Agree ... as a non american but westerner i have always been so amazed how intelligent the russian engineers were at this time ... the moon landing couldn't have been achieved without this technology and unfortunately 99.9% of americans are ignorant to this fact!!
Oh for sure, if the engineers were given the support and facilities Nasa provided, they easily could have made the moon. Soviet politics ruined their chances
@@PS-Straya_M8"... how intelligent the Russian engineers were at this time." Lol They weren't only Russian, they were from different countries. P. S: Without Ukrainian rocket scientists/engineers (like Valentin Glushko and his RD engines), Russia (Soviet Union) wouldn't have achieved these things.
I worked for George Mueller when he was older on his yacht, he was a fascinating man to chat with. His anecdotes regarding NASA, Apollo, and Soviet programs were amazing.
Russia is so weird, "destroy them." Protecting them is not weird. But the N1 is emblematic of the Russian psyche dating back to pre-revolution. There's a story of Russian royalty planning a royal scale shindig on a boat at the summer palace. But a few days before it the yacht capsized, lots of people drowned. The royals basically ordered to pretend it didn't happen and continue the celebration with no mention of the tragedy. These days when I say the US won the space race, folks say no, Gagarin. I say, true but the US didn't know it was in a race, same with Sputnik. The US published color glossy magazines detailing its space program, announcing goals, the launch details, etc. Lo and behold the Russians managed to just barely beat the US to goal after goal and usually with terrible risks. Of course Von Braun told Kennedy the Moon was a race we could win. Kennedy threw down a challenge. Russia outwardly ignored it... and here we are in the sixth decade after, watching a clip about another in a long line of Russian cover-ups. sorry if TLDR, tried to make it readable.
Those engineers spent all those years of hard work for everything to almost be flushed. The people who actually made that country work were kept secret. The party leaders were celebrated as being the heros. This is a story that has happened many times in history and in every country. There's always someone taking credit for someone else's work.
This was tremendous background info! I'm in the middle of editing a book on the N-1, and this filled in a few gaps, but they also took a few shortcuts regarding the politics behind the project. For instance, the N-1 wasn't started as a response to Kennedy's challenge to land on the moon. It was already well underway as the heavy lift booster intended for planned Mars missions. It was "repurposed" by Khrushchev into a moon mission in 1964.
With all of the media outlets at our fingertips, it is rare to get a view of history that accurately reflects the experiences and viewpoints of other cultures. I appreciate learning about the accomplishments of people of all backgrounds. This documentary provided an insightful perspective on a facet of Cold War history. Just overlook the tidbits of propaganda. What these Russian scientists accomplished is worthy of recognition.
Travel make you wiser. It should be compulsory for young Americans to spend a year in Europe. Any country in Europe. You'll mould a better nation for yourselves.
I am extremely proud to be an American but my God, those Nk-33 Engines are an absolute marvel of mankind's inginuity. My hat is off to the Russian's for this beautiful technological achievement. Also, thanks Russia, for the RD-180. It will take us to Mars.
Then please go to Mars yourself. I say no thank you. I do not like cancer. Do you?! Read something about radiation and Mars. It is not fun, over there. And they offer you a one way ticket for a reason.
@@voornaam3191 For some reason UR comment is shadow banned. So it can only be seen as a highlighted reply by the few people who already commented. Maybe it's because U mentioned the big C. It's the only thing I can imagine. Most people don't understand the realities of colonizing a planet. The radiation from the sun makes it impossible to carry out terraforming on Mars. Because of Mars' small size it doesn't have a magnetosphere strong enough to protect it from the sun's solar winds. That means any atmosphere generated would be quickly swept away. It's like trying to put air in a tire that has no rim. Pfffffft! Mars' small size also means less gravity acting on anyone and anything living on the surface. That might not sound like a big deal but it is and would cause more than a few issues with the human body. Some genius will say, "People can live under ground and in containment pods" and "Astronauts live in zero gravity." For humans to successfully colonize Mars they need to thrive and not just simply survive. That can't happen if everyone is forced to live in what is considered as quarantine conditions. The last few years is proof of that. Astronauts who are trained and selected for space missions only survive in those conditions for very short periods of time. That little time has a huge impact on them physically and mentally. None of that compares to the biggest issue of all, supplies. To set up a small scale colony the amount of time, money, and effort would be more than what is required to restore the Earth. Imagine restoring a car, the Earth just needs paint, tires, oil change, and a thorough detailing. Mars is a car that is little more than a pile of rust and remnants, with no hope of being restored into a home for human habitation. So why does the gov and so called "genius" billionaires keep pushing this agenda if it's not feasible. 1: It generates money for the rich investors, more tax dollars will be taken in than those spent, creates new jobs, and stimulates the economy. 2: It's used as a way to distract people from the destruction of the Earth by the gov and the "genius" billionaires. If you are too busy looking up at the stars, you won't notice what's happening to the ground under your feet. (Cue the music: Metallica, Sad But True.)
This is such a cool story. I never knew anything about this at all. All those engines from a failed moon rocket, mothballed for 20 years and then successfully tested on an American rocket, built as a missile originally intended to destroy Russia... A testament to the skill of a true genius who never lived to see his dream, and a story of collaboration for the future of mankind. So we are pretty much borrowing Russian developments to continue our own space program.
I have seen many videoes about these (fantastic) engines , this was one of the very best . Thank's for almost 50 min with good input . Although recorded in 2012 .
There was a documentary, i forggrt the name, about both Von Brawn and Sirgey Koreliov, it could easilly be adapted, showing the perspective of both lead dessigners, and their struggles
The Soyuz capsule was intended for the Moonshot too. I was very surprised to learn that. No wonder it can spend such a long time in orbit! The power and life support were more than adequate for mere orbital missions.
As an Engineer myself I respect and feel for the Russians that worked on the lunarr program, they achieved a lot!! and it was not their fault the program eventually failed.
+2000Betelgeuse Cheers, completely agree. Time pressure and the lack of exchange to other more educated countries, including the government and communism, many soviet projects were sadly doomed. Buran being one of the (in my opinion) biggest highlights in the many Soviet space programs also had great potential, if the CCCP didn't fall down, but it had to happen at some point though.
