12 Unusual Abandoned Technology and Vehicles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe ► goo.gl/WPKt5w
Great inventions can change the world, and become essential parts of the way we live our lives. Not every invention is a success though. Sometimes they just don’t work out as planned. In other cases, the world just wasn’t ready for them yet. When unusual vehicles or technological developments turn out not to be required, they become abandoned and turn into strange, forgotten curiosities. This video is packed full of weird and wonderful creations!
For all questions contact us at: amazingstockchannel@gmail.com
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
One of our neighbours had an amphibious car. They would use the side of the local beach to enter the water. Really neat to see in the early sixties! It was just a wee car like the first one on here.
So I'm somehow supposed to believe NASA "lost" the technology required to piece together huge vehicular tracks, the engines and mechanical needed to make them function, and a giant metal platform on top of it all? They were built in the 60's/70's and remained in fully active service until 2011. On top of that they're not some super niche ultra-specific pieces of equipment, they're extremely simplistic. Nothing was LOST, they are continually refurbished and updated for 2 extremely simple and logical reasons; 1- the current units are essentially in good working order, and are kept such via the odd updates or parts replacements, and 2- there are currently NO significantly superior designs or technology in existence that would allow a "new" unit to be sufficiently advanced so as to warrant the cost of building.
Thats pretty much it, was a very poor word choice. If we built new ones today the only significant difference would likely be more efficient engines in it, if even that. As you said, its a large tracked vehicle, and has a massive gear reduction drive train. Nothing to complicated. The presenter should really pick his words more carefully.
Sorry Skippy, but the Crawler Transporters came from mining technology that's still in use today and NASA doesn't need to replace them because updating its systems is cheaper than starting over. They carried the entire launch tower and the Saturn V with ease to the launch pad and used the ancient tech. known as a water tube level to keep its was payload within just a few degrees of vertical as they traveled.
good explanation :)
haha, Literally shows tanks at the start of the video with tracks ahha, and bulldozers, who hasn't heard of those lol
the soviets just used a railroad and a locomotive... just saying
Within .16 of degree, i seem to recall. A Saturn 5 a few degrees off vertical would be very dangerous. The accuracy was about 1 ft at the top of a Saturn 5
As mentioned most of the tech involved was off the shelf mining equipment hence the manufacturer: the Marion Power Shovel Company. They and Rockwell developoed the sensors and control systems to acheive the unique requirements of the task, but simply building a huge platform that coukd handle the parameters woukd have been just another day. People dont seem to realize that engineering technology is seldom 'lost' Half the battle is deciding WHAT needs to be done. Another 1/4 is deciding IF it can be done. The actual design of the mechanism is often the simplest part, especially for those who build the same type of things every year.
@@shammy8703 Sure, they transported the rocket horizontally, assemble and stood it up at the launch site. The Us did it the other way round. Neither was necessairily better. Russian rockets never met the size of a Saturn 5. Even the N1, their proposed moon rocket system, (of which 4/4 exploded) was slightly smaller than Saturn 5. Most Soviet or Russian rockets are much smaller, making the elevation easier.
You would think in the roller ship’s example that the designer would’ve realized that paddle wheel powered ships became obsolete with the introduction of screw propulsion and not bothered as his design is too similar
That Russian seaplane looks like something out of the Thunderbirds puppet show.
Amazing coincidence !
PUPPET SHOW???
You mean it wasn't real?
Way to go ruining my childhood...
It is known why the Lune was never replaced. The ground effect aircraft has fundamental safety concerns, ie when there is low visibility crashing with surface objects, buildings, cliffs, other ships becomes a distinct possibility. You can't fly over most of those things like a regular aircraft.
Also, there is a reason why the Russian shuttle was visually similar to the American space shuttle...
Yep. The aerodynamics is the same. Russian air is just like American air.
The Buran shuttles didn't have rocket engines on the shuttles. If a problem began the shuttle would separate from the booster and, if sufficient altitude had been attained, glide to a safe landing.
Otherwise the crew could eject if necessary.
Unfortunately only one orbital flight of a Buran shuttle took place. No cosmonauts were aboard. The flight was automated.
Al Grayson the Buran was almost a direct copy of many of the American shuttles design features due to intense spying
@@Constance_tinople you are totally wrong mate, in fact Soviets started the research and even came with the idea of space shuttle like device about two decades earlier. The Buran had very different construction then Columbia, even materials where different. Buran was a fully automated space glider. Yes they do look very similar, but are very different. Buran was much more advanced then Columbia, so how would it be a copy?
