N1 Rocket Launch Failures
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2024
- The N1 was the Soviet counterpart to the US Saturn V Apollo program and was intended to enable crewed travel to Earth's Moon and beyond. All four attempts to launch an N1 failed, with the second attempt resulting in the vehicle crashing back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and causing one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in human history.
0:00 Introduction
0:02 21 February 1969 09:18:07 Baikonur Site 110/38
1:56 3 July 1969 20:18:32 Baikonur Site 110/38
3:11 26 June 1971 23:15:08 Baikonur Site 110/37 5L - Zond L15-2
4:09 23 November 1972 06:11:55 Baikonur Site 110/37 
Наука
Sadly, N-1 rocket never passed even first-staged separation...
*FIST* stages separation?
Actually, for the sssr, this failure can be considered fisting
@@FedoReds88 😂
The N-1 looks so flimsy compared to the Saturn V. I'm amazed it flew correctly at all.
Nah, it always separated in way more pieces than any Saturn V ever did.
1:54 Revert to VAB
[Yes] [No]
Yee
Yeeaah 😎😂😂😂
@ yes but it was a joke
Ah Yes KSP
Alpha Adhito yes
no interest from the party -> lack of funding -> competition instead of cooperation between bureaus -> quarrel between Korolev and Glushko -> too complicated 1st stage -> no test stand -> 0 data about working capacity -> Korolev's death -> project transfer to Glushko -> no interest from Glushko about Korolev's "child" -> result
Is multiple small motors really more complicated then what we had to do to get the Saturn's F-1 Motors to work? I've always thought that was mostly trivial when you figure it in with the rest of a rocket's engineering.
I think the main problem with it was simply motor reliability, something they eventually nailed.
It's not about engines itself, it's about pumps, wires, valves, turbines and many more parts that connects these engines and can fail through some pressure or friction. As always - less parts = less chance of failure.
I think it was mishin (or however you write his name) who took over after korolev Glushko designed the perfectly succesful Energia and the Buran
Mishin took an executive position. And according to contemporaries of that time, he wasn't as good as Korolev, he just catered to the authorities. By the way, all cosmonauts deaths (Soyuz 1 and 11) happened under his direction and Korolev's daughter even blamed him for this. Kamanin in his book wrote many interesting things about Mishin's manegement, but I don't know was it ever been translated or not.
@@GURken and if i can remember correctly he was fired after the 4th launch of the N1
Pretty realistic CGI reconstruction of what we believe the actual events looked like. Nice job.
Actually the fireball would have been bigger
@@antstechstuff1784 true
@@antstechstuff1784 hahaha
THe 3L launch (the 1st launch) is not correct, he needs to fix it, still nice animations.
That must have been so heartbreaking for all of the engineers, technicians, etc. 😭
The second launch was literally heartbraking
What went wrong on the first launch? Did the N1's bottom stage not separate? What a mess. The second is horrific. That is a miracle if no one was killed. The N1 looks so flimsy compared to the Saturn V.
@@thunderbird1921 but it was a lot stronger tho
The first launch had problems with fires on board and with the guidance computer
@@thunderbird1921 :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#First_failure,_serial_3L
@@thunderbird1921 The most curious thing about second failure is that only about 15% of total propellant detonated. Just let that sink in. It was enough to create explosion visible from over 25km away. Remaining propellant was literally raining down on the surrounding area for about an hour after disaster. Must've been a surreal sight, considering the fact that RP-1 is a rich red colour. At least it's not lethally toxic.
Apparently there were no casualties. All on site personnel was in protected bunker-like facilities.
N1's first crash: Who are you?
N1's second crash: *I'm you, but stronger*
N1: who are you?
Saturn V: *I’m you but stronger*
@@tamtamich4 Saturn 5: who are you ?
Sea dragon : I am u but stronger
@@scienceium5233 Sea Dragon: who are u?
Super Orion I’m u but S T R O N G E R
@@tamtamich4 more like
N1: who are you?
Saturn V: I’m you but L O N G E R
N1 was actually more powerful
You?! Him?! Me?!
There’s one word that can sum up the second launch attempt: “BLYAT”
N1 Rocket: Ка-бум! (Ka-bum!)
