What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 11/20/2008, -2/+41Remarkable. Too bad they never went anywhere with it after the test flight.
- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -10/+4thanks for the spoiler!
- pradvan, on 11/21/2008, -0/+7[spoiler]Don't read the comments before you read the story or it will be spoiled[/spoiler]
- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -10/+4thanks for the spoiler!
- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -15/+10Having a space shuttle sure beats having heat and electricity.
But seriously. I think the Russian shuttle only encouraged NASA's attachment to the shuttle program, to them having a copy only supported their assertion that the shuttle was the best way to go. Maybe if the Russians never built it, the US wouldn't have hung onto the shuttle program this long?- TSK05, on 11/21/2008, -3/+34"Having a space shuttle sure beats having heat and electricity."
I lived in the Soviet Union and I am pretty sure we had heat and electricity. Thanks for your concern though.- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -7/+2You obviously didn't live in the part where you had to move to country relatives every winter because there was no heat in the city.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8When and where in the Soviet Union did you live? The 70s was very different than the 80s, Moscow was very different than Siberia...
- BabyWookie, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2@OrangeTide:
It only got that bad just before and after the collapse.
- AndrewMoyer, on 11/21/2008, -0/+6So what does it say now that we're going back to basically our original vertical stack design, which Russia was smart enough to develop all these years? The Soyuz has a remarkable track record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_spacecraft
QUOTE:
The first unmanned Soyuz mission was launched November 28, 1966; the first Soyuz mission with a crew (Soyuz 1) was launched April 23, 1967, but the cosmonaut on board, Vladimir Komarov, died during the flight's crash-landing. The first Soyuz flight which the crew survived (Soyuz 3) was launched October 26, 1968. ... Currently, the Soyuz spacecraft family is still in service and has launched more human spaceflight missions than any other platform. ... Soyuz spacecraft were used to carry cosmonauts to and from Salyut and later Mir Soviet space stations, and are now used for transport to and from the International Space Station. - OrangeTide, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Not sure why people believe the soviet union was a happy time. I guess only the privileged people living in Moscow made it out or there are a lot of children on digg that don't bother talking to their elders. Or know that the Soviet Union was made up of more than Russia.
Please explain to Ukrainians growing your food how you had electricity and they didn't. Or explain to Tajiks about how you had wood and coal in the winter and they didn't.
There was some serious ***** going on from the 80s to 90s. And I'm sorry many of you have been looking through rose coloured glasses.
- TSK05, on 11/21/2008, -3/+34"Having a space shuttle sure beats having heat and electricity."
- tux11, on 11/21/2008, -9/+0odd
- pathouston22, on 11/21/2008, -1/+6even
- noen, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2prime?
- pathouston22, on 11/21/2008, -1/+6even
- Hetman, on 11/21/2008, -9/+10The same reason America did. To show off their technological superiority. In reality their are no need for shuttles. They cost to much, and have higher upkeep than a traditional rockets of the Apollo missions. We could save money and do the same experiments with them. It was just a show of force by both sides.
- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -4/+16Really Mister Arm-Chair Astronaut? Care to explain how they managed to put most of the International Space Station modules in orbit? Hint: They didn't cram it into a Soyuz.
- MWeather, on 11/22/2008, -1/+4Actually, they did use a Soyuz, as well as Proton rockets. In fact the Proton lifted the two heaviest pieces of the station.
- MWeather, on 11/22/2008, -1/+4Actually, they did use a Soyuz, as well as Proton rockets. In fact the Proton lifted the two heaviest pieces of the station.
- Balanced, on 11/21/2008, -0/+9Not quite. The Shuttle as-is is not as efficient, mainly because it's a general-purpose solution whereas rockets are more flexible. The shuttle concept is theoretically cheaper, if it was developed to the point where it didn't require so much maintenance between flights and economy of scale kicked in.
- gweedo767, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4Just a little clarification on terms. Both launch systems (capsules and shuttles) use rockets to lift off. Rockets = the engine...not the housing.
- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4The shuttle is able to lift bulky cargo without having to collapse it to the same degree that is necessary for a rocket payload. This is useful if you have sensors, dishes or fragile panels that you don't want to fold up.
- Hetman, on 11/21/2008, -2/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
The shuttle that we are using now is capable of sending 25 tons into outer space. The saturn V Appollo moon Rocket is capable of sending 120 tons into outer space.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/svfacts.htm- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
"Allowing for inflation this is equivalent to roughly $32-45 billion in 2007 money.[18] This works out at an amortised cost of $2.4-3.5 billion per launch."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/informat ...
Q. How much does the Space Shuttle cost?
A. The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion.
So you could buy two three Space Shuttles for every launch of a Saturn V. - Hetman, on 11/21/2008, -2/+3Even if you built two or three. That would still only be at most 75 tons of carrying capacity which would not equal equal the The saturn V rocket. That would also require an additional three more launches and additional food cost. And you have to take into consideration that their are risks everytime you launch something into outerspace.
- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
- GT35R, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1The Space Shuttle program was half way point it creating a completely reusable space ship. Looking at the direction we are going now with Ares I and V it seems as though we no longer want to make a reusable ship. However the space shuttle program was in to way useless and it proved to be an effective orbital construction ship. A lot has been learned about construction in space.
- judicar, on 11/21/2008, -4/+16Really Mister Arm-Chair Astronaut? Care to explain how they managed to put most of the International Space Station modules in orbit? Hint: They didn't cram it into a Soyuz.
- ima007, on 11/21/2008, -17/+5In Soviet Russia, space shuttle builds you!
- JitMaster, on 11/21/2008, -0/+13In Soviet Russia, Space shuttle crashes economy.
- sremick, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1In the USA, that joke is old, worn and long-since stopped being funny.
- galeninjapan, on 11/21/2008, -3/+22The Soviet Union had much bigger problems. Like being able to afford to import grain to feed their own people.
- martynda, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2Nah, it was called the Ukraine back then... oh wait...
- galeninjapan, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5The USSR had to import grain from the United States. Talk about humiliating.
- davidkeithjones, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3and American producers needed the exports to make money o0o0
- martynda, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2Nah, it was called the Ukraine back then... oh wait...
- chazcron, on 11/21/2008, -2/+13I remember some Soviet bureaucrat dismissing the similarity to the shuttle as "aerodynamic realities"
- Balanced, on 11/21/2008, -0/+7Well,yeah. If you're flying a similar mission profile the vehicles will likely be very similar. An aeronautical engineer can liekly point out many differences.
- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4Well it's true. If you want to make a vehicle with the simular capabilities, it's going to end up being roughly the same shape. No surprise there.
The real question is why would the Soviet government order a vehicle with the same capabilities as the US shuttle? I think this article answers this question well.
- Bartima3us, on 11/21/2008, -14/+7For teh lulz
- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -3/+56There were two big achievements, the orbiter was just the most visually apparent. Despite what the legions of upcoming posts are likely to say, the Buran was _not_ a direct copy of the shuttle. The aerodynamics were the same because the outside shape was the same, but the guts were _completely_ different. It had more advanced avionics, a full autopilot, a completely different style of propulsion system (the main engines for the Shuttle are on the shuttle, but the Buran only has maneuvering rockets that it actually uses in space) and so on. Sure, they boosted the public shuttle docs, but it was brilliant because they were able to save billions of rubles in aerodynamic testing and piggyback off the US efforts.
The real engineering win was the decision to make the launch platform (the Energiya booster) independent. It was a heavy lift booster with performance comparable to a Saturn V and plans were to boost its cargo capability through additional liquid boosters. It launched twice, both times flawlessly. The Buran launch, and also a fascinating Soviet space battlestation called Polyus. The other launch was fine until the Polyus detached and mysteriously over-rotated and instead of injecting itself into orbit, injected itself into the Indian Ocean. Read up on the Polyus, it was to be an honest to goodness nuclear space battlestation with lasers, warheads, cannons, and so on.