+Ozon You forgot to mention the most important factor.....money. Before the revolution Russia was a backward country full of serfs. WW1 was very hard on tsarist Russia.....then came the revolution and civil war which was equally devastating as WW!. From 1924 to 41 Russia put everything into industrialization and the military but then came WW2 and the utter destruction of much of the country. Compared to Russia the USA hasn't had a war on it's soil since the civil war. Russia just didn't have the funds to compete in the cold war, provide for the population and run a space program. Serge Korolov never got more than 50% of the funds he asked for Kennedy gave Von Braun billions.
+2000Betelgeuse The final outcomes of the "finished designs" must have been a long sought after vindication for all those engineers & their prized ideas for "the best" rocket engine. Kudos, & the World thanks you for your efforts.
***** Killing and oppression has been pretty steady in Russia since the dark ages. First there were the invasions by the Mongols, the Turks and the Vikings hired by the Russians to protect them from the above. Then there were the Tsar and boyers who ruled with an iron fist. Then came the Okhrana who oppressed any dissent against the Tsar and who set up the system of gulags the bolsheviks inherited. This force wasn't used against Russian citizens but Russian peasants and workers who were owned by the Tsar's nobelmen. Then after WW1, revolution ,the civil war, famine and extreme poverty. The Russians had to develop the country with no outside capital from the west because the likes of Winston Churchill were angry at the commies for deposing and killing his cousins. Stalin was a brute and a criminal like all the other Russian leaders before him. He developed the USSR with the only capital they had, human capital. When all you have is a hammer every solution looks like a nail.
I love the interwebs. Thank you for finding and uploading this totally absorbing and fascinating video. Somehow I missed it when it was broadcast in the UK! I grew up in the '60's and just watching and listening to this reminded me of how dangerous the whole political situation was then. What's fascinating here is the dedication of the Russian scientists and engineers in trying to make the engine work and work safely, in order to get into space.
It was a fantastic time to be a child there has been nothing close to a Saturn 5 launch since rockets are as cool as they ever where but just doing donuts around the earth just does not do it for me.
What the USSR was able to do with analog was nothing short of a miracle. The USA had readily available technology in terms of orbital dynamics and control systems. If the two countries had not been embroiled in a war of ideologies, we would have a colony on Mars by now. I was part of that system. It is in the past.
Fascinating video Jon, thanks. I don't agree with some of the conclusions made by the narrator. They don't tell the whole story from a design choices standpoint; why the US went the direction that they did. But it shows the effort the Russians made and the amazing technology that came out of it. Pity the ideologies that drove the programs prevented them from learning from each other.
Jon Preston The space was pure competition. It sparked top performance on both sides. I doubt that there would even be a sattelite today without it. I believe, if you want a Mars colony, you need some serious competition again.
+Dieter Himmel I agree. The whole thing started because of the competition between the two countries. I celebrate the Space Race as one of the few really good things to come out of the Cold War.
I grew up during the height of the cold war and the space race in the San Francisco Bay Area where one of NASA's main engineering center is located and its human space flight center is located. I was taught that The Soviets had better rocket engines than we did and the Americans were the innovators for the most part. Lets just say that I was taught the it was the nation of the USSR, not its people, that we were fighting or trying to out do. As for those on here who say we didn't go to the moon answer these questions. 1. Where did we get moon rocks? 2. How come there are photo graphs of the equipment, lunar rover tracks and human foot prints taken from earth.? 3. How come there aren't hundreds of NASA and Contracted engineers and technicians that say we didn't?
Don't forget the main proof: the mirror, placed on the moon and targeted on a daily basis with lasers, for measuring the distance between Earth and Moon.
As far as I know there are no photographs taken from Earth or Earth orvit that show the moons surface with enough detail to show any trace of moon landings. I don't believe it was a hoax, but optically it is impossible to photograph from this far or through the atmosphere. Just some info. Thanks.
In 1961, the rocket engines P7 were thrust less than A4 rocket, 21 tons. But Korolev always took an ingenious solution, and made Glushko to install 20 low-powered engines. Rocket N1 was established 30 engines of 154 tons. Therefore, the increase of thrust from 21 to 154 tons this is huge progress. Today, modern RD - has traction 196 tons - is the ultimate craving for a closed cycle of burning kerosene and oxygen.
The N1 is still a high water mark in rocket design, and it's still a huge gap in space flight history. Maybe goes to show that a collaborative effort would have brought man much closer to space than where we are currently. Sergei Korolev seems to this day to be the best rocket scientist the earth has seen so far.
It was a terrible design. I wish people would stop daydreaming. They did the best with what they had... To be sure. And some really innovative ideas came from it. But it was still a terrible design. And suffered from it. Instead of admitting this, and listening to others, he forced the program forward. The Saturn program originally looked very similar. But Van Braun listened to his staff, engineers... And changed and adapted. And this is why Americans space program prospered and succeeded. Because they didn't try to hide anything. Failure or success. Everyone had input. The F1 engineers alone changed the engines on the fly... Custom building each one to work. Making the changes they "felt" needrd to be made.
"The N1 is still a high water mark in rocket design," lol, what were they.. 0 for 3? After I read that I assume everything else you wrote was equally suspect.
Both the Soviets and the Americans made amazing strides in rocket science. Quit looking at it as us versus them. Let's try to cooperate and make even greater strides in the future.
It was us vs them. Now it's SpaceX vs Blue Origin, with maybe China in the mix. Russia is stuck in a fifty year old paradigm which works for them, but fundamentally just keeps putting them further and further behind. Soon the United States will once again have a manned space capability, at least two, maybe three or four platforms. None of them as good as the Space Shuttle, but all far superior to the Soyuz. In four or five years we will have true spaceships again, with SpaceX's BFRs that will be far beyond the Space Shuttles. By the mid 2020s we will be back on the Moon, perhaps the Chinese will too, and the Russians will still be flying their Soyuz's, only without us as a customer. If they want to put a cosmonaut on the Moon, they will have to buy a ticket on a BFR, or whatever the Chinese might be flying. It's unfortunate, but that is the case because Putin is playing a game that does not involve advancing Russian spaceflight capability.