Russian Engineers: БЛЯТ! (BLYAT!)
Real WTF-Boom materiel there
KSP 2 gameplay looking great
xD
You know, as someone who loves space, I find this comment hilarious
@@dfletcher0306 bro same tbh
Lol
Ksp 1 be shaking rn
Needs more struts.
BLYAT IT NEEDS 2000M STRUTS MOAR!
& moar reaction wheels
Just add more boosters.
More RCS
why do I read these comments with the voice of 'Life of Boris'?
That shockwave with the camera lens breaking was 🔥 🔥!
What I really liked was that the initial shot for the next launch was taken from so far, far away I expected to see Shrek.
It's a nice touch. The second launch killed a lot of people at the launch site.
lit
...and the camera kept on subject, nice flying!
It actually didn't produce a shockwave because it was a deflagration not an explosion. the propagation of the burn front was subsonic.
The "N" designation stood for "NYET!" 🚀💥💀
But at least the escape tower worked twice.
Fascinating, the outright physical differences between the N1 & the Saturn V & yet, they were both designed to perform the exact same purpose 🌔🚀
No. The N stands for NLYAT
Lol нет - 1
Нет
To anyone that says Starship will have the dame fate because "many engines bad", please, consider that:
The N-1 didn't fail due to using too many engines, it failed because the NK-15s (first, and second stage engines) couldn't be reused after firing, they used Pyrotechnic valves, so they had to be completely refurbished to be reused, they didn't had the funding for that, so they didn't test the engines of the booster because it would be too expensive.
That's why they developed the NK-33 and the N-1F, the NK-33 could be reignited and survived testing, and the N-1F replaced the NK-15s with the NK-33s, wich were more powerful and reliable. The N-1F would have been the actual Moon rocket, thing is, they cancelled the program before the N-1F could even fly.
So, no, it isn't the same thing, Starship's engines are tested at an almost industrial level, it's not uncommon for SpaceX to make lots of noise by testing the Raptors.
Hhhmmm, i think it needs....
*MOAR BOOSTERZ*
more*
@@attelang9883 you don't Play KSP?
You don't understand
@@attelang9883 The correct term is "Moar". Sorry for being rough and correcting you.
You sure? Because I think 30 of them might have been the problem...
@@iliketrains0pwned woooosh
Despite the failures, synchronously control a cluster of over 30 rocket engines with technology developed in the 60s (maybe earlier) already considered an amazing feat!
Anybody else here after the SpaceX Starship test launch? The loss of engines, and failure at stage separation was eerily reminiscent of the first N-1 launch attempt
Well the soviets were actually smarter than spacex to put flamediverters under their rocket. They didnt get cement pieces kicked into their engines like spacex. Hope spacex learns from that
@@phoenics2465 nah thats not profitable. This is capitalism baby
The N1 rocket 🚀 was over engineered and under funded, failure
Actually in some ways Starship's 1st flight went as far as the final launch of the N-1 i.e. making it almost to 1st stage separation(despite the loss of several of the Superheavy's engines), whereas the N-1's 1st flight ended a fair bit earlier than that!
Starship now Manage to separate
2:42 Ahh yes a rocket engine failure on an N-1 that is fully loaded with fuel is a recipe for disaster that for sure
Rocket engine failure + N-1 + fully loaded with fuel = *DISASTER*
A nuke bomb XD
accidental ballistic missile
So, to review: in order to go to space, lots of controlled fire must come out of the bottom of your rocket. If the fire shuts off too soon, you will not go to space today.
Only 15% of the fuel detonated on that explosion
@@aviationlover3613 I know but if the detonation of 15% of fuel can do that damage then imagine will happen if all of it detonated? The fact that 15% of fuel is detonated just pure luck
On the 4th attempt, they could have detached the first stage and ignited the second stage a bit earlier than planned. had they done so, there could have been a chance that the flight could have been a success
It was planned. They wanted to try orbit on the 16th attempt.
You can't really get a good separation if your rocket isn't stable. The Russians use hot staging which means that the stages are ignited while still attached.
The last launch of the N1 almost made to first stage separation though the escape system on the Soyuz worked perfectly.
