Ayy a new series! Great start, very excited to see where this goes Looks like we've both nabbed the BlueBrixx LK lander, mine literally got delivered halfway through watching this video ahaha
Let me know how the build works out for you! I had a couple of issues: - QR code for manual led to a dead link had to manually sign up for a Bluebrixx account and download the PDF - The "viewport" segment (big parabola part) doesn't really fit. I had to put something in between. - Landing legs are super flimsy. The thing doesn't really hold up on its own unless anchored to the plate. But for 25 Euro, it's quite ok.
@@ShadowZone I'd already downloaded the instructions onto my tablet so didn't bother with the QR code I found the same thing with the viewport, had to add a couple of extra pieces to make it fit and stop falling off all the time, but no biggie My landing legs are fine and it can stand on its own, but with non Lego brands the tolerances on their bricks are such that it was kinda just luck of the draw Chuffed with it for the price though!
I agree with both of you. We need to have a thorough comparison of both programs, including the training of the astronauts and cosmonauts. I know that cosmonaut Igor Volk was the prime Buran pilot.
Отличное видео! Нужно заметить, что при оценке грузоподъёмность ракет также стоит учитывать район пуска. Сатурн V запускался ближе к экватору, чем Н-1, что снижало затраты топлива для вывода полезной нагрузки на орбиту
I've seen the Russian lunar lander at the science museum London in a special exhibition, apparently, it very very rarely leaves Russia. There was also a talk by Cosmonaut Alexi Leonov ! what a day out
I think the biggest reason why the Saturn V succeeded was the fact they only needed to control five rocket engines on the first two stages. And Rocketdyne had to do a *LOT* of development work to get them to work correctly. N-1, even if Korolev didn't pass away in early 1966, would have been a nightmare to perfect because of the large number of engines on the first two stages (30 on the first, 8 on the second). Trying to make those run reliably and in sync was nearly impossible given the technology available to the Soviets at the time.
We in the States have decided to abandon all other units of measure and will now measure all things in units of Scott Manley. Thank you Shadow Zone for helping us abide by this new unit of measure
One aspect of the F-1 engine is that it remains the largest and most powerful single chamber open combustion engine ever used. The Saturn V did have its problems such a combustion instability, solved early in testing, and pretty bad pogo effects which could have prematurely ended Apollo 6 mission.
I saw an F-1 Engine up close in the Restoration Hangar of the Kalamazoo Air Zoo a couple months ago. That thing was colossal and underneath it felt even more impressive by its sheer scale. To think it was powered by five of them, and many years ago at the Johnson Space Center in Florida I got to see a Saturn V 1st Stage, but from a distance so I didn't appreciate how big the individual engines were until now. You would not want to be on the business end of it while it was on unless you wanted to be barbecued in an instant.
In fairness, the Saturn V also benefitted massively from the prior flight experience of the smaller Saturn I and IB, which gave plenty of flight experience to the J-2 and the S-IVB upper stage as well as to various aspects of the deployment of spacecraft. Those were essentially flawless flights. The Saturn V, despite the battleship test stand static firings and the flight experience from I and IB, it still flirted with disaster on Apollo 6 (AS-502) when pogo oscillations caused a panel to fall off, then after stage separation, J-2 #2 on the S-II failed out, then the J-2 on the S-IVB had a slight under performance after burning longer than expected to help make up the difference in delta-V. But that's not where the problems ended. When the S-IVB was to be fired to send the Apollo CSM and boilerplate LM on a TLI so that the CSM could perform an abort simulation where it would fire and essentially do a direct return with the SM's SPS engine, it failed. Because of this, a secondary plan to use the SPS to raise the apogee to 22,000 km was put in place, but it used too much propellant to speed up the reentry to also properly test the heat shield from lunar velocity. Thus, the only MISSION failure in Apollo occurred for Saturn V. NASA put a spin on it so that it was classified as a partial failure with some objectives achieved. But the two big critical ones were not.
One book I have about the Saturn V stated they were expecting a 50% failure rate with the Saturn 1’s and 1B’s. Pretty extraordinary that they all launched successfully. As for Apollo 6, didn’t they learn enough from it to be confident enough to do a crewed mission to the moon?
@@mako88sb Well, they didn't have much choice because they were desperate, and it came down to the wire with the Soviets on the cusp of launching a manned circumlunar flight with Zond.
@@Starshipsforever if it had blown up at or shortly after launch, do you think they would have went with a crewed mission to the moon with the next Saturn V launch. I highly doubt it.