If there was a new race to the moon I wonder who would get there first since the Americans say they don't have the skills to re-engineer (or reverse engineer their own old tech) and the US would have to start from scratch.. ARCA's revolutionary aerospike engine completed and ready for testing.. newatlas.com/arc-aerospike-linear-engine-complete/51431/ PLUS The Biggest Rocket ever Designed? - The Sea Dragon. ruclips.net/video/6e5B7EKVg48/видео.html Sea Dragon Rocket: Worlds Largest Reusable Rocket Concept. Sea Dragon was a 1962 concept for a reusable, two-stage, sea-launched carrier rocket. The project never materialised as NASA's Future Projects Branch was shut down in 1965. It would have been the largest rocket ever built. ruclips.net/video/hHG3Z0O9Xzo/видео.html
Dorian Lindberg, You are correct! The only way for humans to get there. Correct if I am wrong, I believe they have unmanned supply ships. The Germans started it all, to bad they had a mad man for a leader. Humm, sound familiar?
This video simply shows that the Russians had a technological issue figured out 20 years ago that the Americans (I am one by the way) thought was impossible to produce. All of this "America is #1 and Russian tech is crap" posting below is ridiculous.
@@slyguythreeonetwonine3172 you moron it was German tech not American that made you go up. Since then you haven't gone back- 90% of inner close circles of Von Brauns team were nazis..look up operation paperclip. At least Korolev used Russians in their space program and treated nazis as they should be treated in addition giving them not much in the way of being crucial part of Russian space achievements. Simple basic look at v1 rocket and after that Vostok and Soyuz was a Russian design with Russian engines and later n1 with nk15 again Russian engines to be used on American rockets. Now go shove it somewhere else.
I love the fact that Korolov was in the damn gulag on trumped up charges dring Stalin's paranoia for 6 years. They had to release him and give him a commission to decipher the technology of the V-2 rockets in Germany. Too bad the damage had already been done to his heart from a lack of nutrition and extremely hard labor.I guess the individual is much more important than the communist system would care to admit.
The real irony is С. П. Королёв's jaw was broken by guard in the gulag, and then set improperly, causing the oksydzen mask used during his surdzery to fit badly, contributing to his death.
And added to that, Glushko, the rocket engineer that wanted to use hypergolic fuel- something Korolev was against- was one of the people who denounced Korolev, helping to send him to the gulag.
Dorian Lindburg. Was your reply meant for me or the top comment? Either way the answers are all in the BBC mini series, The Space Race- think that's it's name anyway. Korolev was sent to the gulags, his jaw was broken plus all of his teeth and Glushko was one of the many who denounced Korolev in the purges of the mid thirties- though if he hadn't he'd have probably been sent to the gulags himself. There's well known footage of a hypergolic disaster you can find on youtube were they worked on a rocket stupidly when it was full of this corrosive fuel.
Great video! Turbo pump and cooling system is the key. Contain the thurst forces.The russians have mastered this problem... Time just ran out for the moon shot. I like their design concept. Just my thoughts...
orange70383 Your rude, if have no positive input on the subject, keep quiet. Learn more about the world around you. The past history is a good teacher! I looked at your site. It is not worth the time I wrote this reply. Learn all you can. Then you can play with other people minds...
man this docu has some really rate footage and photos of the n1 some i have yet to see. i wish russia would fully declassify it. there has to be videos of every launch. i especially want to see a full video of N1-5L the only videos of that launch failure are the cut up short clips at 22:26 of extreme close ups that only show fire. i want to see how big the initial explosion was because its considered one of the largest man made non nuclear releases of energy i human history.
Maybe they are the only surviving clips of that explosion, or maybe you are right they might still be classified, who can tell really this was just another guess
A very interesting piece...The Russian technology that was suppressed by their own government for many years, was finally put to use to build superior engines here in the U.S.
@ 39:38 The American Atlas rocket went from being powered by 5 U.S. rocket engines to being powered by just 1 Soviet RD-180, offering an extra 10% more power. Awesome statistics!
Your welcome. For space buffs I have put some links in the description for three Horizon documentaries made after glasnost called Red Star in Orbit. They are a little outdated but they give a lot of insight.
Russia were always good at taking a system starved off resources and screwing every last inch of performance, until they mastered what the Americans had rejected on the grounds of being technically too hard to get operational; what Russia has to offer america needs and visa versa; it is long time both sides worked together this way, good to see
As an old man - does my heart good to see the Russian old-timers teaching the young bucks a few lessons. They had an idea and stuck with it until it worked. Young Americans: "Our data show this won't fly." Old Russians: "Oh yeah we fixed that problem. Here's our engine." I'm a Yank and I think this is pretty funny.
brinbrin62 62200 NASA in 4 days will show us astronauts who will fly to the ISS on the Dragon V2 Falcon9. In December or January. > "Angara looks great." LOL, why? This missile has been under construction for a quarter of a century. It is obsolete a decade ago. 1). It is disposable. 2). Obsolete RD-191 engines, which have a poor ratio of thrust to mass. 3). Huge weight of dry stages (in comparison with the maximum weight of the payload delivered to orbit). This, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that composite materials are not used in this rocket.
> "Reusable rockets may well reusable element be ever reused?" Where did you spend the last few years? SpaceX re-uses the first stage of its Falcon9 rocket. The return of the pen stage costs $ 10 million and preparation for its re-launch takes 2 months, while the production of the new first stage costs $ 26 million and takes 6 months. So no, reusability is an advanced idea now. That's why reusable Falcon9 occupies 60% of the world market of commercial satellite launches.
brinbrin62 62200 "Oh, and now the American astronauts use a Russian Soyuz rocket to go to space." Quite true but also as much a circumstance due to timing of the politics and changing goals of space. If the US had kept its Saturn V infrastructure we could be producing rockets with incredible lift for decades just like the Soviets are with the tried and true Soyuz rockets. So we have the technology if needed, just not the political desire etc, which sucks.