The article doesn't explain the real reason the USSR built the shuttle. Glushko was in a perpetual rivalry w/ the Korolev side of things. The US has NASA, but NASA has subcontractors, right? The USSR was similar, except instead of subcontractors, it was almost like they had two different 'NASA's that were competing for funding and political will. The Glushko Buran was a high profile project sold to the Soviet leadership on the idea that it would improve their standing and give them a leg up on Korolev's (long dead) side and allow them to supplant the tried & true R7 based launch infrastructure that had/has served them so well.- amightywind, on 11/21/2008, -4/+13The Russians kept the worse aspects of NASA's shuttle design and added a several more. The Energia booster is one of the least efficient and most costly booster systems ever conceived. It threw away the equivalent of 4 (!) zenit boosters, a massive structural tank, and 4 expensive H2O2 engines on every flight!
It is a common silly misconception that a space shuttle requires a pilot's hand to land. It does not. I shuttle commander keeps his hands on his knees until the computer deems it safe for him to take the stick at about 100,000 feet where the aerosurfaces become effective. He then follows a computer prescribed path, video game style until he is flaring above the runway. Somehow, I think NASA could land the thing automatically. Indeed before the shuttle is retired I think it should fly unmanned missions to the ISS for R&D purposes. Buran flew unmanned because the tonnage of electric batteries it required left no space for a crew! It was not a fully viable spacecraft.- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8You're almost right, but it was a shame you were modded down because you make some good points.
1. The Zenit boosters were expended in the beginning, but the plan was to make them re-usable. Of course, the US planned re-usable liquid flyback boosters too, so we know that plans don't always work out. Additionally, the re-use of the SSME on the shuttle is theoretical at best, they're torn down and rebuilt pretty much every flight, and there are persuasive numbers that suggest simply disposing of them would be cheaper.
2. While the Shuttle could be modified to land automatically, it would require some changes. One of the simplest ones being the deployment of the landing gear. It may sound silly, but because early deployment (say, in orbit) would result in a destroyed spacecraft (can't be retracted, would burn up on re-entry) the pilots succesfully lobbied for a design that requires a person to deploy the wheels. There are no computer interconnects. If you've ever worked on a NASA project, you know that there are no simple modifications these days, so this would be a non-trivial task to change.
3. The Buran didn't carry crew for a few reasons, the batteries weren't it, though. There was no life support system installed and test flying a rocket for the first time with people on it is retarded. That the US Shuttle did so is astonishing, but luckily, ended up well. It was the first (and last so far) time a man-rated rocket was first launched with people on board. - mercano, on 11/21/2008, -0/+7A few flights ago, the shuttle carried a special cable up to ISS to be stowed. The cable would connect the shuttle's computer system to the last few flight controls it doesn't have already have access to. The idea is that should the heat tiles be damaged during launch on an ISS mission, and it was questionable whether or not the shuttle would survive reentry, the cable would be hooked up, the crew would evac onto the station to wait for a rescue flight, and the shuttle would auto-pilot home. If it survived, the computer could land it and the shuttle could be salvaged (though, honestly, at that point, the project would probably get canceled.) If not, well, at least it was unmanned. Hope the rescue flight to the station doesn't have the same problem!
Why a cable on the shuttle stored on the station? Well, its only useful if you have a safe harbor to wait in, and there's no point re-launching the thing every flight. - amightywind, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5@mercano Very interesting about the flight control. I always wondered what NASA would do with a shuttle with a damaged heat shield. Surely they would try to bring it home, even if it weren't fit for a crew.