@@mako88sb Given the desperation of the time, it's hard to say. It'd have depended on how fast the fault that caused the failure could be found and corrected. Just look at how long it took to resolve the Apollo CSM issues after the Apollo 1 disaster.
@@Starshipsforever True. It always amazes me how they were able to pinpoint problems or situations that led to failures. I read Tom Kelly’s book about all the issues that came up with the LM during its development. The Spider episode from the miniseries hardly covers any of it, not a criticism, fantastic episode. Not sure if you’ve read the book? If not, the one that really stood out for me was when one of the titanium tanks ruptured during testing. Because of the meticulous records keeping they did throughout the program, they figured out that special wipes used to prepare the titanium surfaces before welding were pretty expensive. They decided to wash them so they could be reused. The book says it was trace amounts of detergent left behind that compromised the weld but it seems to me that washing those wipes would have degraded them from properly preparing the titanium surfaces. I watched one documentary about the Apollo program and they interviewed James Webb. At some point Apollo 8 was brought up and he made it clear he thought it was an unacceptable risk considering all the careful planning that had gone into the program to maximize safety post the Apollo 1 disaster. It’s easy to see his point, especially considering how fresh that disaster was still in his mind. Fortunately it worked out well.
NK-15 and 33 were not decades ahead in terms of staged combustion, since the SSME/RS-25 was developed in the next decade and flown just 13 years after its Soviet predecessors. What they stayed ahead on was that they were oxygen-rich staged combustion (OSRC) engines, which the Soviets and then Russia stayed ahead on with RD-170, RD-180, and RD-191, until recently when the USA developed several of its own, with Blue Origin's BE-4 being the first to complete development and flown a full orbital boost mission.
Fun to watch and just right for me! :) Sometimes I like to watch the deeper stuff, but it's a bit hard to follow at the best of times and these aren't the best of times for me. Overview is good.
Suggestions for future match-ups: - STS vs. Energia Buran (although this has been done ad nauseam already) - Falcon Heavy vs. New Glenn (very timely, too) - R-7 Vostok vs. Mercury Atlas (same purpose, yet very different vehicles) - Proton vs. Saturn I (first ever heavy lifters) - Soyus vs. Long March 2F
I did a presentation for a software test community of practice meeting around the Saturn V, which was tested at every stage of its development, versus the “Big Bang” put-it-all-together-and-see approach taken by the Soviets- literally in this case!
I think the answers are pretty clear-cut here. One of them completed its mission almost flawlessly every time. The other exploded four times and then got turned into a supply shed. The N1 was a beautiful machine, and it was ahead of its time in a few ways, mostly the engines, but it was ultimately a heavily flawed vehicle that the Soviets lacked the ability to iron out all of the bugs in. If they'd had access to the same sort of testing facilities that the Americans had for Saturn V, maybe the N1 could've become a viable moon rocket, but it was never meant to be. The Saturn V, meanwhile, is a marvel. In just six short years it went from a design on a drawing board to orbiting the Moon, and even today it's the second most powerful operational rocket ever to fly. It sent 27 people to the Moon, 12 of them actually landing on it. NASA couldn't have asked for a better vehicle.
You didn't compare UPPER stage engines for efficiency. The Russians used more Kerosene and Oxygen on the upper stages. The Saturn used Hydrogen and Oxygen. So it wasn't just burn time that helped Saturn lift more, it was saving the complex and efficient HydroLOX engines for the upper stages where they would do the most good. Also, the reason why the Russian N1 had more stages than the Saturn is that they had not yet proven the reliability of engine restarts in space. Rocketdyne made the J-1, which was an efficient HydroLOX engine that could restart in space on the S-IVB. And the Russian engines were Oxidizer-rich staged combustion engines, instead of the SpaceX full flow staged combustion engine. But for its time, the Russians figured out something the US had given up on back in the 60s and 70s.
Imagine a reality where the Soviets and West worked together to get the more efficient N1 engines with the main stages from the Saturn. Shame that a few powerful men kept us from this reality.
Love this format! Please do Apollo CM/SM vs its Soviet counterpart if possible, and (easier since they actually flew) Mercury and Gemini vs their comparable Vostok(?) capsules.
Falcon vs Vulcan would be neat, but I'm more curious about the early launchers. Like we know about soyuz and the N1, but what other rockets flew in the 60's and 70's and how do they compare? Like the Titan IIID vs... Whatever the soviets had in the 70's. (I really like the design of the Titan IIID, it's just so derpy looking with the oversized boosters being just as big as the first stage.)