MadIgor FKGoogle I’m talking about internal systems and some of its design points were heavily inspired, I never said it was bad.
@@Constance_tinople "Form follows function." Frank Lloyd Wright.
The idea that the technology behind Hans and Franz has "somehow been lost" is FALSE. "While other vehicles such as bucket-wheel excavators like Bagger 293, dragline excavators like Big Muskie and power shovels like The Captain are significantly larger, they are powered by external sources." The only reason they're powered by external sources is because it's more efficient to use stationary power source for such big vehicles, as they largely stay in one place. By comparison, the Missile Crawler Transporter Facilities, as Hans and Franz are more formally known, have traveled all over Cape Canaveral Launch Complex. In their lifetime, they have traveled more than 5,500 km (3,400 mi), about the same driving distance as from Miami to Seattle. This mobility requires on-board locomotive power. "As of 2003, each crawler had 16 traction motors, powered by four 1,000 kW (1,341 hp) generators, in turn driven by two 2,050 kW (2,750 hp) V16 ALCO 251C diesel engines." The plans have NOT been lost. "Due to its age and the need to support the heavier Space Launch System and its launch tower, in mid-2012 one of the crawlers was undergoing an upgrade involving "new engines, new exhausts, new brakes, new hydraulics, new computers," to increase its lifting capacity from 5,400,000 to 8,200,000 kg (12,000,000 to 18,000,000 lb)."
"The two crawler-transporters were designed and built by Marion Power Shovel Company using components designed and built by Rockwell International at a cost of US$14 million each." Marion was bought by Bucyrus in 1997, which was subsequently bought by Caterpillar in 2011, which, incidentally, builds custom-made engines, such as the ones now powering one of the crawlers, the one that was upgraded in 2012.
The only reason they're being "refurbished and renovated" is because it's FAR CHEAPER to do so, not because "they simply can't be replaced." Of COURSE they can be replaced! The idea that we've somehow "lost the technology" is STUPID. ANY one of several hundred companies that build large mining equipment would be able to design and build replacements with no problem at all. From an engineering perspective, the crawlers are quite simple. Laser levelers can be purchased for $500 and modified for use in the crawlers.
Currently, "A team of nearly 30 engineers, technicians and drivers operates the vehicle." If we were to design them from scratch these days, they'd be sensor-rich, multiply-redundant computer controlled and operated by a team of just 5 people, not 30. One person would sit in each of four corner cabs, managed by a fifth person, possibly in a forward, central cab or walking the ground in radio communication. That's how far our technology has PROGRESSED since the 1960s.
Please research your facts before making wildly false claims.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter
Even if all plans were lost and the original creators has long perished and this piece of technology seemed completely alien to us, I still believe a selected group of individual are capable of reverse engineering this behemoth.
Now imagine how many projects are still classified or died along with the inventors..
for example molten salt reactors have to be learned almost from scratch...:D
Internal combustion engines than run on nothing but water you mean?
@@koitorob or hemp. (Henry Ford)
Can't be replaced my ass..... It's too expensive to replace them if they still are fully functional. Technology today could build them bigger and better.
@J J brute force auto building is totally fucking accomplished..hey trace back to when u first aquisitioned the ability ti have technology then you might wanna think that u just been playing around in an area known as funny space. The problem takes care of itself tho...especially when u go mad realizing u may face consequence and go shooting amelessly at things that may "get in ur way" which takes u away from theatre and music all in conjunction with ur main frame (poof) that popped up when u cheated and the dummy doll there to take out of ur own making...BOY
..THAT SUCKS DONT IT
@@JeAn-mn2ve using big words doesn't make you any more intelligent, knowing what these big words mean and how to use them properly in a sentence does make you more intelligent though...
Perhaps easier and more cost effective to upgrade than to build a replacement crawler? this seems more logical to not having the technology to replace them.
There's a type of computer/recorder they used for the moon landing and they cannot read the recordings nor fix the computers to read it the guy who built it is dead,but Yea I'd imagine they be able to make a new crawler quite easy just a fuck load of dosh but there is a few things they can figure out from the past
@@JeAn-mn2ve you are an alien. arn't you. what is up north. how much longer before the hammer falls
6:55 "the technology behind them has somehow been lost"
WHAT? That makes no sense whatsoever, even as vague as it is. The fact that the technology NASA used to build something some decades ago has been lost begs a lot of questions... Did these guys never write down the specifications? The building process wasn't supervised by anyone? No record of how they did it whatsoever, and it can't be reverse-engineered? Come on now...
