Many Scientists and Engineers are very humble folks by nature because they solve everyday problems and do not mired in dirty politics. And their on hand approach to real metal and things of latest material let them have best lessons of life. They probably understands failure and advances better than psychopaths who go straight to higher office positions.
Isn’t it great: a European communication satellite, shot into space by an American rocket, which in turn is powered by a Russian engine - that’s how it has to be !😊🚀👍💕
One of the greatest rockets of all times turned into pigsties - what a monstrous disgrace !!! Finally the Reds & the Blues got their act together and started working together on this phenomenal propulsion system, and the surprise when seeing 60 intact Equinox engines must have been enormously amazing. The Russian “dissident engineers” are to be applauded for their foresight to preserve these unparalleled rocket engines, and the technology was revolutionary. Well, very well done 👍 I
Um, you do realize that your "greatest rockets of all times" N-1s were launched four times and blew up all four times? And they aren't Equinox engines. That's the name of the show. Equinox.
This goes to show you that engineers and scientist of many countries can work together it's the politicians that screw it all up. Good for the Russians they should be very proud.
Gripe... The old Atlas was not powered by 5 engines. It was a booster-sustainer configuration of 3 engines, the two side booster engines falling away at a specific point to shed dead weight and the center sustainer continuing towards apogee.
It is ironic, but the Wright Bros., and Henry Ford, and many early 20 th Century American engineers used the "hands on" methods that this video extolls.
Wow. Their rockets were actually better than ours. Well good for them that they managed to hide their accomplishments from Brezhnev and the rest of the Politburo's axe and they insured their own justice.
not taking anything away from other countries but the F1 rocket engine remains the most powerful single combustion chamber engine ever made with the best track record
Some people's names seem unavoidably life-direction determinant, even if only phonetically so in another language... the Russian First Deputy Chief Designer had a name that could only be heard in English a certain way; Vassily Mishin = Vast Mission
Every time someone does anything better than the Americans - read some of the comments. We used to look up to America but now 'how the mighty have fallen'. Credit where credit is due, well done Russia.
Russians are not stupid as so many Yanks think. We in NA constantly underestimate them. Eventually computers and software... probably helped the US to beat the USSR to the moon.
And the UK. After the war America pretty much took the piss, used there power and newly created wealth and grabbed up and conned, threatened and promised their way to grabbing scientists, tech and information from anyone who had anything. Electronics, jet and rocket tech, nuclear technology and knowhow. Though the UK was basically broke after the war and easily threatened and blackmailed, I find it hard to believe we trusted the USA as much as we did. Given the almost constant bullying and attempts to take our technology and then cut us out of the scheme later down the line.
You underestimate the Russians at your peril. Unlike the US, Russia has considered science and mathematics as vital, and they support them. In the US, we sneer at science and math, and don't support them. We import our technical brains from other countries.
+Pavel Plyushch Not because of the oxygen pal. You would need something to ignite. Oxygen simply facilitates something flammable to burn better faster and hotter.
+mickeybill Let me be the third person to label you a fucking dumbass. Oxygen is not flammable. It only enriches the burning environment. Stop commenting.
Did no-one fact check this? The Space Shuttle Main Engine uses pre-burning and has a higher specific impulse than the RD-180. Not sure what is unique here.
+Stephen Gloor It was far simpler and far cheaper than the space shuttle main engines. Also, only until recently (and today only with explicit approval), no private group could use any NASA designed engines for a privately designed and built rocket. None of the *privately* designed engines available from US companies had performance characteristics as good as the NK-33. There are also some other factors I imagine come into play as well. I've outlined some of the ones that may be important below: The space shuttle main engine has a significantly higher specific impulse, but it also runs on liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which generally leads to an engine with significantly higher efficiency. The NK-33 was, at the time, the world's most efficient KEROSENE powered rocket engine (The RD-180 is more efficient today). Kerosene has some significant advantages over liquid hydrogen, the first of which being it is a non-cryogenic fuel. Kerosene is also extremely dense when compared with liquid hydrogen, which means you can have significantly smaller fuel tanks and it also doesn't bleed off (liquid hydrogen tends to evaporate out of fuel tanks). It's also very cheap. This is one of the reasons we see a lot of kerosene/LOX powered lower stages and LH2/LOX fueled upper stages. You can deal with lowered engine efficiency if you're fuel is multiple times as space efficient. The SSME (RS-25 engine) is also significantly heavier due to being more complex. It comes in at around 3500 kilograms whereas the NK-33 is 1240 kg. You're getting 75% of the thrust for 35% of the mass. From some small calculations, kerosene carries ~3.46 times more energy per cubic meter of fuel (kerosene has a density of 810 kg/m^3, liquid hydrogen has a density of 70.6 kg/m^3, however, a kilogram of hydrogen carries a higher specific energy than kerosene (141.86 MJ/kg versus 42 MJ/kg for kerosene). But overall, kerosene has a higher specific energy per cubic meter of fuel, even though hydrogen has a higher energy per mass. Less fuel means a smaller rocket, a smaller rocket means less structural mass, etc. While your hydrogen fueled engine burns fuel more efficiently, it still consumes a higher volume of fuel, meaning the rocket itself has to be heavier to be larger to store the fuel. Trade-offs basically...