Always a good video. Maybe mix the history and the kerbal together. Demonstrate the rockets, talk history, showcase some mission profiles. Would be cool to see an N1 moon mission, lander and all.
I would like a Saturn V vs SLS matchup. I would like you to show that lugging that huge Hydrogen tank almost to orbit essentially negates all the gains SLS gets from the finicky and leak prone HydroLOX engines. It is positively obscenely, stupid. Whereas Saturn V used simple Kerosene open cycle engines on first stage, then dumped all that weight after the job was done, and went to 2 more efficient HydroLOX engined upper stages where they would do the most good. And it was 3 stage rather than the SLS 2-1/2 stage design. The SLS booster is sort of like the Atlas, with all its inefficiency of hauling the sustainer stage almost to orbit. That's why the base model lifts LESS than the Saturn V to orbit. Although in real inflation adjusted money, the SLS is amazingly cheaper than Saturn V.
doesn't S-IV B have 3 ignitions. I recall something about the 3rd burn being a remote command to direct it to crash on the moon after the command/service/lunar modules are all out of there.
A couple of S-IVB stages are drifting around the sun, others were impacted onto the lunar surface. They didn't burn the J-2 engine as such. Instead they propulsively dumped the remaining liquid oxygen to adjust its course, from what I read about the Apollo missions.
@@awilliams1701 The S-IVB had auxilary thrusters used for pushing the propellant down into the bottom of the tank before lighting the main engines, but they were used to put it on a crash course with the moon as well on later missions. Smarter Every Day has a video with a guy named Luke Talley that worked on the insturment ring for Saturn V and he goes into great detail on this vehicle.
The Saturn's ability to launch 137 tons to LEO is oft repeated, but isn't really accurate. A three stage Saturn V couldn't get to orbit with 137 tons on top of it because the third stage wouldn't deliver enough delta V in time. A two stage Saturn V could only deliver 76.5 tons, or about one Skylab. The N1, meanwhile, was designed as a three stage to orbit launcher. It's the same problem you often see in the American space program. They build a custom tool that is really good and one job, then they throw the design away after a couple of tries to start building a whole new tool from scratch. The soviets have a bit of the opposite problem, where they keep tweaking and upgrading an existing design long after a new clean design would be called for. Their program also relied more heavily on flight tests and debugging rather than certifying everything before even thinking about bending metal, which works less well with heavy lift vehicles (though SpaceX does show that the soviet approach to rocket design can work, both from the F9 upgrades and starship).
Yes, the 140t payload counts the dry mass of the S-IVB as well as the remaining fuel needed for the TLI maneuver. As for the approaches: well, NASA had a very specific goal: get to the moon faster than the Soviets. And the Saturn V fast the best tool for that job. Can't fault them for designing it that way.
Agreed. There often is a very wide chasm between theoretical capacity vs. proven in practice. This makes 'max. payload' a very finicky stat in any rocket comparison. One should also consider that many rockets are optimized for high orbits such as GTO. Those rockets tend to perform worse for LEO payloads.
May you please do the Saturn V vs the SLS? It's really interesting to see the design philosophies and choices between the two, especially since they are meant to fill the same mission but are vastly different. Also upgraded versions of the F1 (F1-B on the Dynetic Pyros booster) and the J2 (J2-X) were thought of in the SLS development, but later dropped.
Well, obviously a flying rocket is better then a exploding one. So the saturn V has to come out on top of the N1. However I think the NK 33 might just beet the F1 engine
How many kerbal rss/rp1 videos have you done? Most people go to moon then that's it. Why not start a series in career mode where you not only go to the moon and mars but to other planets and put a rover on Pluto and it's moon.
What this Rocket Rumble has taught me is that extensive, rigorous testing is a key factor in rocketry success, and this may well apply in all other engineering projects as well.
No matter which industry: Verify your assumptions! On paper, a lot makes sense. But as soon as you really put stress on the materials, a new factor will influence your thing that was unknown until then. Same with consumer facing software: no matter how smart you design it based on your experience, the only real benchmark is what users out there say.
I had for, many many years, considered the N1 design of using 30 individual rockets ridiculously complex and obviously doomed for failure. That all changed when SpaceX used a similarly complicated arrangement with success. It would now seem that the Soviets were ahead of their time and, with a bit more luck, could have had a rocket capable of beating the USA to the moon. We'll never know.
I subscribed and I like your videos however we the United States got to the moon on feet inches and miles and pounds of thrust. Please respect that 7,000,000 pounds of thrust not Megan Newton.