Yarbloco shut up
wait wait,,, they could create new engines , new rockets, new CPU's , New dump trucks, but couldn't re-engineer the crawlers. Thats total BS. They reuse them because they were simply already there and usable.
Yeah, even if we'd somehow "lost" the ability to design new ones - there's two working models they could just copy. If they're refurbishing them, then they know how to make new parts.
Happy Hands Thanks for calling this out. The commentary around this was nonsensical. To quote, "the technology behind them had somehow been lost" -- technology that is in use every day in thousands of places around the world on construction sites. It's pretty obvious that they are low technology vehicles that don't need reinventing.
I came to the comment section to say that exact same thing
Either the Creator is ignorant or he thinks the viewers are ignorant or that's just lazy research
Sounds kind of harsh I know but it's one of my pet peeves
Hey, you guys all have smart phones in your hands, make another one then. Yeah.....
Had the same thought lol
Many of your conclusions at the end of each technology is wrong.
-The Maglev train the Soviet's developed had major technological issues to overcome such as the fact they could not produce the components needed for the system powerful enough so they had to use more and this caused failures in the magnetic levitation in almost every test.
-The French hovertrain was abandoned because it would have been FAR to expensive to replace all the standard rail with hover track. Also the hover train would almost never been able to sustain the high speeds for any length of time.
-The ekranoplan never saw a replacement because it was to expensive for a niche it filled. It couldn't carry as much cargo as a ship and was far slower then a transport plane. The point of it was to "fly" under radar hiding in the radar jumble near the oceans surface being able to stealthily transport troops and heavy equipment to landings. But that role was taken over by more capable planes and ships.
-The Buran was based on stolen plans and the automatic landing system was almost a direct copy of the system NASA had planned to implement on the Shuttle as an emergency backup and possible unmanned future missions. There was almost nothing about the Buran that was unique or inventive.
-The crawlers are not lost tech. They are based on mining platforms in use today. They don't get replaced because they don't need to be.
Oru's and Or nots you are quite funny, there are plenty of working maglev trains in the world. They have been in use for decades now and they Are Fast and cheap to run. I'm guessing you are American? How else could you be so ignorant.
actually, you are wrong about Buran. despite it's superficial resemblance to US space shuttle, it was completely different inside. it was also completely automated, while US shuttles had to be manually flown
@@ajones3323 As of today, there are only three fully functional MagLev trains that offer the luxury of high-speed mass transit. Not surprisingly, all three of the operational MagLev trains are located in East Asia where the top of the line transportation technology can usually be found.>> Tobu Kyuryo Line, known in Japan as the "Linimo". Shanghai MagLev. UTM-02 urban MagLev located in Daejeon, South Korea. And on top of that, you have lots of tests and a couple of projects. That does not sound like "plenty" to me.
I found the Russian government propaganda workers!
The flying tank still exists. Its called an A10.
M Bruggemeyer Touché
Not even close to the same concept, but still a plane that needs to be preserved. An F-35 can do far more than an A-10, except its primary mission!
@@markdoldon8852 F35 is a good all around fighter, but lacks the toughness and deadliness of the A10. The A10 can get a full engine and most of the wings shot off and it can still make it home. The gun can also rain 100 pounds of lead in a few seconds. The F35 is faster and can't be seen, but it is too computerized to be old fashioned tough
Well sorta since it operates purely in the air but they're as close as an airplane to get to a tank. "Double Ugly" and "Warthog" are appropriate nicknames. One joke during the Gulf War was "How do you make an Iraqi s***?.....Show an A-10 aimed at them."
M Bruggemeyer that’s a tank killer
"Can't be replaced" Isn't exactly correct they can it's just they don't want to spend that much on replacing something that works perfectly
USSR could procead with some inventions because in the Soviet Union money was not an issue. Just because something is not economically viable does not make it a bad Idea.
Uhh, no. The ekranoplan was not a seaplane, it was an ekranoplan. The reason they never built any more was because it was impractical. I have commented on multiple of this channels videos, all calling out lack of knowledge.
Edit: the A-40 was a highly dysfunctional tank. It was a *gliding tank,* so they had to strip down pretty much everything that made a tank a tank. They made the armor thinner, smaller engine, and the gun would be dropped separately. Wow.
The tzar tanks large wheels did not get stuck it was the smaller ones. The large ones worked quite well! The large wheels were ment for crushing german emplacements and other tanks. This is NOT a hate comment and I love the Vidio. Just correcting:)
Nata, how is stating technical facts "hate?" I understand some of political correctness but the reasoning (?) of other p.c. escapes me.
No, the large wheels were for crossing trenches.