The Russian technology uses oxygen rich staged combustion. The turbine drive gas is 98% O2 and rest CO2. RS-25 uses hydrogen rich staged combustion. Hydrocarbon rich would coke up the turbine. Hydrogen requires a huge tank and helium to purge it. Thrust and energy density are more important for first stage than Isp.
Completely agree however the idea of the video seems to be that somehow the Russians were superior and did something that the USA could not do. However that is not the case. The Saturn V for instance used RP1/LO2 in the first stage for the reason that the first stage spent all its time in the atmosphere where a compact fuel makes more sense than a high energy fuel. In the second and above stages the Saturn used LH2/LO2. RP1/LO2 in these stages would not have the performance to send the required payload to the moon. A fact acknowledged in "Stages to Saturn" by NASA Press. I think the failure of the Soviet Space program to master LH2/LO2 led to them pushing RP1/LO2 to its limit to get near the required performance in upper stages. The USA did not need to. They had powerful gas generator engines for lower stages and reliable LH2 engines for upper stages. The time they went for staged combustion was in the SSME which had to be so powerful and compact to make that brick fly that even with LH2 fuel it still needed to have the most efficient combustion possible. The SSME is two orders of magnitude more an achievement than the RD-180 because not only did it use LH2, something that the Russians never seemed to do, but also use the much harder staged combustion of LH2. No-one doubts that the RD-180 is a great and efficient engine however saying that the USA could not do it is a bridge too far for me.
We still cannot make the coatings that enable ox rich staged combustion engines stick to the parent metal, at least publicly. Maybe one of the companies can, but not yet in an operational engine.
the space shuttles engines were closed cycle engine I don't get why they are saying the Americans did not have the technology when theses engines were found in the 90s and the shuttle first flew in 81
You mean the Merlin engines that have around 1/4 the thrust and inferior specific impulse? :P Credit where it is due, the Merlins do have a better T/W ratio but calling the RD POS because 'muh nationalism' is a disservice to humanity.
Nor sure why Russia is proud of the NK-33. It is the reason the N1 moon rocket blew up all 4 times they tried to launch it. It also blew up the Antares rocket in 2014 that was using 2 NK-33 built in Russia. The NK-33 on paper sounds good, but reality is if you use that engine you will most likely loose your launch vehicle due to a failure of the NK-33.
What a great documentary.
It deserves a slow clap.
yep, very informative and educating. Thanks
equinox was always the best
What a fantastic doc...kudos to the Russians, what an achievement
Many Scientists and Engineers are very humble folks by nature because they solve everyday problems and do not mired in dirty politics. And their on hand approach to real metal and things of latest material let them have best lessons of life. They probably understands failure and advances better than psychopaths who go straight to higher office positions.
And they often know enough to understand how little they really know.
Considering what they had to work with, and the limitations of supply, the Russians should be very proud of what they have achieved.
And how do Americans go to the ISS?
A Russian one
In fact both Koroliov and Glushko were of *Ukrainian* origin. Korolev was from Zhytomir while Glushko was from Odessa
Yes it is, we are very proud of our air-space industry. Thank you for your good comment!
Of course! The trick of we do production without hand)
They are the class of the world, especially in mathematics, but, in every important category, they're outstanding.
Grigori Perelman ( Poincare ) conjectureen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
Isn’t it great: a European communication satellite, shot into space by an American rocket, which in turn is powered by a Russian engine - that’s how it has to be !😊🚀👍💕
I found this after searching for FASCINATING DOCUMENTARYs.
An entertaining and informative upload, thanks for your work.
Best documentary ever!
Not scrolling for comments. That was epic.
One of the greatest rockets of all times turned into pigsties - what a monstrous disgrace !!! Finally the Reds & the Blues got their act together and started working together on this phenomenal propulsion system, and the surprise when seeing 60 intact Equinox engines must have been enormously amazing. The Russian “dissident engineers” are to be applauded for their foresight to preserve these unparalleled rocket engines, and the technology was revolutionary. Well, very well done 👍 I
Um, you do realize that your "greatest rockets of all times" N-1s were launched four times and blew up all four times? And they aren't Equinox engines. That's the name of the show. Equinox.
I like how them Russian Scientists talk. I dont understand a damn word they say , but they sound cool.
Well, I love Russian and American scientists, they all sound cool. :)
😂😂😂Same here man.
