The Forgotten Soviet Space Plane 

Please start RU-vid channel

Development. On June 4, 1974, Rockwell began construction on the first orbiter, OV-101, which would later be named Enterprise.

Yes - It’s not the most robust looking landing gear, but I noticed the same thing.

I’ll take a…. Never mind.

@@andypearce5537 ….”common courtesy.”

The Russki Reach-Around. 😉

The Russians don't have the money for storage and preservation. And think it humiliating to show their failures.

Russia is so big, truly, they have empty hangars everywhere.

Yeah put it In the desert...

If the Buran shuttle vehicle is any indication, no. Unfortunate.

The Soviets were determined and had MORE of the right stuff than anyone else. And they were the best at big explosions ......

Yes, but by now we all realize that the fast-talking mush mouth narrator isn't going to stop to check facts. He's in his own little world.

Wow the Dream Chaser looks like a rip off of this old Soviet Rig

@@crevis12 This Soviet rig was a rip off the USA’s X-23 PRIME reentry vehicles.

@@rifleshooterchannel208 lol and the CIA hijacked their spacecraft in 1959 to copy-paste it.It was the Lunik spacecraft.This is a fact

@@gumelini1 Ok? The difference is the US actually put people on the Moon instead of just using a little robot to fly past it and take a grainy picture 🤣

@@rifleshooterchannel208 all they had to do to accomplish that was to steal Russian tech.Imagine being dominated by Russia in a space race,getting the first ever satelite put in Earths orbit by Russia,and then steal Russian tech to even be able to get to space a decade later and say you won the space race while even today in 2021 using Russian rocket engines (the RD180) to get to space.Irony?

Yes, more than once. The Aussies also filmed one of the recovery crew in rough waters falling off the ship to his death.

@@JamesOberg Mr. Oberg, as a Russian and a fan of both US and Soviet / Russian space programs, I'd like to thank you very much for your lifetime of work documenting the Soviet / Russian space programme with a loving attention to detail, respect, and insight that are uncommon among your peers.

Yes, they were the scale models seen at 3:35.

@@AlexKarasev == Alex, look in the DISCUSSION folder of your youtube home page [click on your youtube name, to get there] for some more comments along those lines. Anybody can do that and post the URL there, but I've broken my quota of repeating URLs in these comment thread so I'm 'suspended' [grin].

Best name for sure.

Wish it had flown. It would be interesting to see the science it would do.

Basically, they upscaled it and turned it into the Space Shuttle ten years later.

Yeah, whatever happened to her?

Look up the SNC dreamchaser.

Dream Chaser from Sierra Nevada Corp uses same dihedral wing design - perhaps it was influenced by MiG-105 ?

What happens to dream chaser..? I was in school when I was supposed to be flying.

the dream chaser is a direct evolution of a whole series of US spaceplanes that predated this Russian craft by many years.

Not exact…optically it’s fairly close, however they’re different in many ways.

@@liammeech3702 Sierra Nevada is usually pretty tight-lipped about what is going on Dream Chaser. What we know is that the first orbital test unit has been constructed, and is still slated for a Q2 2022 test flight.

@@koshiir_ra yea they are set to participate in the commercial cargo program and hopefully they will transition to the commercial crew program and launch people up, don’t they want to make a space station too?

The Soviets weren't dumb, just hobbled by poor metallurgy and materials science limiting their alloys and electronics. Of course there were systemic issues leading to this most evident when mismanagement and corruption spilled out into the open -once- as the always meager and limited goods no longer made it onto the store shelves and everything collapsed soon after.

@@johnassal5838 agreed. It's something that gets lost in all the East/West propaganda. What the Soviets achieved *despite* all of those limitations is truly remarkable. Which I think emphasises that we need to always be careful to recognise that a "people" are not necessarily their government.

@@langdons2848 Definitely. The Mig 29 was no slouch and the huge honking air to air missiles it deployed were big enough to offset the weight of their clunkier guidance system and carry a plus sized warhead with a much bigger kill radius. Even the literal math underpinning stealth was published in the USSRnin the 60's which missed an opportunity to leapfrog the west with it though mostly because even the more advanced western computers couldn't actually run those simulations (or hope to maintain control of anything as unstable as the F117) until the 80's. No shortage of smart, resourceful or motivated people. Unfortunately most of that motivation was the barrel of a gun either of a foreign threat or of their own government enforcing results. This couldn't last forever though it's probably true that things collapsed even faster after Khrushchev realized that fact and started relaxing the whole gun-to-head thing Stalin made famous. Perhaps if he'd eased that from the _bottom up_ instead of from the _top down_ it might've worked but that easing never actually made it below the mid-level officials and functionaries feeling no fear of fudging reports or joining in the corruption. The USSR was never a nation of laws so remove the authority of ruthless force and nothing else held it together.