@@thethirdman225 I read somewhere that that they were for crushing stuff? Hmm I believe you though!
@@nataroonytrontime3976 Yeah, fair enough. I hadn't heard the bit about crushing stuff but I'm sure it could have.
I can't help get the feeling that a vast majority of these inventions should fit into Bethesda's Fallout universe somewhere.
As a kid in the Detroit suburbs back in the early 1960's, I remember seeing large concrete structures. I was told they were intended to support a track for some sort of futuristic mass transit, proposed by Henry Ford, which never came to pass. You now know as much as I do.
*”Every weird object is a wonderful object”*
You are telling me that a bunch of people who build rockets can't figure out how to build the vehicle that hauls them... If they are regularly maintained couldn't an engineer study the rocket hauler so they could build a new one if they needed it?
You are right. That is a rumor that sheeple believe and try to spread on the internet. Is like the flat earth society, some people think everything they see on the web is real.
@InfiniteMushroom the problem is that people like me smart enough to figure it out isnt pushed to the front line to make it happen they dont want us to be smart they want us to be just smart enough to run the machines and ladeda innovation is dead i have so many ideas can i ever get it off the ground ....no
@@johncoyle707 I'd say it's more of a "they don't care whether or not we are smart, they just want to line their pockets as much as they can" kind of situation, wouldn't you agree?
I actually work for a sub contractor company who works with NASA.
One of NASA's biggest issue is that it has had its staff is just a shell of what it was back in its hayday and now alot and I mean alot of its work is contracted out. The other bigger issue is all if the government regulations have made it much harder to get anything done. It's hard to get a large scale project that can take decades to get done if you have government officials sticking there nose in every year wanting to change the budget, time line or scope of the project.
Nasa lost the tech to build rockets to fly to the moon as well lol.
When someone asked when they will be going back to the moon NASA said they havnt worked out how to get past the van allen radiation belts to get there without killing the astronaughts.
So either they forgot how they did it before or they didnt go to the moon lol.
5:55 The Buran orbiter and the Energiya rocket it was attached to, were destroyed in their hangar, not by a freak storm, but by the collapse of the roof under the added weight of ten tons of roofing material that had been put there for repairs to the roof. Seven workmen were killed the collapse.
This is perfection....!!
@@RoronoaZoro-dc1io What is?
I just gotta call this out! @5:13 in the video, the shuttle shown is the Fictional X-71 from the 1998 Armageddon Movie!
Michael Haywood probs looked for the best looking
Bro it’s not from a movie why would it be here they do their research
@@robertmorales710 The X-71 was shown as there is a brief glimpse of a scene from the Armageddon movie. It shows the real shuttle immediately after however.
The VVA14 would be a sick boat.
Also I find it hard to believe modern engineers, couldn't replace Hanz & Franz.
More likely, it was just more cost effective to refurbish something that was already there.
Interesting video...thoroughly enjoyed it!
People back then had smarter brains
And a better education.
Well thought video. Good job!
How have you not heard of the Harrier jump jet 😂
Still in service, so you can't really say it's abandoned.
Never heard of it
@@bigdogkgh8945 Harrier Jump Jet is a VTOL Aircraft thats in service today, but instead of being flipped upward to land, it takes off and flies in one position, facing vertical and not horizontal like the plane in the video.
Nice video
Actually the Kazakhstan rocket had glue in between the fire proof panels that melted and very nearly exploded
Technology has been lost , sounds kinda like going back to the moon .
People : lets go back to the moon .
NASA:oh , sorry we don't have the technology to go to the moon.
People : what
The Zar tanks back wheel got stuck in the mud not the front. The front wheel had enough surface area to get out not the back most of the pressure was put on the back wheel and since it was small it sank in the mud
Thank you, somebody finally says the truth of the Tzar tank
*Tsar
downfall = communism
It's called the tsar tank
@@BridgesDontFly The tank in question was built in 1915. This predated the Russion Revolution, hence the failure could not be attributed to communism. Terefore your comment is irrelevent in this context.
Good video. It delivers just what it promises.
@6:50 - No, the technology has not been "lost". It just doesn't make any sense to re-invent something that is working just fine, and is used only very occassionally. If you asked the engineers at Caterpillar if they could build new transports, the answer would be, "Sure....why?". These transports have less than 1000 miles on them. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it isn't good anymore. Nor does it mean, "OMG...the technology is lost!!!!" My keys are "lost" every time I put them down. It only takes a second to "re-find" them again.