Had Korolev still been around he probably could have made it work.
Maybe he could have made it work one time, maybe two, but in a cluster of 30 engines (and that was only the first stage) there are really too much things that can go wrong.
Tell that to Falcon Heavy... if the flight computer for the N-1 had been more capable, engine failure could have been mitigated by shutting down an opposite engine, for example. The failure mechanisms that destroyed each N-1 have since been determined, so it stands to reason that if the program had continued they could have been resolved in due course. It is unlikely that they would have landed on the moon first, but it's still sad that political fighting among Korolev's successors killed off any ambition left in the Soviet space program. If the space race had continued past the moon, how much further ahead might humanity be today?
@@JohnDoe-420 you do know that's exactly what the N1 computer did, right?
@@bee5440 Thing is the computer of the N1: KORD was not very good and on all the launches the cause of failure was it thinking something wrong. It failed bc it didn’t get thoroughly tested before incorporation to the launcher as it was Korolev’s common strategy: test everything together
@@JohnDoe-420 On the first flight it successfully detected an issue with engine 12 and shut it down along with engine 24 to maintain balance. The only issues were a fire starting due to propellant leaks and burning through wiring, making it think there was a pressure issue and it shut down every engine.
At least it proved to have one of the most effective Launch Escape System.
Fun fact:The 2nd explosion which was the largest of them all was the detonation of only 15% of the fuel onboard 85% was left untouched and kept raining on the pad for 30 minutes
It looks like the many engines do not operate equally throughout the ascent, probably leading to destructive vibrations.
Since they didn't have gimbaling they used differential throttling for thrust vector control, including roll control, with two concentric rings of engines angled slightly in different directions so that they balanced out to zero roll moment in normal operation.
Very interesting observation. The N-1 looks so flimsy compared to the Saturn V. Scary fact: these engines were later used second hand by Northrop Grumman on an Antares rocket, and a similar launch failure occured on the pad at Wallops. Needless to say, NG IMMEDIATELY changed the engines for all future missions and discarded these.
@@thunderbird1921 Not sure what you mean by flimsy but the N1 didn't have structural issues. The struts between the stages were there to allow hot staging of the upper stage. The engines used by the Antares were an upgrade from the ones used in the failed N1 flights, designed for the later N1s that never flew. It's not inherently bad, but after 40 years of sitting around before used on Antares, I'd be weary
Good observation, pogoing was the cause of at least one N1 vibrating itself to death
Makes you wonder how Elon Musk does with his rocket cuz it has 32 engines I think just as the Russians did the more engines the higher chance of something going wrong that's why we had the F1 engines on the Apollo 5 total engines
(N1: ahhhh im falling.) LOK Capsule with escape tower: ight imma head out
The n1 would of been a legend if they solved the first stage issues
SATURN V is the real legend
Yes
You reckon you could do an animation of a hypothetical fifth launch? The Soviets had a revised version of the N1F ready to launch in 1974, it was even planned to send an unmanned LOK and LK into lunar orbit. It was scrapped when Glushko took over, but most statements I've read from those involved reckon the problems with the N1 were ironed out in the N1F.
@Hal 9000 The engines they would of used, where proven to work when purchased by ULA, so it migth of worked
@@jesusramirezromo2037 The engines already being used were reliable when used individually but there were 30 of them and if you took a statistics class that means there's a higher chance of it failing
The plumbing for those 30engines was a nightmare. Not to mention POGO.
If the Russians really want to put men on the moon today I really think they could. It’s high time someone did.
@@CraigSummers-ci7nt Doubt it. They have nothing in production that could carry a load that heavy into orbit.
A pity Korolev died so early and the Soviets never tested the complicated 1st stage by itself prior to test-launching the whole stack. The Soviets probably were able to expend a few first stages in a testing campaign before attempting launches to orbit. The Falcon 9 Heavy with 27 engines of a similar design is as hard to control, the projected Superheavy is a very similar design as the N1 first stage (with 24-37 raptors). You must have used a Falcon 9 Heavy (Merlin) or Atlas 5 (RD-180) sound recording. Well done and a nice extra with the cracked camera housing window.
If he had lived, we would have been greeting the Russians on the moon already.