Not entirely true. For what was considered the most crucial part of the Apollo program, the lunar descent and ascent portions, they decided against imperial units. The Apollo LM guidance computers may have displayed imperial units but that was after being converted from the internal calculations done in metric. Of the 10 different calculations done internally by the guidance computer, 4 were converted for display. The other 6 never displayed were also done in metric.
You need to first understand, the space race was not about Soviet Union vs United States, but Germans vs Germans. Who’s Nazis were better. Operation paperclip as well as the Werner VonBraum group vs smaller lesser known Nazi rocket engineers. VonBraums scientists were well ahead of the V2 where Soviet Nazi prisoner slave scientists were stuck in the V2 smaller cluster engine designs. The N1 was an enlarged V2 design clustered to obtain the necessary thrust output. Because of rushing the design and no testing also because of the chief designer’s death caused a comedy of errors and the Soviet stubbornness to keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result, ignoring the flimsy engine mount plate, lack of gimbaling and using engine throttling instead with a rudimentary computer system. This forced design system wasted resources and time. The Soviet lunar project was doomed from the start.
The space race was about economic output. The Americans won because they could spend 20 times more on their moon program than the USSR could afford to spend on the N-1.
No mention of the cryogenic J-2 Apollo engine? You can't tell us about the advanced Russian engines and ignore the cryogenic J-2, which had a higher specific impulse and enabled Apollo to lift so much more than the N-1. Assuming the N-1 wasn't a colossal failure, of course.
A rocket is a device that propels itself using one or more rocket engines. Rockets typically carry their own oxidizer (unlike other combustion engines which use atmospheric oxygen instead). There are rockets that don’t leave the atmosphere. Military missiles. Amateur rockets.
The N1 had one major design defect. Trying to get 30 engines to ignite and operate properly at the same time. That's why every example suffered rapid unplanned disassembly. The Saturn 5 had five. It's easier to make five engines work than 30. Just ask Space-X. That super heavy booster is looking pretty sketchy to me.
The ignition wasn't the problem. It was the KORD control system. The F-1 had a lot of trouble during development because of its size. There was a lot of combustion instability leading to many engine explosions. It took multiple years until they solved that problem.
@@LegendaryGodKingOnly flight 1 has had multiple engines out. Unless you're talking about the engine relights for reusability? That was fuel slosh which bigger engines wouldn't solve. And other rockets don't even attempt.
Keep in mind that computers have like 1000x more processing power nowadays. Plus they have had most of the engines reliably ignite on the last few flights
Very neat series. Concise & data driven. Loved it.
2 rocket rumble suggestions:
STS (Space Shuttle) vs Buran
Ariane 6 vs Vulcan
Ayy a new series! Great start, very excited to see where this goes
Looks like we've both nabbed the BlueBrixx LK lander, mine literally got delivered halfway through watching this video ahaha
Let me know how the build works out for you! I had a couple of issues:
- QR code for manual led to a dead link had to manually sign up for a Bluebrixx account and download the PDF
- The "viewport" segment (big parabola part) doesn't really fit. I had to put something in between.
- Landing legs are super flimsy. The thing doesn't really hold up on its own unless anchored to the plate.
But for 25 Euro, it's quite ok.
sup beardy
@@ShadowZone I'd already downloaded the instructions onto my tablet so didn't bother with the QR code
I found the same thing with the viewport, had to add a couple of extra pieces to make it fit and stop falling off all the time, but no biggie
My landing legs are fine and it can stand on its own, but with non Lego brands the tolerances on their bricks are such that it was kinda just luck of the draw
Chuffed with it for the price though!
Sup dan@@danzstuff
@@TheBeardyPenguin Birdo are you going to continue for all kerbalkind, Or you will eventually start a new cooler series?
I feel Space shuttle vs Buran is necessary. I really like this video and am excited for more!
Absolutely agree! Shuttle v. Buran needs to be a topic!
I agree with both of you. We need to have a thorough comparison of both programs, including the training of the astronauts and cosmonauts. I know that cosmonaut Igor Volk was the prime Buran pilot.
Nice rumble!
As a couple of meganewtons of thrust tend to do ;)
Marcus!!!
Отличное видео!
Нужно заметить, что при оценке грузоподъёмность ракет также стоит учитывать район пуска. Сатурн V запускался ближе к экватору, чем Н-1, что снижало затраты топлива для вывода полезной нагрузки на орбиту
I've seen the Russian lunar lander at the science museum London in a special exhibition, apparently, it very very rarely leaves Russia. There was also a talk by Cosmonaut Alexi Leonov ! what a day out
I think the biggest reason why the Saturn V succeeded was the fact they only needed to control five rocket engines on the first two stages. And Rocketdyne had to do a *LOT* of development work to get them to work correctly.