Спасибо, товарищ!
I love it and I hope the US and the EU stop whining about all kind of issues and start working together for Gods sake!
This goes to show you that engineers and scientist of many countries can work together it's the politicians that screw it all up. Good for the Russians they should be very proud.
Gripe... The old Atlas was not powered by 5 engines. It was a booster-sustainer configuration of 3 engines, the two side booster engines falling away at a specific point to shed dead weight and the center sustainer continuing towards apogee.
What a beautifull documentary .. and history of of Nk33 and RD 180... is just to be fall in love .. answers who is --The Father of Propulsion :)
Those guys are bright. The new Sarmat RS-28 is impressive.... and very dangerous!
Equinox from when British TV made decent informative documentaries
True.
If I hear Korolev pronounced incorrectly again I'm going to scream
that pre launch procedure is the same as my wife and i have before she takes the car to work
Closed gas generator cycle is awesome.
42:42 - EAT THIS, ELON MUSK! :) These electric vehicles have been around since the 70s in the USSR.
The golden age of electric car was actually in1910.
Sergei Grimanov In Russia? :)
In the USA. They were promouted as "cars for women" since they had no gas smell. Thrue story.
Sergei Grimanov Not sure about the "golden age" bit, but fair enough )
@@geekpilotsoundworks3201 Why would you think Elon Musk would be upset at electric cars being introduced at a certain age? That is peculiar...
It is ironic, but the Wright Bros., and Henry Ford, and many early 20 th Century American engineers used the "hands on" methods that this video extolls.
Wow. Their rockets were actually better than ours. Well good for them that they managed to hide their accomplishments from Brezhnev and the rest of the Politburo's axe and they insured their own justice.
Money doesn't always produce the best.
Great Russian ingenuity
2:46 Excellent Tie Alert: the fabled "I work putting man onto other planets, what do you do? Oh....Rrly?" model.
not taking anything away from other countries but the F1 rocket engine remains the most powerful single combustion chamber engine ever made with the best track record
holly medici F1 hasn't flown for a LONG time!
Some people's names seem unavoidably life-direction determinant, even if only phonetically so in another language... the Russian First Deputy Chief Designer had a name that could only be heard in English a certain way;
Vassily Mishin = Vast Mission
Who is the narrator? i grew up on Equinox and her narration, she's ace.
Stakker 49:03 Jaye Griffiths
Every time someone does anything better than the Americans - read some of the comments. We used to look up to America but now 'how the mighty have fallen'. Credit where credit is due, well done Russia.
This looks like the exact same documentary as cosmodrome.
with much less money Russians achieved so much improvement! congratulations to Russians scientists!!
And why the heck does peaceful collaboration work in space, but not on earth ?
Russians are not stupid as so many Yanks think. We in NA constantly underestimate them. Eventually computers and software... probably helped the US to beat the USSR to the moon.
Money beat the Russians, that and better intel and luck during the end of WWII where they swooped on the engineers and factories before the Russians.
And the UK. After the war America pretty much took the piss, used there power and newly created wealth and grabbed up and conned, threatened and promised their way to grabbing scientists, tech and information from anyone who had anything. Electronics, jet and rocket tech, nuclear technology and knowhow.
Though the UK was basically broke after the war and easily threatened and blackmailed, I find it hard to believe we trusted the USA as much as we did. Given the almost constant bullying and attempts to take our technology and then cut us out of the scheme later down the line.
You underestimate the Russians at your peril. Unlike the US, Russia has considered science and mathematics as vital, and they support them.
In the US, we sneer at science and math, and don't support them. We import our technical brains from other countries.
"The oxygen gas is so flammable..."
>_
+mickeybill Is atmosphere would be at least 60% oxygen - global fireball would happen.
+Pavel Plyushch
Not because of the oxygen pal. You would need something to ignite. Oxygen simply facilitates something flammable to burn better faster and hotter.
+mickeybill Let me be the third person to label you a fucking dumbass. Oxygen is not flammable. It only enriches the burning environment. Stop commenting.
***** I fucking know. Hence the quotation marks and the little screwed up omfg face you fuckwit.
+mickeybill No you didn't. easy to claim after the fact that you did, though. It's OK, son. Your mother still loves you.
Did no-one fact check this? The Space Shuttle Main Engine uses pre-burning and has a higher specific impulse than the RD-180. Not sure what is unique here.