IIRC NASA suffered from the same cause of the failure of the N1 developing the Apollo second stage rockets, severe vibration during launch breaking fuel piping. NASA found a fix because they ground tested the full stage before any flight tests were made and they were able to forensically inspect the rocket motors after the ground failures and find the cause, the Russians were never able to ground test a full N1 cluster because it was so large, they tested the motors individually but the vibration problem developed when you clustered so many rockets together. So by only flight testing the rockets, they were unable to specifically ascertain precisely why they were failing because the rockets were catastrophically destroyed by the accidents erasing any possible evidence. I believe it was a few years later when they began using the left over rocket motors from the N1 program on other later rockets, they finally discovered the root cause.
I was surprised when I first heard of SpaceX's Falcon 9. I was thinking, "Pack nine smaller rockets together? Wasn't that sort of thinking that created the N1?" And then SpaceX increased the total to 27 in Falcon 9 Heavy, just 3 short of the N1's 30 NK-15 engines! But we have more experience now, computer modeling, etc. SpaceX has done really well.
@@wdfarmer2 Having more engines also means that the mission can continue even with some engines failing
@@Ignacio.Romero except when one engine failing causes a domino effect like N1.
mike bronicki N1 didn’t have gimbaling, they used differential thrust to maneuver their vehicle, and I’m sure the BFR would have the same engine compartmentalism as the Falcon 9. This would contain damages from one engine from others.
Three first stage failures. We'll never know whether the upper stages would have performed nominally or not. Beautifully visualized!
In my country, during the development of our launch vehicle, there were three major accidents, two in flight and the third on the launch pad 3 days before the launch day, this third one killed almost the entire team of technicians and engineers, 30 people, and practically doomed our space program
What is your Country ?
@@pivotaranka5916 Brasil
Damn, your videos are getting better and better!
That's not a failure, it's an RUD
nice
Feel free to add SpaceX and its 30 plus engines to the video.
Just a friendly notice: The simulations for the third and fourth launches are in backwards, the 3rd animation was actually the fourth launch, and the fourth animation is of the 3rd launch. Other than that minor mistake, This is an excellent video!
Never lasted long enough for the second stage to kick in.
That's awesome good footage ❤
Ikr its realy impressive
You should make an n1 in sfs
Vegas space program lol He did. I made one too but his is much better bc it’s BPedited.
говнубис спейс русофоб
Yo i watch your channel tell everyone i subbed!!
Vegas space program lol nye, he’s now in SR2
N1: Who are you?
Saturn V: You but successful
Anyone after 4/20
here
Yes! That first N-1 launch was eerily similar to the Starship test
Fun fact of the day: the second N1 failure is the largest non-nuclear explosion humans ever made. Great video.
WAIT REALLY
@@user-ld6is4ni3d yes, that or the detonation of j
half the bombs on britain in ww2 (tom scott made a video)
It was the largest non-nuclear man made explosion at the time but not anymore
Lebanon explosion was 20 kilotons of energy.
My God! Your animations are some of the best things I’ve ever seen - including in super accurate simulator software. I hope you’ve managed to get yourself some game design or movie contracts, because what you do is utterly breathtaking.
it's not an "explosion", it's just a rapid unscheduled disassembly!
I do like how they were all painted in a unique colour scheme.
The only discrepancy is that the launch escape system activated successfully every time. Ironically it was the most reliable component of the whole rocket
Great video, it looks amazing. Such a sad story, this rocket, I wish I could see some good footage of it because it seems so alien in appearance, it's hard to believe this actually happened.
As you wish: ruclips.net/video/9nbyqOco7uA/видео.html
It was after the forth failure of the N-1 that Vasili Mishin was fired and replaced by Valentin Glushko, who promptly cancelled the N-1. He also rewrote soviet space history eliminating any mention of Mishin, the N-1 or the soviet moon program. It was after Glusko's death in 1989 that the soviets acknowledged the existence of the N-1, and the moon program.
The second N1 failure was so realistic that cracked the glass
Amazing work! I think it's logical to the the upcoming SpaceX In-Flight Abort test next! :D
@HO LAM YIU you perhaps your right :D
At least the luanch escape system seems to work perfectly fine
I was sad to see it abandoned. It had so much promise.