The space shuttle really shot crewed rocket, and heavy lift rocket development in the foot. The Soviets had a better concept for a reusable space plane with less downtime, lower launch costs, and heavier payload, but largely because they were able to learn from the mistakes made in the US shuttles. NASA had spent too much time and money developing the shuttles, so they HAD to be used. And simply using them took up a significant amount of budget. So the reason astronauts were using the soyuz to get to the ISS was because NASA put all their resources into the space shuttle, and Russia having already built a space shuttle decided it was more cost effective to simply keep using the soyuz rockets instead of spending millions more on political icons. The US had a few working, reliable rockets at the time the shuttles were discontinued in 2011, but none of them were rated for crewed missions. Whereas the soyuz had been performing crewed missions for decades. To put it in perspective; the design, prototyping, and launch of the first falcon 9 cost less than a single space shuttle launch.
I don't care what any of my fellow Americans say, these Russian engines are ridiculously good. They had a LOT of knowledge about metal alloys that we didn't. Compare the operating chamber pressure on an RD 180 or RD 170 derivative (between 3400 to almost 3900 psi) to anything that has flown. The SSME, which nasa calls the Ferrari of rocket engines, could only run at 2900 to 3000 PIS maximum. To my knowledge, only the final iteration of the Raptor will be able to match that kind of pressure . I'd love to have more information/video on Glushko's RD 270 (full flow staged, running UDMH/N2O4). That thing sounds fuckin' wild.
There are so many mistakes in this video it's very very unfortunate The F-1, commonly known as Rocketdyne F1, is a rocket enginedeveloped by Rocketdyne. This engine uses a gas-generator closed cycledeveloped in the United States in the late 1953 and was used in the Saturn V rocket in the 1960s and early 1970s. Five F-1 engines were used in the S-IC first stage of each Saturn V, which served as the main launch vehicle of the Apollo program. The F-1 remains the most reliable and most powerful single combustion chamber liquid-propellant rocketengine ever developed.[1]
The Soviets were able to get all of the easy "low hanging fruit" accomplishments with their program, but the program could not be scaled up to do the Moon. Having one man run everything can't work. The infighting just slowed them down and cost them.
Simply fantastic and thrilling every second. I enjoyed every second. Sad to to know the communists ignored such an ingenious scientist Sergi. What a great man he is. He is the real gaint man of space.
While the successful design of a close-ended rocket engine is commendable and worthy of high praise, I think the implication that the entire American design paradigm is somehow faulty as a result is both arrogant and erroneous. Space exploration requires the integration of many different types of systems, not all of which are represented by Soviet technical superiority. What's important here is the introduction of good technology into the global efforts at space exploration. This has a propaganda edge that is reminiscent of Pravda from the 70's. Seriously, it's not necessary. We get it. Russia made a better engine. Too bad they all got hidden in a warehouse for 20 years rather than put into service to launch lunar missions. Maybe we'd be on Mars today if they hadn't hidden them away.
The "only" thing? Are you kidding? There were hundreds of things, not least of which is their utterly dysfunctional system (and bully dictators running their various fiefdoms, so lack of cooperation and communication, still prevalent today in the typical Russian male brain).
2 Aleksander Poniatoff. The modern electric bulb, which we used untill today, wasn't invented by Edison, but by Alexandr Lodygin, that also confirmed a US patent court. US stealth jets technology was invented by Pyotr Ufimtsev. Goddard built his fuel rocket after the plans of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. The first airplane wasn't built by Wright-brothers but by Aleksandr Mozhaisky. The first radio wasn't invented by Nicola Tesla but by Aleksandr Popov. The decimal currency was first introduced in
The reason the Soviets advanced so quickly in space, is because they took lots of risks, which a totalitarian, single party regime like the USSR could do, because the entire space program was enveloped in secrecy. They could tout all of their success stories, while brushing all their failures under the rug, and didn't have to deal with political fallout from the opposition party, because there was no opposition party. The USA had no such luxury, and failures like Apollo 1 quickly became public relations nightmares for NASA.
+rcpmac duh! And Apollo I on the pad in a training exercise. And each time someone dies, there are calls to end the space program, because it's "too risky."
The USA never turned one of their astronauts into a lawn dart (cough-Komarov-cough...). And how many successful manned missions did the Soviet shuttle fly? What's that? Zero? Hmmmm.... With bigger successes come bigger failures, hence more American lives lost...Live with that.
i find it amazing, that the soviets didn't test the Soviet shuttle manned but automated. NASA decided to fly the maiden flight fo the shuttle manned! think about that and about the chances that something goes wrong with an untested spacecraft without escape system (the russian shuttle had one for the pilots). you're probabily not completly wrong however the usa took many risks too. if you'd asked an astronaut of the mercuy or gemini program they would say you that they believed to have a 80% chance to survive.
Almost a decade and a half later and this still holds up. I love Jeremy, but I’m glad they sent him and not someone who wouldn’t appreciate the gravity (no pun intended) and majesty of the experience.
TruthB Told Space X is still in development. Does Space X of 2017 get humans to the International Space Station? No. It gets supplies to the ISS, and that's all. We're currently developing Orion, but it won't be ready for a few years. Dragon delivers our supplies to the ISS, and the Roscosmos Soyuz gets our people there and back.
Do the Russians (or anyone else besides Blue Origin) have booster rockets that are self landing? No. Space X will have their crew ready Dragon capsule ready next year. Their Falcon heavy is scheduled for it's first test launch shortly. It will have the greatest thrust at liftoff of any existing rocket (second only to the Saturn 5). Thank God that Space X is an American company. They are planning to go to the moon and on to Mars. I feel fortunate to be still alive (70) to witness this new revival in the ongoing manned exploration of space ("The Final Frontier").
for now space x is just going in the footsteps of NASA, the know how they collected thru the decades...and its a private company thez want to do money not risk it on unknown ....
At 6:40 and on: 1) No acknowledgement those are captured German V2s 2) "Rocket had been built, flown & improved" - Duh! Like everyone had done (V2) & will forever do... 3) "The conquest of space, a political priority..." - LOL! It was to develop a nuclear armed ICBM. The Russian military fought tooth & claw with Sergei Korolev *against* doing a satellite launch. The drivel in this mocumentary is endless.
What’s interesting is that no one ever discusses the assistance that the Swedish scientist provided to the Soviet union technology time out telemetry and some software that was directly applied to the 1950 Soviet space program
Small point, the atlas only used 3 engines, a main 'booster' and to 'sustainer' engines one on each side I believe.Also a small Vernier steering rocket on each side near the base of the 'fuselage'.