@@johnassal5838 agreed. And things like the MIG 29s helmet mounted queueing system were (I believe) ahead of their time and their western counterparts. I have often wondered how the USSR would have turned out if Stalin had been killed in the July Days uprising in 1917 for instance. And perhaps instead the Workers Oposition had taken control of the Communist Party. Could have been a very different nation.

@@langdons2848 Without Stalin the country would have been desyroyed by the nazis and now they would rule Europe. He was the one that pushed the fast industrialization, makin the victory in WW2 possible. His competitors only wanted to focus on a slower development following Lenin's NEP but without understanding the danger they were facing. Some even wanted to dissolve the Red Army.

It was a response to Dyna Soar and the lifting body programs that NASA and Northrop were engaged in. The M2-F1 proof of concept first flew in 1963. The M2-F2 and the HL-10 first flew in 1966.

USSR's decline started in 1089

Communism had never been known for preservation of history. Look how many statues they have torn down around the world. It has rather always been about propaganda on what can help the state, NOW.

I worked my entire apprenticeship right there on SLC6...... Hung the last door on the umbilical tower...... After 40+ years in the trades I've never done a job on that kind of scale anywhere......

I believe those died with the development of reusable rockets. Future will show.

@@JohnJohansen2 not necessarily. The next spaceplanes in development employ lifting body aerodynamics, its just not such a pivotal point for the future of spaceflight anymore like it was expected to be.

@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts You really believe so? We'll have to see.

Lifting bodies were ultimately a stepping stone to blended wing designs. The Ho-229 could rightly be considered one of the earliest definitive steps in the right direction on this path.

I truly believe any space program capable of using existing commercial runways will be doomed to overwhelming success.

Freeeee energy!!

Someone has been watching Kurzgesagt

Why land on water when you can land using a rocket cushion?

3:41 seems like it did that at least at some point

and it wouldn't glide back to earth, instead, use its engines for flight

Wrong, the Dreamchaser is evolved from a whole series of US spaceplanes that were designed many years before this aircraft ever existed.

@@SoloRenegade more like your mom was designed many years before this aircraft ever existed. got em

@@ihatecivicssomuch nice😎

@@ihatecivicssomuch The Dreamchaser is a derivative of the HL-20. The HL-20 is a follow on from the HL-10, and the M2F2/M2F3 (The Six Million Dollar Man credits crash sequence), and the X-24 A/B. Everything listed after HL-20 flew a decade before the MiG 105. And every single one looks more finished than the MiG, even the M2-F1 which was a glider built out of plywood.

@@Markle2k HL-20 resembles more the BOR-4, a descendant

It's partly size dependant. The early versions of the shuttle orbiter designed by Max Faget relied on stainless steel and lower mass for it's surface area that came from containing a sizable portion of it's propellent mass at launch. It didn't need any tiles, ablatives, etc. If not for the crazy and never used ability to return with a KH11 that the DOD insisted on we'd have had a much smaller orbiter lacking everything that later killed a shuttle as things played out and still be able to launch larger payloads in place of the orbiter from day one.

@@johnassal5838 Without that "crazy" requirement, we wouldn't have the Hubble Space Telescope or the ISS. Or the 32 SpaceLab missions. Criticizing the first successful iteration of a design is like criticizing the Wright Flyer. You learn and future designs incorporate what you got from those lessons.

@@Markle2k The _entirely unused and unnecessary_ capacity to land with a full cargo bay while maintaining the stipulated cross-range is why the orbiter ended up with the infamous tiles, had wing leading edges as brittle as carbon-carbon and needed SRBs. Not insignificant differences if you think about it. ALL of the missions you describe could've been carried out either way and in fact quite possibly the ISS could've been made in fewer pieces launched on a stack in place of the orbiter "Magnum" concept style. This likely without the delays and cost over runs that killed the Orbital Transfer Vehicle proposal, making that a much better platform to do things like repair the Hubble as well as visit a Lagrange point or the Moon. The STS had a remarkable amount of ingenious features but it was still a hopelessly compromised design not because they knew so little but because it's requirements crafted in light of funding driven agreements ensured it would be.