Amazing, very faithful recreation, well done!!
What most people dont know, is it was meant to explode. 16 test launches (or explosions) were planned, until they even wanted to go to orbit and beyond. The engineers and scientists very very surprised that it even left the launch pad. Hope that helps
It wasn't meant to be explode whatsoever. These were just tests to get it working at all, you make it sound like "it was designed to do this". No it wasn't. People died from these, because they were *unintentional accidents*. There is no benefit nor any logical reason for the USSR to make this thing explode 16 times before they sent it off to space. Given the previous way they launched their rockets, (a.g sputnik, vostok, voskhod), that wouldn't make sense they changed their launching plan, let alone change it to a very impractical and money-wasting one.
Good work with these! Would you consider adding a breakdown of the events and the reasons for the failures in the closed captions?
Есть причины, которые записаны в официальных постановлениях комиссий. Но они надуманные, так как разработчики двигателя НК-15 отрицали все претензии к этому двигателю и постоянно выдвигали свои версии с претензиями в сторону конструкции ракеты и систем управления.
В своей книге "Ракеты и люди" автор Черток Борис Евсеевич пишет, что все понимали, что причиной большинства взрывов были производственные браки в двигателе НК-15. Особенность конструкции этого двигателя была такова, что даже крошечные отклонения в размерах некоторых деталей турбонососов приводили к взрыву, но так как НК-15 был двигателем одного пуска (то есть одноразовый), то проверить каждый двигатель предварительными запусками было невозможно. В результате каждый пуск этой ракеты был своего рода лотереей с надеждой на то, что все двигатели будут нормальными. Так и случилось во время третьего запуска, но там по до сих пор не раскрытой причине ракета начала вращаться вокруг своей оси во время полёта. На смену НК-15 был создан НК-33, который уже был многоразового запуска и вот его и надо было изготавливать, проверять и устанавливать на Н-1. Но проблема в том, что советская номенклатура бежала вперёд как табун лошадей и не хотела ничего ждать и качественно подготавливать. Отказ от стендовых испытаний первой ступени тоже сыграл плохую роль.
Best Launch Escape System (5:10)
When the Soviet union went full kerbal
1:11 within that time period it was looking great afterwards the engineers weren’t gonna be happy you can see black smoke form from the exhaust
Very interesting and realistic. They were impressive looking machines even though they couldn't get them to work.
This is exactly what I've craved to see. Thank you!
It doesn't take a whole lot of rocket science to know that if you fire up 36 engines on anything, it's going to explode. It doesn't matter the cause...a loose bolt, a flock of geese passing overhead, a forgotten half empty bottle of vodka wedged between fueling pipes or the wrong grade of kerosene.
No its not going to explode. Look at the falcon heavy
I don't know why, but these videos convey a sense of power with rocket launches that other animations seem to lack. I know of the rotoscoping, but that's not unique to this channel. Whatever it is, I like it :)
Great recreations! I also love the guitar. It's very reminiscent of Neil Young's score for the film Dead Man.
Without Sergei Korolev, the Soviet Space Program just wasn't working.
Nonsense. It worked as well as ever. But after a few "firsts" it continued to under perform.
Space stations as opposed to moon landings.
Well i think the engeeners did
an EVA and then they realized: I forgot the SAS
Just imagine if Starship blew up on the launch pad like the N1 during another launch. How much damage would that thing cause? Pretty sure it would be very disastrous.
If the fuels mix, the explosion could easily become the newest largest non-nuclear man made explosion, however, Methane is pretty tame, and the propellants would most likely not mix very well, so they would have a hard time exploding
Yes, there was a Falcon 9 explosion at Pad 41. It is unknown why it exploded though.
@@graysoceanworld5662The cause of the Amos-6 anomaly that damaged SLC-40 is definately *not* unknown; any time there's a major launch vehicle failure, a formal investigation has to be completed and fixes implimented before the rocket can return to flight. I believe Amos-6 had something to do with the COPVs in the upper stage; it was a previously unknown failure mode, introduced by SpaceX's unique use of densified propellants. SpaceX had to come up with short-term procedural changes and long-term design modifications that would prevent the issue from reocurring before Falcon 9 could fly again.