Most people don't know the Russians were actually much further ahead in rocket engine technology in the initial stages of the cold war. The only reason why, is because they captured over a dozen of Germany's top rocket scientists. The Russian scientists had basically no real experience with advanced rocket engine design. The one main scientist America got was von Braun, and luckily he was quite good because he was the head of Germany's rocket program. Many other German scientists came to the US as well, but most went into other fields of research, like nuclear technology, since nuclear was already a very advanced science. What most people don't know, is that Ameica had some pretty good rocket technology because of all the original science done through Robert Goddards foundation. However, all the research done in America had not been collaborated until well after WWII to advance it to higher level. Once Von Braun got everyone together under gov't control to form Nasa and the military's Nuclear Ballistic Missile Program, it wasn't long before our collective minds would make real progress in this area. That's why America was able to make leaps and bounds by the end of the 60's. Our collective scientific minds finally caught up with our industrial might. America's approach to rocket technology and testing was also far more cautious than Russia. Russia was more than willing to take a lot more risk, since most of their program was kept highly secret away from the prying eyes of its citizenry. Most of America had no idea what the Russians were doing. Even our own intelligence agencies didn't know exactly how far along the Russians were. However, the whole world knew everything Nasa was doing on a daily basis. America's Nasa was under constant civilian oversight through Congress and the Press. We simply couldn't be as reckless in an attempt to make such rapid advances.
+Condor1970 You are forgetting about operation Overcast in which the Americans evacuated 500 german engineers, more than 14 TONS of technical documentation and almost the whole Nordhausen rocket building factory. In 9 days they managed to load 341 railcars with more than 100 complete V2 rockets and hundreds of tons of spare and other parts. The loot was enough to fill up 16 Liberty ships. All this right under the nose of the Russians which had to gain control over the area by june 1 1945. The Americans managed to finish the job at may 31.
+player101player101 You can bet the remnant German forces and civilian scientists and workers were quite eager to assist in making that happen. Especially when they knew exactly what would happen if they were still around when the Russians got there. The Germans deserved what they got, as far as losing the war goes. However, after the Russians had control, the atrocities they committed against the German people were just horrible. It's estimated that over 50% of the women in Berlin had been raped at one time or another by Russian soldiers, some as many as 60 times. Many of them killed afterward. So, yes, I can see why the Germans would be quite eager to help the Americans load up everything, and haul it off ASAP!!!
Condor1970 Which confirms that your statement about the Russians being ahead of US just because they captured over a dozen engineers is not exactly right. As you have said it yourself, most of them fled to west. I personally think that the reason giving a headstart to the Russians is their lack of strategic aviation, i.e. the means to deliver weapons to US soil efectively. So probably they took the idea of space rockets more seriously, seeing the potential of those vehicles to deliver their payload anywhere arround the globe. Sending satelites and people in space was just a bonus. At least in the beginning. Who knows...
+player101player101 No, the Russians really did have a head start on rocket technology because they really did have more German scientists working in the field,. As you said, they probably took it more seriously, so they allocated their captured scientists more effectively in rocket engineering. Also keep in mind, the Russians were no dummies either. Many Russian scientists picked up the engineering and advanced on it very quickly as well. We had a few scientists, but mainly it was Von Braun and American scientists from the Goddard foundation. All the other German scientists that fled west primarily went into other fields, like nuclear technology, chemical and materials engineering, and aviation.
My take on it is this: The US had political reasons for not utilizing the GRS (German Rocket Scientists) fully in the pre-Sputnik days. Vanguard was a Navy program if I remember correctly, while the ABMA headed by Von Braun was an ARMY resource. The inter-service rivalry and political machinations with the Eisenhower administration handicapped the GRS in the USA. Furthermore, the resources put into bigger engines in Russia was primarily (if I recall correctly) because the guidance capability of the Russian systems was much lower than that of the USA. They had to have bigger warheads to assure the warheads would hit the target. Bigger warheads = bigger rocket. Make no mistake: The Russian engineering was awesome. The USA engineering was awesome. Their focus was different. Pure and simple, the engineers have to work on the critical problem of the day - and for the USA the efforts were guided by different principles.
Not directly related to this video, but one thing not often mentioned when discussing the success on the US space program is the fact that the US Germans were largely responsible for that success. In the early days of rocket development the US "recruited" Werner Von Braun. His knowledge was a huge boost for the US. Von Braun is mentioned many times but not once have I heard anyone give him proper credit for putting a man on the moon. No doubt the space race could have ended much differently if not for his help. I'm not praising Von Braun, nor am I a fan . Just pointing out that the progress made in the US space program was largely a result of the knowledge gained from research by the Germans. It is what it is.
If the Germans had not followed the mad man, and his psychopathic cronies they would have been the first in space and to the moon. There is a great lesson to be learned here, but it is falling on def ears!
If Korolev hadn't been tortured by Stalin in the Gulag concentration camps, his health had not been ruined, and he could have lived much longer. So, if the Soviet Union had been a humane and democratic system, they would have made it to the moon first. But they were not. For good reason.
Isukaman Hate to be the one to burst your bubble but von braun didnt do JACK SHIT! for the American space program. If you every read the book from the earth to the moon in it the author writes how many of the astronauts and scientists always complained how von braun was always getting in the way of things. Von braun was a know nothing dumb fucking nazi scumbag who was simply trying to save his own worthless hide from being prosecuted for war crimes. The Russians put the first man in space, the first woman in space the first vehicular activity in space. Going to the moon was something the Russians had no interest in and the only reasons the Americans did it was because they wanted to do something 'first' that the Russians didnt do. So fuck von braun and I shit on the grave of that fucking lying kraut.
ThunderAppeal The Russians wanted to get to the moon even after Apollo 11. And Mars,,,And Pluto. But as of today they cannot. If Russia wants to get to Mars before the US let them give Boeing and Space X the money and they'll get them there.