​@@johnassal5838 The ability to land with stuff in the cargo bay was not unused. In addition to the 32 Spacelab missions I already mentioned, the Shuttle Challenger retrieved two satellites on STS-51A. At least one of those was refurbished and relaunched, albeit on another launcher due to restrictions on commercial satellite launches following the 1987 Challenger explosion. LDEF (Long Duration Exposure Facility) was set free on one mission and retrieved on another. The Shuttle also released several free-flying satellites and retrieved them for landing. The Shuttle Pallet Satellite (SPAS) was a reusable cargo bus for just this purpose. Spacehab flew something like 30 missions with cargo and experiments on their platform that was fitted to the Shuttle's cargo bay. They lost their big on when Columbia broke up on reentry. I'm pretty sure this isn't an exhaustive list and we are at half of the total Shuttle missions that weren't ISS assembly missions. No, the ISS could not have been assembled without the Shuttle's capability to haul long pieces that was part of the design requirements that NASA offered the NRO (not the Air Force). The OTV concept was to use a space tug to transfer the Hubble to the ISS for refurb/repair (and do other work). No ISS, no use for OTV. The other part of the cross-range capability was incorporated into contingency plans for abort scenarios, primarily AOA (Abort Once Around). You never want to use insurance, but it's nice to have. The Shuttle was never able to meet the performance requirements for the proposed one orbit return to Vandenburg missions they were offering NRO in the original design specs. It wasn't just a lack of capability, it was too high of a crew workload demand. Plus, NRO didn't want to adapt the design of their soon-to-be obsolete reconnaissance satellites (the electro-optical Keyhole sats were just a few years away).

@@Markle2k So the 32 missions that could've been done just as well with a free flying module and a few other times they tried to pretend the STS was economically viable even as they continued to cut corners that compromised it's functional viability. I believe your point, which I answered, was that "we learn and improve" while mine was that they already knew what would be better, easier and safer only politics intervened. No amount of retconning will alter that, the outcome or the fact that all we've "learned" is that everyone's first choice beyond ballistic disposable boosters was right. Sure the shuttle did a lot of science and a lot of smart people did impressive things. Unfortunately it was more of a net drain by any objective measure.

Totally agree

Ha. Who do you think came first? Wouldn't you think Crighton just used it for inspiration?

We wouldn't want to upset the NASA SS NAZI MASONS now would we??

You are a sad little person.

lol

@John Higgins No, 'bot' here, just a guy who makes models (ships for now) and knows a little video editting!!

Only people 35ish and older will understand that joke. 😁🇺🇸😂😂😂 That's great btw! (So, depending on what era, 6 billion rubles would be like the $6,000 man! The budget bionic man! Actually jk, their currency was never that bad) Edit: oh, i just noticed you wrote trillion... Lmao good one!

‘We can rebuild him comrade!’

...reduce the playback speed to .8 or even .75 - gives you time to take in what is being said and removes the frantic edge off of the delivery...

Unlikely. The R7/Soyuz launcher was a home run for the USSR, but they were unable to scale it up enough to be a manned moon rocket.

@@jonacheson just use one as a fuel tanker for the one that goes to the moon.

I think they did. The dream chaser was based off of HL-20 which is similar to the Soviet's own version so I'm guessing they must have done at least some research.

Magic

As shown and discussed near the beginning of this very video!

I've found a couple but they tend to be difficult to locate. Eastern European model kit companies tend to have more Soviet aircraft selection compared to the "big names" in the business.

Cool think you for the info :)

exactly, MiG 105, BOR project, and finally Buran Space Shuttle

Really only in the layout of the wings, but I get what you're saying. They're immensely different-flying birds though.

Agree 100%.

That must have been a long time ago?

@@vondahe oh, you saw that too. Damn did i just age myself?

@@h.cedric8157 When I started reading Nat Geo in the early 1980’es, the focus was still mostly on nature and people but when it started getting political, I stopped subscribing. The long articles were brilliant and captivating, though.

@@vondahe ahh yes, i agree with you right there. Must've been the very reason why my uncle STOPPED our National Geographic magazine subscription. For a time, Discovery channel's Mythbusters sustained my intellectual thirst, and now, non political channels like Smarter Everyday, Dark5 channels, Everyday Astronaut, and the NASA Spaceflight RU-vid community are the few that i frequent.

1972, I'd say . . . since then, it's been a Communist rag.