N-1, even if Korolev didn't pass away in early 1966, would have been a nightmare to perfect because of the large number of engines on the first two stages (30 on the first, 8 on the second). Trying to make those run reliably and in sync was nearly impossible given the technology available to the Soviets at the time.
We in the States have decided to abandon all other units of measure and will now measure all things in units of Scott Manley. Thank you Shadow Zone for helping us abide by this new unit of measure
Okay, this has to be a continuing series. This is so fun 🚀
One aspect of the F-1 engine is that it remains the largest and most powerful single chamber open combustion engine ever used. The Saturn V did have its problems such a combustion instability, solved early in testing, and pretty bad pogo effects which could have prematurely ended Apollo 6 mission.
This is a "life sized Scott Manley!" love it, thank you!
I saw an F-1 Engine up close in the Restoration Hangar of the Kalamazoo Air Zoo a couple months ago. That thing was colossal and underneath it felt even more impressive by its sheer scale. To think it was powered by five of them, and many years ago at the Johnson Space Center in Florida I got to see a Saturn V 1st Stage, but from a distance so I didn't appreciate how big the individual engines were until now. You would not want to be on the business end of it while it was on unless you wanted to be barbecued in an instant.
In fairness, the Saturn V also benefitted massively from the prior flight experience of the smaller Saturn I and IB, which gave plenty of flight experience to the J-2 and the S-IVB upper stage as well as to various aspects of the deployment of spacecraft. Those were essentially flawless flights.
The Saturn V, despite the battleship test stand static firings and the flight experience from I and IB, it still flirted with disaster on Apollo 6 (AS-502) when pogo oscillations caused a panel to fall off, then after stage separation, J-2 #2 on the S-II failed out, then the J-2 on the S-IVB had a slight under performance after burning longer than expected to help make up the difference in delta-V.
But that's not where the problems ended.
When the S-IVB was to be fired to send the Apollo CSM and boilerplate LM on a TLI so that the CSM could perform an abort simulation where it would fire and essentially do a direct return with the SM's SPS engine, it failed. Because of this, a secondary plan to use the SPS to raise the apogee to 22,000 km was put in place, but it used too much propellant to speed up the reentry to also properly test the heat shield from lunar velocity.
Thus, the only MISSION failure in Apollo occurred for Saturn V. NASA put a spin on it so that it was classified as a partial failure with some objectives achieved. But the two big critical ones were not.
One book I have about the Saturn V stated they were expecting a 50% failure rate with the Saturn 1’s and 1B’s. Pretty extraordinary that they all launched successfully.
As for Apollo 6, didn’t they learn enough from it to be confident enough to do a crewed mission to the moon?
@@mako88sb Well, they didn't have much choice because they were desperate, and it came down to the wire with the Soviets on the cusp of launching a manned circumlunar flight with Zond.
@@Starshipsforever if it had blown up at or shortly after launch, do you think they would have went with a crewed mission to the moon with the next Saturn V launch. I highly doubt it.
@@mako88sb Given the desperation of the time, it's hard to say. It'd have depended on how fast the fault that caused the failure could be found and corrected.
Just look at how long it took to resolve the Apollo CSM issues after the Apollo 1 disaster.
@@Starshipsforever True. It always amazes me how they were able to pinpoint problems or situations that led to failures. I read Tom Kelly’s book about all the issues that came up with the LM during its development. The Spider episode from the miniseries hardly covers any of it, not a criticism, fantastic episode.
Not sure if you’ve read the book? If not, the one that really stood out for me was when one of the titanium tanks ruptured during testing. Because of the meticulous records keeping they did throughout the program, they figured out that special wipes used to prepare the titanium surfaces before welding were pretty expensive. They decided to wash them so they could be reused. The book says it was trace amounts of detergent left behind that compromised the weld but it seems to me that washing those wipes would have degraded them from properly preparing the titanium surfaces.
I watched one documentary about the Apollo program and they interviewed James Webb. At some point Apollo 8 was brought up and he made it clear he thought it was an unacceptable risk considering all the careful planning that had gone into the program to maximize safety post the Apollo 1 disaster. It’s easy to see his point, especially considering how fresh that disaster was still in his mind. Fortunately it worked out well.