@Chairboy "That the US Shuttle did so is astonishing, but luckily, ended up well. It was the first (and last so far) time a man-rated rocket was first launched with people on board." Agreed. I have always said STS-1 was one of the great death defying stunts of all time, and a tribute to some smart engineers. Escape via ejection seats into a hypersonic slip stream, then a wash by solid booster exhaust as they scream by! LOL! - lowbot, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3The only reason the shuttle cant land itself is because of political maneuvering by astronauts. They wanted to be able to fly the thing some time during the flight so they wouldnt just be passive riders. They even changed the design so only humans could deploy the landing gear, but I believe thats changed since the last accident.
There is no technical limitation here, its pure politics. Another reason why history will not remember the shuttle program well. Too much politics. Too many mission scenarios from the military. Too big astronaut egos.
- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8You're almost right, but it was a shame you were modded down because you make some good points.
- dusanmal, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8One more detail for your excellent comment (which is worth as much as the article itself).
There were some crucial purpose differences too. Soviets have had almost flawless space cargo delivery system they didn't care upgrading. Hence, the cargo space on Buran was not crucial do the design as with Space Shuttle (where one serious design constraint was the large size and access of the cargo bay). Hence, Buran could be smaller and more agile with the main purpose of personnel carrier. However, their old "human delivery" system also worked almost flawlessly and more importantly - cheaply.- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Truth. The launch costs for the US Shuttle range between $500million and $1 billion each, depending on who you believe.
The complete costs, including purchase of the spacecraft, booster, fuel, etc for a Soyuz launch is between $25-75 million, using the same 'depends on who you talk to' criteria.
"But, the shuttle carries cargo!" True, so you add a Proton booster with Shuttle equivalent cargo carrying capability for another $60 million, and you're still well below the shuttle cost.
The Shuttle is cool, but we're moving away from the design philosophy for a resaon.
- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Truth. The launch costs for the US Shuttle range between $500million and $1 billion each, depending on who you believe.
- frequentFlyer, on 11/21/2008, -5/+0That's great, and all, but it *never* flew!
- Chairboy, on 11/21/2008, -1/+41 divided by zero (the correct number of launches versus the figure you gave) leads me to the conclusion that you are ∞% wrong.
- frequentFlyer, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1Totally my bad.
- amightywind, on 11/21/2008, -4/+13The Russians kept the worse aspects of NASA's shuttle design and added a several more. The Energia booster is one of the least efficient and most costly booster systems ever conceived. It threw away the equivalent of 4 (!) zenit boosters, a massive structural tank, and 4 expensive H2O2 engines on every flight!
- starmanjones, on 11/21/2008, -7/+6this was never a big secret i've known about it for years and years. one of the first things i knew was that it flew and landed without a crew. not too shabby. in theory our shuttle could do that but i takes rigging up makeshift systems.
the russians have a different design philosophy but they do brilliant work. we should learn from them. seriously, we have whats left of our shuttle fleet. they have a very dependable launch and return system. all the years we were grounded reinventing the wheel... they had a permanently manned spacestation.- helmsb, on 11/21/2008, -2/+1The US Space Shuttle gained automatic flight controls during their refit. They can now be controlled from the ground without a crew. It was done in case the shuttle was damaged. Another shuttle could retrieve the crew and NASA could attempt to bring the damaged shuttle home.
- starmanjones, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1last i heard they had to rig a cable to a winch at the other end of the flight deck to lower the gear...
- helmsb, on 11/21/2008, -2/+1The US Space Shuttle gained automatic flight controls during their refit. They can now be controlled from the ground without a crew. It was done in case the shuttle was damaged. Another shuttle could retrieve the crew and NASA could attempt to bring the damaged shuttle home.
- amightywind, on 11/21/2008, -13/+8"Why did the USSR build Buran - the Soviet 'space shuttle'?"
To copy the Space Shuttle.- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Not sure why you get dugg down. It was a "symmetric response" to the shuttle program.