I wonder how much the presence of a launch escape system improves the mental condition of the astronauts/cosmonauts? Can you imagine riding a Mercury Atlas without one? How did those Gemini astronauts feel riding on a Titan II with only ejection seats? Let's not even talk about the STS, with no escape system, much of the ascent with unsurvivable abort scenarios, and from 1986 on, demonstrated concretely.
I watched a vid about abort systems and how many times they've saved a life is few how many times they could have less and in one or more instances the accidental misfiring of them has cost life
@@terranovarain2183 Do you have a link to the video you watched? I am not aware of any deaths caused by a malfunctioning launch escape system.
@@vibrolax ruclips.net/video/v6lPMFgZU5Q/видео.html
From Everyday Astronaut. The whole video is pretty good, but it's a little long; the part that answers your question starts at 34:30
@@MrKCook87 Thanks for the reference. The brutality of the rocket equation (at least as long as we need chemical propellants) means rocket structures will need to be constructed with less safety margin than aircraft. Rockets will never be reusable like airplanes, though going from one use per vehicle to 10 is great progress.
You could have asked Alexi Leonov about that one. No escape system at all on Voskhod, not even ejection seats.
The chaps who worked on the second stage must’ve been furious.
Oh boy the second crash is really strong than the first crash
Given enough time, I have no doubt the USSR could have worked out the problems with the N1. Ironically, in the modern era the idea of using smaller, more efficient engines it very much the norm (the Falcon 9 uses nine for its first stage, the Falcon 9 Heavy by definition uses 27, etc.) but it requires a lot keeping a larger number of engines operating in sync. Famously the F-1 engines on the Saturn V were not the most efficient, but they were the largest available and therefore limited the total amount of engines needed (and in more than one launch, the center engine cut out early, etc.)
In the end it came down to resources: The United States had the resources to make the Saturn V work while the Soviet's -- however much more efficient a rocket like the N1 might have actually turned out to be -- didn't.
The center engine on the Saturn V's first stage was supposed to cut off in order to limit the G forces on the upper part of the vehicle and the astronauts during the latter part of the burn.
This is AWESOME! Fantastic work!
congratulations, Your debris reached the Moon
Look closely as that first stage: it has GRID FINS, just like BFR.
2:57 "It was at this moment Vasily Mishin knew, he fucked up".
4500 tons of kerosene and liquid oxygen going KABOOOOM.
The shock waves were felt 10 km away, nearly tipping a bus. The next morning they found dead animals all over the steppe - killed by the blast. They found bits of rocket 5 km away.
The blast was seen as far as 50 km away by the engineers family in their city blocks. It was even seen from /orbit/ by Americans VELA satellites usually tracking /nuclear/ blasts. It was some kilotons all by itself.
The KORD system was to shut some engines during ascent to try and preserve a normal trajectory. Well... it failed. On the next flights the much rejoiced builder of Launch Complex 110 - Barmin - obtained from the rocket scientists the stupid KORD was desactivated during the first 30 seconds of flight so that the rocket fell away from the pad whatever happened. Took two years to rebuild the launch gantry !
basically me creating a big rocket in ksp
2:35
Ah yes, my favorite ASMR sound
WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? 🤣
4:20 the flames coming out of the vents look so satisfying
Great computer animation of real events! Very helpful! Unfortunately there is no good quality real footage on RUclips. Thank you very much!
Wait, 1971? They were still trying to get to the moon? Apollos 11 and 12 had already landed. And November 1972? By then NASA had cancelled Appolos 18, 19, 20 and 21. (all constructed saturn vs are accounted for. Apollo 18 was turned into Skylab, Apollo 19 is on display at the Kennedy Space Centre Visitors Complex, Apollo 20 is on display at the Johnson Space Centre and Apollo 21 is on display in Huntsville. So any secret mission would be impossible because they didn't make any more rockets and the ones they did make were either used or turned into museum pieces)
They planned to do a flyby mission of both Mars & Venus
В четвёртом пуске авария (разрушился ТНА четвёртого двигателя) произошла всего за несколько секунд до включения двигателей блока «Б» и разделения.