Yeah... It's a bit like saying we've lost the technology to build steam locomotives. For one thing it's not true, they do get built occasionally, and for another there's a reason we don't build steam locomotives for day to day use... They're expensive, dirty, high maintenance, inefficient and the infrastructure isn't there any more.
I live where they made that aerotrain in France, the railway is still here for most part but project was abandoned, and btw is in Orleans not Rouen.
What a technology by our seniors.
0:41 so what ? Hermann Kemper already startet to work on that in 1922 in germany
*_1900s was wild_*
Some good info,thanks
I like Hanz and Franz, if it isn’t broken don’t fix it.
@InfiniteMushroom I call bs.
I feel a little both, too expensive to create something new with qualified peeps. I work in manufacturing and have met some pretty smart people. I’m definitely one of the apes that keeps the ball rolling. I do agree there are a lot more useless people in the world today. I used to keep my doors unlocked, now drug addicts and idiots check the doors in my neighborhood. It wasn’t like this 10 years ago.
@@Emilio0587 Agreed, depends on where you live, sure people do that to cars here but not houses where I live. Your likely to get your head blown off if you are checking peoples houses in southern Oregon. There are tons of people I know that could make the parts for that beast, to be more on topic.
@InfiniteMushroom All I hear is your opinion, clearly derived from the internet. You clearly are not rooted in reality. If we have a machine, it can be taken apart, and all parts can be milled or cast by almost any steel factory. Sounds to me you have never known people who work in that industry. Your keyboard "homework" means nothing, go get some real world experience, maybe form an opinion from knowledge outside of the web and see what you find.
@InfiniteMushroom have to agree with you, over here it is the same, we used to be able to build trains planes and submarines in the netherlands, but the whole infrastructure and knowledge base to do so is gone.
it is even so bad that when they need spare parts for a old opening bridge it is cheaper to build a new bridge, because almost no company can make the parts or they are to expensive
Could almost be titled "Cool things Russians stopped working on".
In Tsar-Tank, it was the small back wheel stuck in the mud, while the big ones were good enough. They were not embarrassed to take the tank back - they've tried to rescue it, but for no avail, as it was too heavy for the available trucks to pull it out.
thank you very much very enlightning :)
The Ekranoplan GEV was and is the most brilliant unexplored rapid marine transport concept. Fast safe stable energy efficient compared to a normal plane.
For long distances with finished infrastructure at both ends yes. For rapid deployment from a ship to an unprepared area, hovercraft are still the best option because they can come up out of the water and proceed further inland than any other craft without large risk to sinking
they are still being made, but in much smaller sizes
BS about lost tech - if there's working machinery - it can be replicated and improved on. Crap channel gives crap about how we cannot build something that was built 50 years ago. SIC!
You tell 'em
And Yet, NASA engineers say that we LOST the technology to go to the moon and it's extremely difficult to get it back again. Yeah, sure, \
N ever
A
S traight
A nswer.
The Loon only performed well in dead calm seas. They used to call it the Caspian Sea Monster during testing. Rough conditions disrupts the surface effect making the ride rough and one of the prototypes crashed.
From 1940 to 1990 has to have been the most innovative years in pushing forward with innovative ideas. Every one of the machines featured had an inventor thinking out of the box. I think they all needed to be tried to be able to either eliminate them or progress with the idea. Today we computer model everything, but back then the only way to see if would be viable was to build a test model. Leading to some of the most amazing pieces of engineering ever built.
The years before it were way more innovative.
That's a crock about the NASA crawlers. They are so durable that there is no point in building new ones. If engineers could design them over 50 years ago, they can do so again, but there is no need.
Thomas Edison failed a thousand times before he perfected the light bulb.
Not sure thats relevent to this video. These are much more expensive machines not really comparable to tryin out differet light filiments. But it is kind of interesting to see people trying out all sorts of crackpot ideas. Its a noble effort, i was we saw more of that kind of experimentation. Companies DO spend money on R&D, but they have to see a payoff at least POSSIBLE.
How old is this video? Maglev trains have been used in Japan for years.
Also in Germany (Transrapidconcept by Siemens) and South Korea.
the German was the first to invent the maglev train. Germany began to build a prototype in 1922, but because of the war, the test was discontinued (inventor Hermann Kemper) ...
1962 Japan is due to investigate the maglev train.
1967 Germany started research again, the first prototype of the maglev train had a speed of 90 km / h.
1970 suviet : startet the projekt and endet the projekt.
1971 Germany: Prototype: "TR-02" 164 km / h.
1972 Japan first prototype test "JR-Maglev ML100" 60km/h.
(and and and)
In 1979, the world's first official passenger train registered magnetic levitation train (Transrapid 05 and) was presented at the International Transport Exhibition (IVA) in Hamburg (Germany).