- amightywind, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Which was my point. The Russians and Chinese copy a lot of American aerospace technology, then out come the apologists claiming that they are really different. What about the Russian Backfire bomber? It is virtually identical to a B1. It is such a leviathan that the Georgians took one down this summer. The MIg-29 is obviously a copy of an F-15. What about the Chinese and Shezhou? Shenzhou must by Chinese for Soyuz.
- BabyWookie, on 11/22/2008, -1/+1LOL. A Tu-22 (Backfire) is NOTHING at all like the B1. You are thinking of the Tu-160 (Blackjack). I know that you hate Russia and all, but The Georgians never took down a Blackjack, which is very much superior to the B1: it's twice as big, twice as fast, has twice the range and twice the payload capacity. In fact, it is the largest combat air craft ever built. The Georgians shut down two Su-25's ground attack jets, which are similiar in capabilities to the A-10 Warthog and that ancient Backfire, which was converted into a recon jet. The F-15 is such an obvious copy of the MiG-25. By the way, guess where the tech for F-117's low radar-cross section came from? OMG, the US sure copies a lot of its tech from the Russians! (j/k)
- amightywind, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1@BabyWookie. Wow! You are very ignorant.
"The F-15 is such an obvious copy of the MiG-25"
The Mig-25 was short range high speed interceptor. The F-15 a much smaller more agile multirole fighter.
The tech from the F-117 came from a Lockheed program called Have Blue in the 70's.
Thank you for pointing out my misstatement. I did mean Blackjack. The B1 Lancer is by all accounts a vastly superior aircraft to the Tu-160. It is designed to cruise at low altitude and has some low observability features. The Tu-160 is a big juicy target. The Russians are technological cavemen.
- aolshove, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4Rust in pieces, Buran. It was like we hardly knew you.
- Napiertt, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Damn shame
- MacParrot, on 11/21/2008, -5/+3The Space Shuttles days are over and the final nail in the coffin was the flight of Spaceship 1. So much of the lift capacity of the Shuttle's detachable engines are wasted on just getting the behemoth off the ground. In the meantime, Spaceship 1 broke the space barrier by utilizing energy most efficiently when they seperated from their mothership at 50,000 feet (maybe more, I don't remember offhand).
Use heavy lift rockets to do just that, put heavy things in space. Use something like Spaceship 1 (and yes I know it isn't currently capable of reaching higher orbits) to put people in space.- gweedo767, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1You do realise that something along those lines is how the ARES launch system is going to work. The Ares I rocket will only lift the crew capsule into LEO. The ARES V rocket will launch the service module and more into LEO for the Orion Capsule to dock with. It will then be able to use the rockets lifted by the ARES V to head to the moon. They can of course also use the ARES V to lift heavy crap to LEO for ISS and such.
- MacParrot, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1No, I understand that but there's a difference in this mission as well. ARES is meant to lift a lot of stuff and push it toward a planetary body. The shuttle is only for low to high earth orbiting sattilites and for servicing the ISS.
- erkokite, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Spaceship 1 was a SUBORBITAL flight with an absolutely minuscule payload. The only thing at all remarkable about this was the design (quite nice for the purpose), and the fact that it was manned.
NASA did this in the early 1960's. The Russians had manned orbital flight in 1961. The shuttle, though I'll agree, is not the best, but it has an unprecedented payload capacity and at least it can make it to LEO.
I'm tired of people spouting off garbage about how easily Rutan and crew built the SS1 and got it into space. It didn't even orbit (nor could it AFAIK) and its payload was tiny. You're comparing apples to oranges.
To make a car analogy, you're comparing a golf cart (SS1) to an F150 (Shuttle). Entirely different things.- MacParrot, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1That's a good analogy. Take it farther. Golf cart just good for getting a few people from point A to point B on a golf course (ground to low earth orbit with some design modifications, yes I know SS1 couldn't orbit or even enter LEO), F150 big payload.