верно
Не повезло
2:43 Although the explosion was catastrophic the scape system going away is funny lol🤣🤣
Also this incident was only because of one loose screw. The screw fell off the engine and moved around and disrupted the fuel movement and made one big fireball. If it wasn't because of that, The Soviet Union could have possibly made it to space before America did
@@Nomørè-Ïiviñg Arrived on the moon before too
That's what be amazed said
@Green_burdie_crow Yes, if these accidents hadn't happened, we would have more competition in space, which would take us to places beyond the moon
The fact that they kept trying was admirable
This was awesome to see. Wish the Rissians would have come through. Would of been cool to see the N1 make it to orbit.
Great production! I have a comprehensive book on the N1. Would have loved to have seen it be successful. Imagine the possibilities! That, along with the USA's Saturn's and the Soviet's Energia. RIP N1. You will not be forgotten.
The N1 was too complicated for its own good, but energia just makes me sad. It was a perfectly working rocket that got shafted by the collapse of the soviet union.
Its wiered the US never purchased any Energia or Buran hardware
I know this is a year later, but I'm curious as to what book you are referring to.
What's the name of the book? Sounds very interesting.
I love so much when evrything happens exactly as expected.
Nice effect of the glass breaking at 3:00!
Very nice, I like the effects! Which programs do you use to make these animations?
Blender mantaflow or blender i think
What is the song in the video?
I liked the screen shatter for the second explosion
Fantastic video. Can't wait to watch the rest of them. 👍🏻
2:50 did they actually jettison the escape tower?
the first stage kept exploding, it also had LOX problems
the remaining N1 rockets were scrapped and it's remains were used for other purposes on the USSR
Fun fact: this rocket has the same power as the SpaceX’s Starship. With the exception of course the Starship being 100% reusable
Starship has nearly twice the power of the N1. Similar payload Starship though when Starship is fully reused.
fun fact : the second N1 faillure is the biggest no nuclear human origined explosion, it was so big that americans knew the rocket failed from seismometer reccords
Does anyone know the music
you have to acknowledge one fact and pay respect for it: Though the first stage ALWAYS failed, the escape system always worked, therefore none of the crew were killed in the failure of a launch.
That's something the americans should have learned
None of the 4 launches were manned.
@@curlus the second one and the fourth one actually were manned
@@GoodnightFromHim What? I'm practically 100% sure this isn't true. You don't stick people on an untested rocket. Not even the soviets did this.
@@curlus NASA did it,with the first shuttle,they needed someone to pilot the thing.The enterprise was not as advanced as the Buran,that flew and landed unmanned and totally automatic.
as you said,all the N1 launches were unmanned
@@GoodnightFromHim I am genuinely curious where you got this piece of information from
I like rocket so because there are always this big fireball behind them that the engines are making its amazing
You gotta give it to the Soviets for making a rocket with a quarter of the budget for Saturn V
0:01 What kind of music?
I don't know
N1 Fails
"Nice 1"
I like how in the second attempt there was just one engine that stayed on.
You go little guy, all your brothers failed but you kept chuggin till the end.
No, that one engine actually failed to shut down :)
Fantastic job! Lots of hard work had to go into that, for sure.
Can you now do a simulation of the SpaceX Starship and Booster combination lifting off, and then falling back to the pad like the N1? Because the Starship/Booster explosion is going to make the N1 look like a firecracker. If I'm not mistaken, such an explosion will also cause the destruction of, and detonation of the adjacent fuel farm, which will greatly add to the overall yield.
You could show us how far inside Mexico the debris field will extend, and what will be left of the launch complex afterward.
I'm surprised the Party never ordered the KGB to rip off the blueprints to the Saturn F-1. Might have made the race to the moon a bit more of a contest.
You wanted to say that USSR wouldn't launch a man too a moon without ripping off the blueprints?
Probably because the F-1 is MASIVE, They didn't have the emans to build or test engines that large, not untill Energia
The whole reason they didn't do that is because the USSR didn't have the resources to build massive rocket engines like the US.
I can’t imagine something that big falling from the sky.
Excellent, especially impressive animation of the rockets failing.