+Stephen Gloor
It was far simpler and far cheaper than the space shuttle main engines. Also, only until recently (and today only with explicit approval), no private group could use any NASA designed engines for a privately designed and built rocket. None of the *privately* designed engines available from US companies had performance characteristics as good as the NK-33. There are also some other factors I imagine come into play as well. I've outlined some of the ones that may be important below:
The space shuttle main engine has a significantly higher specific impulse, but it also runs on liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which generally leads to an engine with significantly higher efficiency. The NK-33 was, at the time, the world's most efficient KEROSENE powered rocket engine (The RD-180 is more efficient today). Kerosene has some significant advantages over liquid hydrogen, the first of which being it is a non-cryogenic fuel. Kerosene is also extremely dense when compared with liquid hydrogen, which means you can have significantly smaller fuel tanks and it also doesn't bleed off (liquid hydrogen tends to evaporate out of fuel tanks). It's also very cheap. This is one of the reasons we see a lot of kerosene/LOX powered lower stages and LH2/LOX fueled upper stages. You can deal with lowered engine efficiency if you're fuel is multiple times as space efficient.
The SSME (RS-25 engine) is also significantly heavier due to being more complex. It comes in at around 3500 kilograms whereas the NK-33 is 1240 kg. You're getting 75% of the thrust for 35% of the mass. From some small calculations, kerosene carries ~3.46 times more energy per cubic meter of fuel (kerosene has a density of 810 kg/m^3, liquid hydrogen has a density of 70.6 kg/m^3, however, a kilogram of hydrogen carries a higher specific energy than kerosene (141.86 MJ/kg versus 42 MJ/kg for kerosene). But overall, kerosene has a higher specific energy per cubic meter of fuel, even though hydrogen has a higher energy per mass. Less fuel means a smaller rocket, a smaller rocket means less structural mass, etc. While your hydrogen fueled engine burns fuel more efficiently, it still consumes a higher volume of fuel, meaning the rocket itself has to be heavier to be larger to store the fuel. Trade-offs basically...
The Russian technology uses oxygen rich staged combustion. The turbine drive gas is 98% O2 and rest CO2. RS-25 uses hydrogen rich staged combustion. Hydrocarbon rich would coke up the turbine. Hydrogen requires a huge tank and helium to purge it. Thrust and energy density are more important for first stage than Isp.
Completely agree however the idea of the video seems to be that somehow the Russians were superior and did something that the USA could not do. However that is not the case.
The Saturn V for instance used RP1/LO2 in the first stage for the reason that the first stage spent all its time in the atmosphere where a compact fuel makes more sense than a high energy fuel. In the second and above stages the Saturn used LH2/LO2. RP1/LO2 in these stages would not have the performance to send the required payload to the moon. A fact acknowledged in "Stages to Saturn" by NASA Press.
I think the failure of the Soviet Space program to master LH2/LO2 led to them pushing RP1/LO2 to its limit to get near the required performance in upper stages. The USA did not need to. They had powerful gas generator engines for lower stages and reliable LH2 engines for upper stages.
The time they went for staged combustion was in the SSME which had to be so powerful and compact to make that brick fly that even with LH2 fuel it still needed to have the most efficient combustion possible. The SSME is two orders of magnitude more an achievement than the RD-180 because not only did it use LH2, something that the Russians never seemed to do, but also use the much harder staged combustion of LH2.
No-one doubts that the RD-180 is a great and efficient engine however saying that the USA could not do it is a bridge too far for me.
We still cannot make the coatings that enable ox rich staged combustion engines stick to the parent metal, at least publicly. Maybe one of the companies can, but not yet in an operational engine.
Matt Lacey Fair enough. I guess as the US did not need to, it did not put much effort into it.
the space shuttles engines were closed cycle engine I don't get why they are saying the Americans did not have the technology when theses engines were found in the 90s and the shuttle first flew in 81
Why these documentaries play obscure music when they talk about someone that did nothing wrong at all..
Re-upload, see ruclips.net/video/TMbl_ofF3AM/видео.html. Actually ran in 2001 on UK channel 4' "Equinox" series.
Space X'S Merlin and new Raptor engines will put the POS RD engines in the garbage where they Belong!
You mean the Merlin engines that have around 1/4 the thrust and inferior specific impulse? :P Credit where it is due, the Merlins do have a better T/W ratio but calling the RD POS because 'muh nationalism' is a disservice to humanity.
Вертолетка 45:58 :)))
Usual lie about 30 efficient engine vs. 5 inefficient ones. Rocket history is bunk.
i think is Great ?
ops some people are more clever than American?!!!
It was wrong of them to kill those aliens to power the Equinox engines. In the end the aliens killed them.
profits drive production and innovation. There is a more powerful driver than profits. "FEAR"..
Nor sure why Russia is proud of the NK-33. It is the reason the N1 moon rocket blew up all 4 times they tried to launch it. It also blew up the Antares rocket in 2014 that was using 2 NK-33 built in Russia. The NK-33 on paper sounds good, but reality is if you use that engine you will most likely loose your launch vehicle due to a failure of the NK-33.
Jamie Godman Total FAIL.
Jamie is a well known SpaceX troll on RUclips. Don't pay any attention to him.