+Isukaman And remember that von Braun's team was pretty much held hostage at Texas for 5 years before actually working with the Americans. So, if Dr. von Braun were in Russia, the moon landing would have occurred on 1950's
Most brilliant Russians emigrated to the West during the slaughter of the Russian Civil war in 1921. Stalin killed the rest. All that was left were a few like Dr. Korolov who ran the whole show - and he almost was killed after a 10 year sentence in Siberia death camps. Skorsky helicopters etc. were all Russian emigrants. My family was the same. The British let the Tzar get assassinated so there was no competition among the great Monarchies. This is all BS! Von Braun was a genius. He was ready to orbit a satellite a year before Korolov. Remember, the Bolsheviks killed many you never hear about.
As an engineer, I was sitting here watching this film, listening as they implied that the Russian engineers were better than US engineers and that the rocket engines were better than anything in the US inventory and that the Russian's had "figured out"something that the US engineers hadn't.The whole time I am thinking "o.k., higher performance and more efficient, but you are also taking big risks that a rocket engine of that design type won't simply MELT and/or explode running at those kinds of pressures and temperatures"! When, finally, in the LAST 7 minutes of the film they admit that the Russian engineers hadn't actually "figured out" anything the US engineers hadn't, but that IN FACT the US engineers simply felt it was too risky to operate a single engine at those pressures and temperatures and THAT was why the US decided not to go with the "Close Circuit" rocket engine design. Yeah, US engineers like to build in a "safety factor", ESPECIALLY where human cargo is concerned. The Russian approach of making things more powerful or faster by sacrificing safety isn't unique to rockets. It is a well known fact that when the Russians began building Nuclear Powered submarines that the reason that they were faster than anything in the US arsenal was that the Russians had sacrificed the amount of shielding around the reactors as a weight saving measure which then greatly increased the danger of radiation exposure to the crews aboard those subs. Well, we in the US like to see our boys come home NOT glowing green, just like we like to see our payloads actually REACH orbit, whether human or machine, whenever possible.
But the US chooses to use the design now. Ironic huh. You literally turned that frown upside down didn't you! I'm sure if we kept the same story and swapped the nationalities around, either you or another American would be boasting about how crap the Russians were and how bold and fantastic the US was for taking the risk to further the technology. Also, you fail to mention that the US have now started to design and build a staged combustion engine (Raptor sounds cool doesn't it! murica!) along with India, China and Japan to name a few. Could it be because they were proved wrong and that it was possible by the Russians(damn those pesky commies). You also fail to mention the metallurgy they developed to combat the problem of corrosion, which was one of the main reasons why the US didn't think it was feasible. Also your example in your regard to shielding on Russian submarines, I don't know if what you said about less shielding is true or not, but the weight of a submarine does not affect its top speed only its acceleration. Just like a LSR cars top speed is influenced by drag, gearing and HP, added weight only means it will take longer to get there but will not alter its top speed. So all that means is, if your statement is true, then a Russian sub will accelerate faster but will not have a higher top speed. Great for them undersea 1/4 races. So why don't you give credit where credit is due? They developed the technology and designed and built something that the US deemed virtually impossible. So well in fact, that now the rest of the world is following their example, including the US. Not too hard is it?
Firstly, saying that the US "chooses" to use the Russian rocket design now, isn't quite accurate. Because of the deep and ridiculous cuts made to NASA's R&D budget, US scientists were FORCED to find a less expensive alternative to advancing the state of the art in rocket engines. If you ask THEM (not the ones "paid off" by the Russian filmmakers they show in this film to say what the Russians WANTED them to say) the US scientists will tell you that their decision to do so was based on being FORCED to find a less expensive, but less capable system because of purely POLITICAL reasons which were pushed through by the current administration. Going to the Russian design was an out and out BACKWARDS step. That being said (and you may not be aware of this as it is not widely known), new funding has recently been approved for continued development of a US design which had been kept in "cold storage" since the Obama administration began its anti-science, anti-exploration, anti-research blitzkrieg. This new funding has been largely the result of the "cooling" in relations between Russia and the US, and has had the HAPPY result of forcing our politicians to reevaluate the "I'm ok, you're ok" stance which has pervaded the US space program for too long and kept us stagnant, just like the Russians, who, except for the ISS (which the US is largely responsible for building), are still stuck in the late 60's, space technology wise. Not so much "state of the art" as "state of the ark". On the issue of Russia developing "metallurgy to combat corrosion", well, the fact is, we don't consider that very important since we take better care of our equipment than the Russians do as well as using higher quality materials from the start, and all parts which show any corrosion or mechanical stress after a flight are replaced before being re-flown ANYWAY. If that is something that is important to Russian scientists, that is wonderful, but that has to do with a different approach to the business and using lower grade materials to build with. As far as your comments regarding submarines and whether weight affects "top speed" or not, are concerned, they clearly indicate that you have NO knowledge of the subject and it would be a pointless exercise to debate you on it. I will give you ONE clue. Water ISN'T air and they don't have the same coefficient of drag. Your analogy of dry, land based race cars is just not applicable when referring to something in salt water, sorry. As we ENGINEERS like to say, you can make a BRICK supersonic if you put a powerful enough engine on it. Again, the US isn't following Russia's "lead" because they made a "better" engine, it was a desperate attempt to find something which, while less capable than US designs, was cheaper to produce. Well, cheaper is RARELY better when it comes to high performance technology. Also, the only reason that the countries you named are CONSIDERING the Russian design is for the same reason, its cheaper, not better. The heavy lift capability requirements of India, China and Japan, thus far, doesn't need to be anywhere NEAR what the US requires of its systems. Those countries are just taking their first baby steps into space on their own. We in the US didn't consider the Russian approach "impossible", as you and this film claim, we simply consider it a lesser design. I mean, if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO. US commercial space companies will fly with what engine they can afford, which means they will have to sacrifice capability for cost. Most NASA and US contractors performing heavy lift launches are still using the proven and more capable US designs, such as Titan and Atlas, etc...The new "Saturn Class" vehicle called the Space Launch System (SLS) slated for its first launch soon uses four RS-25 engines in its Core Stage. The RS-25 is a US design originally used as the main engines for the Space Shuttle and has the highest thrust to weight ratio of ANY rocket engine in the world. It is also the most reliable rocket engine in the world. SO, after all your claims that the US is somehow "coming over" to the Russian way of thinking, the FACT is is that we are powering our newest heavy lift vehicle with a US designed, tried and true powerplant, NOT some Russian designed cheapy stopgap engine. Russia's new spacecraft, the...OH, that's right, Russia is still flying the same limited capability Soyuz capsule that it has been flying since 1967. They tried to build a space shuttle, Buran, which looked EXACTLY like the US Space Shuttle, only it wasn't powered and was only ever flown ONCE on a remote mission and then was quickly retired because the Russian copy didn't work. I think one of them is a theme restaurant now, in Gorky Park? Russia STILL has never landed a MAN on the moon, or anywhere ELSE, for that matter. Russia is HARDLY on the red hot edge of technology, are they? Does that turn that frown upside down, COMRADE? Not too hard is it?