NK-15 and 33 were not decades ahead in terms of staged combustion, since the SSME/RS-25 was developed in the next decade and flown just 13 years after its Soviet predecessors. What they stayed ahead on was that they were oxygen-rich staged combustion (OSRC) engines, which the Soviets and then Russia stayed ahead on with RD-170, RD-180, and RD-191, until recently when the USA developed several of its own, with Blue Origin's BE-4 being the first to complete development and flown a full orbital boost mission.
Let's go get him to 100K, now!
This time i was able to catch your video the moment it released!
Congratulations. A very well structured comparison of Moon rockets. Keep it up. Starship and SLS will be an interesting one.
Life-size Scott Manley! That’s funny
Off the top of my head:
- Energia vs STS
- Mir vs Tiangong
- Soyuz vs Dragon vs Apollo
- Falcon 9 vs ... ?
Falcon vs shuttle of course
Landing planes or landing rockets
That’s pretty much how did they do it
I wouldn’t Energia vs STS, as one was originally designed for the moon…
Buran vs the shuttle would make more sence
falcon vs Titan?
Fun to watch and just right for me! :) Sometimes I like to watch the deeper stuff, but it's a bit hard to follow at the best of times and these aren't the best of times for me. Overview is good.
Suggestions for future match-ups:
- STS vs. Energia Buran (although this has been done ad nauseam already)
- Falcon Heavy vs. New Glenn (very timely, too)
- R-7 Vostok vs. Mercury Atlas (same purpose, yet very different vehicles)
- Proton vs. Saturn I (first ever heavy lifters)
- Soyus vs. Long March 2F
I did a presentation for a software test community of practice meeting around the Saturn V, which was tested at every stage of its development, versus the “Big Bang” put-it-all-together-and-see approach taken by the Soviets- literally in this case!
THIS IS GREAT NEW CONTENT!!!
*UR-700 enters the chat*
I like the format quite a bit. Especially interested in a Lunar Lander Rumble.
I think the answers are pretty clear-cut here. One of them completed its mission almost flawlessly every time. The other exploded four times and then got turned into a supply shed.
The N1 was a beautiful machine, and it was ahead of its time in a few ways, mostly the engines, but it was ultimately a heavily flawed vehicle that the Soviets lacked the ability to iron out all of the bugs in. If they'd had access to the same sort of testing facilities that the Americans had for Saturn V, maybe the N1 could've become a viable moon rocket, but it was never meant to be.
The Saturn V, meanwhile, is a marvel. In just six short years it went from a design on a drawing board to orbiting the Moon, and even today it's the second most powerful operational rocket ever to fly. It sent 27 people to the Moon, 12 of them actually landing on it. NASA couldn't have asked for a better vehicle.
The saturn v actually send 24 people to the moon not 27 but it’s is true that 12 of them landed on the moon
You didn't compare UPPER stage engines for efficiency. The Russians used more Kerosene and Oxygen on the upper stages. The Saturn used Hydrogen and Oxygen. So it wasn't just burn time that helped Saturn lift more, it was saving the complex and efficient HydroLOX engines for the upper stages where they would do the most good.
Also, the reason why the Russian N1 had more stages than the Saturn is that they had not yet proven the reliability of engine restarts in space. Rocketdyne made the J-1, which was an efficient HydroLOX engine that could restart in space on the S-IVB.
And the Russian engines were Oxidizer-rich staged combustion engines, instead of the SpaceX full flow staged combustion engine. But for its time, the Russians figured out something the US had given up on back in the 60s and 70s.
@@i-love-space390 Thanks for the great information. Seems like I’m always learning something new about the Apollo program.
The hardest to research matchup probably would be the ones with Chinese involvement.
Like Sojus capsule vs Shenzhou
Eyyyyyy New series
Imagine a reality where the Soviets and West worked together to get the more efficient N1 engines with the main stages from the Saturn. Shame that a few powerful men kept us from this reality.
Love this format! Please do Apollo CM/SM vs its Soviet counterpart if possible, and (easier since they actually flew) Mercury and Gemini vs their comparable Vostok(?) capsules.
Like this direction of your channel! Maybe Rocket Roar vs. Rocket Rumble, but either one works for me!
KSP won't let you test the N-1, but Juno New Origins will definetly do!
new shadowzone video lets gooo
moment
Falcon vs Vulcan would be neat, but I'm more curious about the early launchers. Like we know about soyuz and the N1, but what other rockets flew in the 60's and 70's and how do they compare? Like the Titan IIID vs... Whatever the soviets had in the 70's. (I really like the design of the Titan IIID, it's just so derpy looking with the oversized boosters being just as big as the first stage.)