(german stopped the project 1993 )
2003 japan´s first official passenger train "JR-Maglev MLX01"581 km/h
2004 Shanghai first official passenger train.
2010 Korea its a Airport - terminal train
2016 china first official passenger train
so jea i think tis video is from a time traveler from "1905" and also its not only japan...
The reason the loon didn't get a new version is very known tho, the reason is simple, it couldn't be used in water that wasn't calm any big waves would basically ruin it's air cushion and make it crash, there were also another one built but it crashed because of this reason
An interesting video! Thanks. I'm surprised Hanz & Franz cannot be replaced. That makes no sense to me. If they know enough to keep the things running - to repair or replace parts, etc. - then how on Earth can they not know how to deconstruct one & figure it out? Weird! tavi.
I believe it is more cost than technology. Think of the cost to recreate one of those two moving platforms. Like the Saturn V rocket, while the plans were destroyed, the last one still exists as a monument, but to recreate it, the cost would be out of reach. That is why I love the Russian space program. They can launch a manned mission to the ISS for around twenty five million American dollars, in the most reliable transport on Earth the Soyez space transporter. No gimmicks, no pressurised ink in a cartridge so you can write upside down in space. Just good old Rocket, fuel, a fuse, a match, and pencils. Minutes later three, white knuckled Earthlings are orbiting around good old mother Earth. Beautiful!
If they weren't able to replace NASA's Crawler Transporters, they never would have been able to reverse engineer the Roswell UFO ..and make several copies.
If the robovoice is an example of artificial intelligence we've quite a way to go. A giant crawler is beyond the capability of machine builders?? Look at any bulldozer or other machine on caterpillars and you'll see a small version of the same thing.
What do you mean the idea may one day be revisited. There are Maglev trains already running for year. It is very slowly adopted idea, like the electric car used to be before Tesla, but more Maglevs are yet to come. It is not abandoned.
Thank you ,i enjoyed your video tremendously
You ever looked at a tank and thought, that’s cool?
That may be the dumbest comment I have ever heard.
Warmongers everywhere! That's who. 💀
I was thinking..
If my engineering team ever said.. Let's build a flying tank, they'd all be fired! lol
Russian Flying ones?
I’m not a bit misinformed the Buran that has been stored in the bunker that no one seems t know about was mine and I piloted 26 of 28 missions Of the Buran and was also a test pilot for the American shuttle… the first in fact… thank you very much for your support🤪
Hans & Frans could be replaced. They have all the blueprints and could be reproduced. The issue is simply that it is much cheaper to keep Hans & Frans rolling. If the need should ever arise that they needed to build a new crawler, it could be done. It's just a matter of cost.
One Buran Prototype is still in the Technikmuseum Speyer (Germany - close to Karlsruhe).
Superb museum! While there, do not miss to visit the museum in Sinsheim as well. TU144 and Concorde!
@@musteila6789I will visit Sinsheim the next time when I am around in this Region :D
The Russians feature a lot in this video. They were ahead of most countries.
Whilst their people starved.
yeah they landed on other planets when NASA was aiming for the moon, also they were first to hit most milestones
Umm, no, they weren't. They made a few innovations, but keep in mind this is more or less a video of failed technologies.
Contrast that with the millions of patents and innovations to come out of the States in the same period, that are a vital part of our world today.
@@ellagrant6190 - Russians, people of Russian extraction, are even more inventive and productive in "capitalist" countries.
@@algrayson8965 no the germans where ahead of time starting in de 1930's all space rockets had german Technologies in it!
I'll fix it - Soviets did not run out of money because USSR collapsed, the very reason why it collapsed was that they ran out of money. Many mix up the cause and effect.
"only one ekranoplan was ever built and flown" as the video goes to show two different ones.... And the idea has been revisited. And there are smaller versions around the world. Look up ground effect vehicle or "wing in ground effect" vehicle. Also, the reasons the Ekranoplans development stopped are fairly well known if you do a little research on the subject, so not sure why you say nobody knows.
And why do I not believe the Nasa transporters "Can't" be replaced? More like, why would you? The cost to replace them would outweigh the benefits vs just maintaining them. I'm sure they could be replaced with new designs that function even better with modern technologies and materials, but you'd have to spend the money for all the engineering and the construction of it.
The technology used to transport rockets and spacecraft has not been "lost." The ability to create a decades old track transport system isnt around anymore because its decade old technology.
