, 08:05:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Are you dim? Do you know how close to complete a spacecraft must be to actually fly in space? They hadn't installed the life-support yet, and the computers needed a few extra chips of RAM. They launched the thing into SPACE and it flew on its OWN.

The F-22 will be operational in 2005 (if they don't get more problems).

If you don't get my point by now, then yes you are dim.

Call me DIM I guess.

You claim the Buran "IS" superiour to the Space Shuttle, then try to use the F-22 v. F-15 as a comparison between the Space shuttle and Buran?

The Buran was an attempt at a copy of the space shuttle, right down to the ceramic tiles and piggy back rides on an airplane. The thing looks almost exactly like the space shuttle. Wow, the Russians really went out on a limb with that design concept.

You say the Buran "IS" superior to the Space shuttle? The space shuttles have years of service behind them and the lowely Buran has 2 unmanned orbits behind it. The reason the Buran was unmanned? No life support, only enough computer memory for 2 orbits, and no software to drive the instrument displays. Sounds superior to me.

NUKE · « **Reply #85 on:** January 15, 2003, 08:09:04 AM »

Oh yeah I forgot to mention:

I have an incomplete car in my back yard that I designed to exceed 200 miles an hour. So far I have done a test drive around my block ( that was 10 years ago) but it is superior to any Corvette on the road today.

Naso · « **Reply #86 on:** January 15, 2003, 08:55:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
it like saying they are (the russians) building toyota (toyota has a reputaion of being reliable) cars and we (usa) built planes like ferrari.

Nice pissing contest.

As usual our nationalistic US posters are very sensitive about their complete, total, overwhelming, absolute, indiscussed, superiority in every single aspect of the world.

In fact the world did'nt existed before the US, when God created the universe, FIRST created the USA, then the rest.
(there are voices that God copied from a US design, but no one confirmed this theory)

And US invented Kurt Tank!!!!!

Back to this thread pissing game, look at that quote above.

You are talking of reliability and low cost vs. technology and hi tech.

Ferrari it's STYLE more than anything else, and nor URSS neither USA have it