Always a good video. Maybe mix the history and the kerbal together. Demonstrate the rockets, talk history, showcase some mission profiles. Would be cool to see an N1 moon mission, lander and all.
Falcon heavy vs Delta 4 Heavy. Both 3 core rockets with 'heavy' title
'Battle of the heavies 😂'
Thats CLEARLY a 1/16th scott manley.
0:13 ah yes, the bisexual saturn V
I would like a Saturn V vs SLS matchup.
I would like you to show that lugging that huge Hydrogen tank almost to orbit essentially negates all the gains SLS gets from the finicky and leak prone HydroLOX engines. It is positively obscenely, stupid.
Whereas Saturn V used simple Kerosene open cycle engines on first stage, then dumped all that weight after the job was done, and went to 2 more efficient HydroLOX engined upper stages where they would do the most good. And it was 3 stage rather than the SLS 2-1/2 stage design. The SLS booster is sort of like the Atlas, with all its inefficiency of hauling the sustainer stage almost to orbit. That's why the base model lifts LESS than the Saturn V to orbit. Although in real inflation adjusted money, the SLS is amazingly cheaper than Saturn V.
doesn't S-IV B have 3 ignitions. I recall something about the 3rd burn being a remote command to direct it to crash on the moon after the command/service/lunar modules are all out of there.
A couple of S-IVB stages are drifting around the sun, others were impacted onto the lunar surface. They didn't burn the J-2 engine as such. Instead they propulsively dumped the remaining liquid oxygen to adjust its course, from what I read about the Apollo missions.
@@ShadowZone so they turned it into a pressure fed non ignighting engine. Interesting.
@@awilliams1701 The S-IVB had auxilary thrusters used for pushing the propellant down into the bottom of the tank before lighting the main engines, but they were used to put it on a crash course with the moon as well on later missions. Smarter Every Day has a video with a guy named Luke Talley that worked on the insturment ring for Saturn V and he goes into great detail on this vehicle.
The man himself-Scott Manley
Hey mister zone, you can get a Kerbal shirt that looks like that NASA one you're wearing
I feel like R7 vs Falcon 9 could be interesting
I want to see Rocket Rumble of SLS vs. Starship
We need a video on Energia asap, that thing looks cool :)
I kinda did already: ruclips.net/video/ieqDMFfyifo/видео.html
I have never seen anything about the Almaz spacecraft. Perhaps a matchup between Almaz and Gemini?
The Saturn's ability to launch 137 tons to LEO is oft repeated, but isn't really accurate. A three stage Saturn V couldn't get to orbit with 137 tons on top of it because the third stage wouldn't deliver enough delta V in time. A two stage Saturn V could only deliver 76.5 tons, or about one Skylab. The N1, meanwhile, was designed as a three stage to orbit launcher.
It's the same problem you often see in the American space program. They build a custom tool that is really good and one job, then they throw the design away after a couple of tries to start building a whole new tool from scratch. The soviets have a bit of the opposite problem, where they keep tweaking and upgrading an existing design long after a new clean design would be called for. Their program also relied more heavily on flight tests and debugging rather than certifying everything before even thinking about bending metal, which works less well with heavy lift vehicles (though SpaceX does show that the soviet approach to rocket design can work, both from the F9 upgrades and starship).
Yes, the 140t payload counts the dry mass of the S-IVB as well as the remaining fuel needed for the TLI maneuver.
As for the approaches: well, NASA had a very specific goal: get to the moon faster than the Soviets. And the Saturn V fast the best tool for that job. Can't fault them for designing it that way.
Agreed. There often is a very wide chasm between theoretical capacity vs. proven in practice. This makes 'max. payload' a very finicky stat in any rocket comparison.
One should also consider that many rockets are optimized for high orbits such as GTO. Those rockets tend to perform worse for LEO payloads.
The shuttle vs Buran
May you please do the Saturn V vs the SLS? It's really interesting to see the design philosophies and choices between the two, especially since they are meant to fill the same mission but are vastly different. Also upgraded versions of the F1 (F1-B on the Dynetic Pyros booster) and the J2 (J2-X) were thought of in the SLS development, but later dropped.
Isn't having such a massive tapered surface going to introduce a lot more drag? That's a much bigger cross-section
Air resistance just isn't that significant. You do what you can to minimize it, but it just doesn't make or break a rocket.
NK Lander LEGO! Wants to know about it?
4:31 i think artemis 1 beat it first, even though starship then took over a few months later
My rocket may not be long and girthy,but it can deliver a lot of payload
Could you possibly give equivalent measurements to the metric system? I have a tough time visualization metrics.