6:15 I highly doubt that. It's like how NASA said they lost the technology to go to the moon. They still have it they just don't want to spend the money. I'm sure while majority of the people who worked on the Apollo program have passed away I'm sure NASA has the technology recorded in documents/ blueprints. The current crawlers NASA uses work fine but if they really wanted to they could build new ones but since they don't need to so they don't want to spend money on it. Why fix what isn't broken.
Sorry for the rant but we haven't lost the technology.
yeah not unless the man behind the design took the documents with him to the grave or just misplaced it like my tools at home.
I completely agree saying it's lost is a bad excuse, lmfao looks like pretty standard heavy machinery to me, shit if I had the money I'd build it for them
We haven’t lost the technology. What we do have is a lack of manufacturing experience and expertise. As designed the Saturn five rocket required a lot of manually machined and fabricated parts. Technology has moved on which means we just don’t have the highly skilled people necessary to build the Saturn five as it originally was put together. Before we could make another one we would have to re-design it to take advantage of modern manufacturing methods which could be done but would cost a fortune. Meanwhile companies like SpaceX are developing better and more efficient designs. All NASA has to do just sit and wait for them to develop those New designs.
wow! That's a pure intelligence of engineering of engineer
"In the future there will be flying cars"
The first one is basically a maglev which is in Shanghai
Ow imagine all the projects that are classified. This video features technology 40-50 yrs ago.. it’s 2019 now.
MIB is real guys, 40K space marines are real too. NICE
Benny Rail Plane is the most painful story on the list... :'(
Germany had a train like that as well. it looked like a zeplin on tracks.
It was never put into full service as they deemed it dangerous to passengers on the platform cause the prop might cut ppl to pieces if they got to close to the train.
It used a plane engine in the back to push it forwards.
it was called Schienenzepplin or rail zepplin.
The loon was a cold war push. Theory was sound but saltwater made it a pain in the ass to keep running.
It also needed the relatively calm waters of the Caspian to work as well. Swells would wreck it.
Have you never heard of a Harrier or F35? Harriers have been around for quite some time...
Eric Leithweight the British electrical engineer in the 50s to the 70s was dubbed the "father of the Maglev" . His development of the Magnetic Levitation transport never got taken seriously and was never given financial support. Eventually the Japanese adopted the Maglev system in 1964 for their Bullet train. Which currently holds the speed record at 200mph
Not any more.
Last plane looks like spaceship ;)
Hans and frans goes to show you, they don’t build them like they used to.
Maglev was in operation at Birmingham international airport in the 1980s. I know because i went in it many times but it did suffer from outages
The Germans and Japanese both had several test installations.
When great idea went wrong in 12 mins.
There are some maglev trains in use in Japan, China and S. Korea.
Ooh, I spotted the Aerotrain in the intro
Edit: I meant the GM Aerotrain.
There are plenty of working maglev trains in the world. They have been around for decades. They are very fast and also very cheap to run. How are so many people so ignorant in a developed first world country??
Maglev is between airport and downtown Shanghai. Going 431kmh every 15mins...
exactly perfect
The first maglev train was Transrapid in Hamburg, Germany not Russia.
Correct. Followed by Birmingham Airport, England. Russia was three years behind Birmingham, in 1987.
Bruh imagine a flying M1A2 Abrams
The French Aerotrain was featured on a show called “mysteries of the abandoned” on the Science channel. There were plans to bring it back. But a mysterious fire destroyed it in the warehouse.
Dope video
The Maglev trains are from germany ... (wiki) The Magnet train is a fiction from Germany ... The development of the maglev train was started in 1922 in the "German Reich" by Hermann Kemper. then it started again in germany in the year 1967 and also in japan in the year 1962 ... so the suviet union was not the first or the second no they were only the third who started researching Maglev trains ... and they even have abandoned in the same year (1970) ...
the German was the first to invent the maglev train. Germany began to build a prototype in 1922, but because of the war, the test was discontinued (inventor Hermann Kemper) ...
1962 Japan is due to investigate the maglev train.
1967 Germany started research again, the first prototype of the maglev train had a speed of 90 km / h.
1970 suviet : startet the projekt and endet the projekt.
1971 Germany: Prototype: "TR-02" 164 km / h.
1972 Japan first prototype test "JR-Maglev ML100" 60km/h.
(and and and)
In 1979, the world's first official passenger train registered magnetic levitation train (Transrapid 05 and) was presented at the International Transport Exhibition (IVA) in Hamburg (Germany).