Chris Cline Ok, now we know you are a condescending arrogant fanboy of US technology (with the attitude if the US didn't design it then it must be shit) that assumes that you know everything and the rest of us know nothing. What a refreshing change! I don't care about your political situation or who was voted in and cut spending. The Russians space program deals with the same factors but you bag it for not having done much and then proceed to defend and make excuses as to why the US program hasn't progressed under the same circumstances. The FACT is your space program has stalled and that it has dropped the ball is no fault of anyone but the US alone. So don't cry about it. I am fully aware that funding has been released only due to the fact the sanctions the Russians put on the US after the US did it to them meant that you had no way of getting your own rockets up into space without the Russian RD-180 and NK-33 engines. You know the ones that are so shit that most of your main launch vehicles use them and now you can't get them you are left in a bit of a pickle. It seems around 4 years is the estimate. aviationweek.com/space/replacing-russian-made-atlas-antares-engines-would-take-four-years Tell me how does the US currently get its astronauts up the the ISS? The very Soyouz that you reckon is shit, but you have to pay them for a ride cause you don't have anything to do the job. The Soyouz may be old and "limited tech" but the US has nothing to do the same job. It could be a flying turd but its still better than what the US has today. How can you even talk half the shit you have when that is the truth, geez it must grate on you lmfao. Here it is from Time.com itself with a nice video of them doing something the US can't do. time.com/132946/watch-russian-soyuz-rocket-launch/ How old is the Atlas (discontinued 2005) and Titan? Both 1950's, so according to your reasoning older than the "state of the ark" Soyouz, yet somehow they are "proven" so it makes it all ok. The only recent rocket the US has that could be said to be totally US is the Delta IV as the Antares was designed with Russian help and has, wait for it, Russian engines. Please refer to the Aviation Week link for proof. As for the SLS until one is actually made and launched the US has nothing new either so I wouldn't boast about it. You can't even launch a Astronaut atm. As for the metallurgy argument, you did not address the point being made instead you decided to go on about the quality of metals used which was irrelevant or you are stupid or maybe both. It had nothing to do with the quality of metal being used but to do with the types of metal being used. Due to the corrosive effect of the fuels the normal metals used in engines were not up to the task. So using your awesome made in the USA metals would not have made a iota of difference because they were not the type needed. Thats why they developed new alloys to combat the problem. Also seeing as they were designed for single use, there is no need to make it last for more than one trip, just like the SLS does with its main engines. So if you can't bring a rational counter to that point or just plain don't understand the point I am making then don't bother. Quick point here. Oh how I laughed when you said ", if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO." notice how you did not use as American car like a Corvette or Mustang. That would be because in the supercar world they are kind like a Yugo as well. And to finish it off, back to the submarine side of things. I don't know what sort of engineer you are but Fluid Dynamics is all about the movement of solids through all liquids and gases and therefore pertains to your inaccurate statement. Just in case you can't be bothered to read it here is the answer to the question. And I quote " Now to your actual question, if both submarines had exactly the same shape, and size and were in the same medium, they would in theory hit the same equilibrium if they had some sort of magical engine that produced a 10N thrust constantly, the equilibrium for the heavier submarine would take slightly longer to reach as its acceleration is lower (and the derivative of its drag is therefore lower) but they should reach a point where Fe=Fd and Fe=10N constantly" www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182815 So in simple speak for your "engineering" mind, two identical objects (ie the same shape and size) with the same thrust but different weight will have the same top speed. The only difference is the heavier sub will take longer to get to that speed. And finally I am not a Commie nor a Russian, I'm Australian and just believe respecting all forms of technology regardless of where it was made or designed. I also get sick of seeing arrogant Americans always putting shit on anything that anyone else had made without a decent argument to back it up. You know shit excuses like "it's Obama's fault" or bagging something for its age then saying your older designs are "proven" you fucking hypocrite. Your argument is so full of holes and contradictions its almost funny. Don't bother answering because I don't care because I've proved my point and anyone rational will see all the holes in your biased argument. And as us Aussies say, get a big black one up ya, ya wanker.
yobgow My my, temper, temper. Who's "WE" here? I don't need to be a "fanboy" of US Technology. I'm the REAL deal and help other scientists further advance US technology while the Russians sit there, stuck in the 60's, both technologically and socially. So, go back to the cave you crawled out of to stomp your foot and try to insult the United States, the single GREATEST entity ever devised. We've heard it all before. I don't have the time to consider your feelings while I explain the errors in your thinking and the flaws in your "logic". We have a saying, don't know if use it too in Australia..."If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". Well, you sure TALK like a commie and seem to be a big fan of that wonderful, free nation. SO, I say Commie Down Under. I have several Aussie friends and I am VERY HAPPY not to count you amongst them. I have really important things to do now, so I am going to leave you to your own devices and maybe see if you are going to waste more of your time in a futile effort to strain your brain trying to rise to my level, or will you simply resort to puerile name calling because you can't master your emotions? By the way, the internet isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. Try reading a book with more than pictures in it sometime. Quoting and linking to physics websites...Jeez! You don't know the FIRST THING about ACTUAL physics and have proven that throughout your inane scribble. I think you might be happier in the kiddies classes than up here with the big boys. I don't feel it necessary to use profanity or cast graphic insults, which are the province of the uneducated, so as we American's say "I'm sorry, did you say something. Well, whatever it was wasn't important". Fair Dinkum?! Have a Happy Day...;)
You couldn't even put a decent factual argument down in writing whether you are an engineer or not. Using links to prove my point is the only viable way of giving evidence on the internet because I can't grab you by your throat and ram a book into you face fool. You stupidly assume that only you have higher education, but you must realise that most people aren't pompous egotistical wankers that try and shove it down others throats as they let their argument do the talking. Actually the way you parrot on about how you're the "real deal" ect makes me wonder if you really are. Or maybe you're just insecure, probably a bit of both. You can't be a very good engineer because whether you like it or not your argument over a heavier submarine having a lower top speed is so wrong its laughable. The fact that you choose to try and question my background and education instead of refuting any of my points shows that you really have no valid counter points. You ridicule my education but can not give me a simple fact based answer to prove me wrong. Thats probably because your top shelf space program has to go to the Russians to get an astronaut into space. Bit hard to refute that gem. I think I'll take that as a win. As for you comments inferring that I am a commie, my grandfather was shot by communist partisans so, use your duck (which guess what, the rest of the us use but I'm sure you'll claim it as your own) analogy all you want it, it's far from the truth. But you are what we Aussies call a real wanker and thats fair dinkum. And in no way would I ever want such a close minded arrogant redneck as a friend either. Because I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire.End of story.