Who won this rumble..? The one that worked..? 🤷♂
Did you make a video about the Sea Dragon already? It would be interesting to watch!
Not yet.
👍👍👍❤❤❤🚀🚀🚀
Do you think they would share?
Well, obviously a flying rocket is better then a exploding one. So the saturn V has to come out on top of the N1.
However I think the NK 33 might just beet the F1 engine
Have you ever watched for all mankind?
How many kerbal rss/rp1 videos have you done? Most people go to moon then that's it. Why not start a series in career mode where you not only go to the moon and mars but to other planets and put a rover on Pluto and it's moon.
Is starship gonna be in the series
Starship vs. SLS - battle of the new age monsters
@@ShadowZoneSLS is 70s tech...
What this Rocket Rumble has taught me is that extensive, rigorous testing is a key factor in rocketry success, and this may well apply in all other engineering projects as well.
No matter which industry: Verify your assumptions! On paper, a lot makes sense. But as soon as you really put stress on the materials, a new factor will influence your thing that was unknown until then.
Same with consumer facing software: no matter how smart you design it based on your experience, the only real benchmark is what users out there say.
I had for, many many years, considered the N1 design of using 30 individual rockets ridiculously complex and obviously doomed for failure. That all changed when SpaceX used a similarly complicated arrangement with success. It would now seem that the Soviets were ahead of their time and, with a bit more luck, could have had a rocket capable of beating the USA to the moon. We'll never know.
I subscribed and I like your videos however we the United States got to the moon on feet inches and miles and pounds of thrust. Please respect that 7,000,000 pounds of thrust not Megan Newton.
Not entirely true. For what was considered the most crucial part of the Apollo program, the lunar descent and ascent portions, they decided against imperial units. The Apollo LM guidance computers may have displayed imperial units but that was after being converted from the internal calculations done in metric. Of the 10 different calculations done internally by the guidance computer, 4 were converted for display. The other 6 never displayed were also done in metric.
You need to first understand, the space race was not about Soviet Union vs United States, but Germans vs Germans. Who’s Nazis were better. Operation paperclip as well as the Werner VonBraum group vs smaller lesser known Nazi rocket engineers. VonBraums scientists were well ahead of the V2 where Soviet Nazi prisoner slave scientists were stuck in the V2 smaller cluster engine designs. The N1 was an enlarged V2 design clustered to obtain the necessary thrust output. Because of rushing the design and no testing also because of the chief designer’s death caused a comedy of errors and the Soviet stubbornness to keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result, ignoring the flimsy engine mount plate, lack of gimbaling and using engine throttling instead with a rudimentary computer system. This forced design system wasted resources and time. The Soviet lunar project was doomed from the start.
The space race was about economic output. The Americans won because they could spend 20 times more on their moon program than the USSR could afford to spend on the N-1.
No mention of the cryogenic J-2 Apollo engine? You can't tell us about the advanced Russian engines and ignore the cryogenic J-2, which had a higher specific impulse and enabled Apollo to lift so much more than the N-1. Assuming the N-1 wasn't a colossal failure, of course.
It isn't a rocket if it doesn't get anything into space. The Soviets built a sophisticated, unpredictable bomb.
A rocket is a device that propels itself using one or more rocket engines. Rockets typically carry their own oxidizer (unlike other combustion engines which use atmospheric oxygen instead). There are rockets that don’t leave the atmosphere. Military missiles. Amateur rockets.
The N1 had one major design defect. Trying to get 30 engines to ignite and operate properly at the same time. That's why every example suffered rapid unplanned disassembly. The Saturn 5 had five. It's easier to make five engines work than 30. Just ask Space-X. That super heavy booster is looking pretty sketchy to me.
Super heavy flight 2 and onwards have performed very well btw. And Falcon Heavy's 27 engine launches are also good.
I would agree with you, but super heavy has ran with multiple engines out. Technology has come a long way.
The ignition wasn't the problem. It was the KORD control system.
The F-1 had a lot of trouble during development because of its size. There was a lot of combustion instability leading to many engine explosions. It took multiple years until they solved that problem.
@@LegendaryGodKingOnly flight 1 has had multiple engines out. Unless you're talking about the engine relights for reusability? That was fuel slosh which bigger engines wouldn't solve. And other rockets don't even attempt.
Keep in mind that computers have like 1000x more processing power nowadays. Plus they have had most of the engines reliably ignite on the last few flights
As much as I love the Saturn 5, I have to admit the N1 looks way cooler.