(german stopped the project 1993 )
2003 japan´s first official passenger train "JR-Maglev MLX01"581 km/h
2004 Shanghai first official passenger train.
2010 Korea its a Airport - terminal train
2016 china first official passenger train
According to the Speyer Technik Museum website Buran OK-GLI flew 25 atmospheric gliding flights to test its handling and landing.
Fascinating, though there are probably more of these out there. Part 2, anyone? Also: interesting that you pictured the General Motors Aerotrain locomotive. This was a nifty(?) idea conceived by GM's Electro-Motive Division (railroads) and the Truck & Coach Division. It was to be cheap to build and operate, saving the railroads a lot of money. The coaches were modified 40-passenger intercity bus bodies, riding on 2-axle air suspension running gear, to give a nice, smooth ride for commuters, but in actuality, the ride was much worse than a bus traveling on our less than perfect streets and roads. The two demonstration trains made the rounds of railroads for ten years before being taken out of service and put in transportation museums. Give them an E for Effort---and try to hide that grin.
I'd take a "part 2" that was actually fact checked. This one has a lot of errors.
Those clever German's hey, anyone would think they might have been the reason why America even flirted with the idea of space, let alone actually done anything about it........Still though Paperclips are always handy to have around.
Is it unique, uniquer, uniquest, or unique, more unique, most unique. Since unique means the only one, with which nothing can be compared, your choice is moot.
Unique doesnt mean nothing can be compared, it means sonething which has features not part of another example. Nor is it an all or nothing comparison. A plane might have a wing structure not used anywhere else. That would make both wing and plane 'unique'. But another plane might use a different material AND a different engine design, perhaps making it MORE unique. I suppose the status of 'the most unique' would need to be something with NOTHING in common with any other object. In truth i suppose thats an impossible ideal when considering any mechanical design given the vast number of individual components included. Any design is bound to include common parts.
What's the difference between unique and most unique?
One of the Busan shuttles is extant in the Technik Museum at Speyer in Germany. It had also been on display in Sydney previously.
He even has a picture of it at 7:04 in the video.
For the sake of completeness: speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran
Fun fact: while the US launched the Shuttle from the back of a 747 to do glide tests, the Russians put a set of jet engines on the tail of the Buran and took off under its own power.
@@realulli - ( _Some_ ) Americans like to pretend that we are the best {& 1st} at everything _[-snort!]_ ... I'd imagine that _some_ Russians like to pretend the same ... An accurate and objective account of historical events proves otherwise.
So much effort was (and still is) wasted on military preparedness to fight one another, while our mutual enemy continues to grow and prosper at our expense...
If I remember correctly from other videos, there was only one flying prototype of the Buran, the one that was destroyed. The remaining prototype was used to test and demonstrate concepts, it was never flight worthy.
@@markhorton3994 there was only one Buran that flew to space (the one that was destroyed). there were also 4 or 5 unfinished ones. They are still around.
@@CoolGobyFish I think I said that except I didn't know how many non- flying and unfinished units there were.
Die Buran ist nicht zerstört. Das Raumschiff steht im Technik Museum Speyer. In dem Video ist die Buran 1.01 gemeint. Und die erste Magnetschwebebahn wurde 1934 in Deutschland entwickelt.
Why dont we try these again? I know we already made a VTOL plane but everything else is amazing
why is soviet tech always so fucking scary looking?!
@0:36
>Railworks Addon promo image
76
@@bloodyfood75 that has nothing to do with my fucking comment
The Russian should take more care of their museum pieces. They sure had some amazing and weird designs.
the ground effect plane was discarded cause it's hard to keep in ground effect and were to expensive
Lol😂! Even Nasa's crawler technology is lost?
Of course it isnt. The originals still exist AND OPERATE. Given time and budget any of dozens of companies/consortium could build them. I dont understand why so many people assume " oh no, we have misplaced the drawings" mean the work cannot be replicated. The original design was done 50+ years ago. Modern engineers know vastly more than they knew then, we have almost infinitely more in the realm of materials, computer modelling, and EXPERIENCE with the original. There is nothing remarkable in their design that modern engineers would be stumped by , GIVEN THE BUDGET NEEDED. Of course they could be replaced, and the end result would end up far better. But if you have a working truck from the 50s, why would you through it away and start from scratch on a new one? The crawlers are still used because they CAN BE.
For a country that is considerably landlocked, the Soviet Union spent a considerable amount of time and effort to develop seaplanes.
They were designed to attack USA
what? you must have some sort of secret map, cause Soviet Union was surrounded by oceans
This video has so many mistakes in it. The people who made it should be ashamed!