My point was how much energy was wasted just putting 5-8 people in orbit with the Shuttle as big as it was. How much energy was wasted that could have been used for payload instead. Sure it also usually carried a payload as well, but as far as cost/energy/material savings go, reusing the Shuttle for each flight was hardly efficient. One of the biggest costs is the main fuel tank which was burned up after each flight.
- MacParrot, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1That's a good analogy. Take it farther. Golf cart just good for getting a few people from point A to point B on a golf course (ground to low earth orbit with some design modifications, yes I know SS1 couldn't orbit or even enter LEO), F150 big payload.
- gweedo767, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1You do realise that something along those lines is how the ARES launch system is going to work. The Ares I rocket will only lift the crew capsule into LEO. The ARES V rocket will launch the service module and more into LEO for the Orion Capsule to dock with. It will then be able to use the rockets lifted by the ARES V to head to the moon. They can of course also use the ARES V to lift heavy crap to LEO for ISS and such.
- Jude007, on 11/21/2008, -1/+7RIP USSR. You were directly responsible for keeping so many crazies occupied.
- OrangeTide, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3The crazies still had enough time to reproduce and change the US pledge of allegiance to suit their own warped view of the world.
- Yimyack, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2Answer: The Cosmonauts got drunk one Thursday night.
- BXRWXR, on 11/21/2008, -3/+11Buran Buran was an awesome band.
- LastDitchHero, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4They didn't really need it cause of all the recovered alien technology from the Stargate agreement.
/sarcasm - oboshoe, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1Buran - Sounds like a Mexican bean dish.
- borez, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Good Buran pics:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1362 - SpenderH, on 11/21/2008, -3/+25While attending the University of Houston, I took a Mechanical Engineering course from a former NASA employee. He told an amusing story about the Russians copying the US's shuttle launch. For shuttle launches NASA uses an old Apollo launch pad. Due to the orientation of the launch, and the need to take off to the East, the Shuttle goes up and does a certain twist and turn. When Russia launched their shuttle they did the same maneuver. It perplexed the American observers. When NASA started closely working with Russia years later they asked why they had done the maneuver and they answer was the predictable "We don't know what purpose it serves. We did it because you did it."
- pradvan, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2If that's indeed true, it's pretty funny
- adlep, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8Buran Landing Archive Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQIRyeVt_YQ
A lot of pictures (including cockpit):
http://www.astronautix.com/gallery/cburan.htm
And finally, even more photos of Buran from dark roasted blend:
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/11/rare-photo ...
Enjoy!
P.S. I have nothing but an admiration to the Russian/Soviet people. In spite of a difficult life and a repressive govt. they have mananged to create a lot of marvelous technology.
Except cars...Soviet era cars really suck....
:-)
- Raven1268, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Yes, they certainly had a technological knack. I sometimes wonder, though, what was motivating and driving these programs - the spirit of discovery and competition with their American counterparts, or intense and perhaps dangerous political pressure from the Kremlin. Probably a little of all.
- sproket, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2Duran Duran? They built Duran Duran? Those commie bastards! Oh.. I looked at the title again.....
- sremick, on 11/21/2008, -1/+9Say what you want about the USSR, but they had an amazing space program. The Buran was just one of their achievements. They also put robotic rovers on the moon, and were the only ones to land spacecraft on the surface of Venus and take photos... something they did several times.
- Mylf, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2Last I heard, the soviet orbiter was turned into a restaurant in Kazakstahn
- dogson, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1What were they thinking, a ICBM is a superior delivery platform.
- ozymandias2012, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Because the USSR was led by half-wits.
- Snarfels, on 11/21/2008, -0/+0Buran, love it.
Beautiful you are, you'll fly agian. - Grolsch, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2I was born in same city as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Useless random fact but I found it mindblowing that nobody in US knows who he is. I mean space exploration and everything, part of the history that we are witnessing....
- sering, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1that's nice
http://greatcar.freehostia.com
http://forexposed.com
http://tembol.freehostia.com/
http://dianika.com/hotel
http://dianika.com/insurance/
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is