4 Shamshurenkov. - Periodic system of elements by Dmitri Mendeleev, - Radio remote control by Nicolai Pylchykov, - artificial earth satelite, manned space flight, space stations, (unmanned) landings on the moon and another planet, moon robot, - assault riffle by Vladimir Fyodorov, - electric tram by Fyodor Pirotsky, - LED by Oleg Losev, - computer animation by N. Konstantinow, 1968, - pc by Arsenii Gorokhov - electric welding by Nikolay Benardos, - gas mask by Nikolai Selinsky. Just check it.
I would have built two smaller rockets and docked their payloads in orbit then headed to the moon. Not one big one. Surly with all of their early successes they could have pulled that off.
Imp5011 Unfortunately, Proton at it’s early days was extremely unreliable.. However they could of used the R-7 booster, it could bring a lander into low earth orbit on it’s own.. then a second R-7 could bring a manned Soyuz to dock with lander in low earth orbit.. however it still wouldn’t be a enough to get to the moon..
awesome documentary loved every minute russian engine strapped to an american rocket LOL just goes to show america's not always the world leaders in technology no matter how much money they throw at it..! 20 yr old russian engine technology and still better than modern day american engines.
N1 always blew up. Years later surplus engines are refabricated and used on Antares rocket, which also blew up. I don't think Korolev being alive would have mattered much as these engines always blow up.
***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job. they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing. instead, piggies got a nice, large home.
***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job. they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing. and now, piggies got a nice, large home. now, the other version of the engines are still used today. Proton rockets still send satellites in space and they're nearly flawless.
Jamie Godman The development of the N1 engine was close to not having it blow up before the program got shut down, and the refabricated version served the American launches faithfully until very recently. So no, these engines don't "always blow up".
They actually has several failures during testing of the re-fabrication of these engines. It should have been obvious enough that running them at 108% being as old as they are and being a closed cycle system that they should not have been used for the Antares. But in order to close the COTS deal with NASA orbital needed a launch vehicle so this was rushed together. And I think the fact it failed due to the engine proves my point. So you believe what you want to believe, I'll stick with facts.
I noticed that the engineers weren't using torque wrenches to tighten the bolts on the engine,OMG how could they get any consistency ? On a rocket engine ,with such pressures one would absolutely need exact torque down numbers, but then it when bang anyhow.
player101player101 could be true but what if the non torque wrench went too far in the first place,because then, backing off on the torque would be too late, just saying.
player101player101 LOL.Yeah,I only mentioned the torque wrench thing, because russia has has serious quality control issues, even to this day. well time for some KFC have a great day
You have to wonder just where we would be in space if everyone worked together as one people rather than as potential enemies. It is time that we put aside our childish differences so that we can achieve far more together and perhaps make this world a much safer place to live on.
What they forgot to mention in the documentary is that if Korolev lived for few more years (2-3) the USSR would land on the Moon first, and it would be just one of the huge list of space "firsts" in their favour. You Americans act as if landing on the Moon was somehow everything important in space, while the USSR did huge number of things before that which left Americans with their jaws open.
That is just hypothetical. To say "the Russians would have landed on the moon if.." no one really knows. USA was the first to dock in space, leave earth orbit and to land on the moon. Get over it. The Russians did great things and many firsts, no doubt ofcourse.
Igor Flexus Check this out, and compare Soviet firsts "cut off" with the year in which Korolev died: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_exploration_milestones,_1957%E2%80%931969 Also, for at least 1,5 years after his death the Soviets were so shocked that they haven't launched anything. And the first several Soyuz launches which happened afterwards were an utter, utter disaster. So yes, if Korolev was alive it would be neck-to-neck to the moon. Who would won I don't know, but it sure wouldn't be a clear lead by the US as it was.
I could be wrong but the documentary said 2 weeks after the second N1 explosion America launched apollo 11. If thats true then there is no way they would have been first. They still had 9 unmanned launches planned.
Bozo Juretic Well, both sides, USA and Russia had and has brilliant people on that field. Now, communism is a bad form of politics and is doomed. In my dreams, I wish the Russians landed just half an hour after the eagle. Then they would have maybe said: "we have to go to Mars". But after the landing, no one in the senate would write those checks, bechause they had no threat and competition. Sad for humanity. And in a way, humanity lost when the race was over.
Pretty good video, except towards the end when the narrator starts getting judgmental and saying the US was all gloom and doom over this superior technology. Considering how things turned out, I think we proved decisively who was better at getting 100,000 tons to orbit, DESPITE or inferior, less efficient engines. Jeez.
Ahahahahaha!.... For this guy (Apollo Antares) it is very, very important to show everybody, how allegedly unabled the Russians are. He uses absolutely idiotic texts to prove that. According to the "book" or "article", which this guy quotes, the Nazis adapted their eugenics ideas from Tsiolkovsky... :D The author forgot to tell you, that these ideas were born and even first tested in the USA! Furthermore, every intelligent person would recognize, that this "book" is propaganda, just by the selection of some "facts" and ignoring most important things. The Legend about von Braun's attempts to build his rockets, which failed because US leaders refused the support, is a naive fairytale. V2 was first rebuilt in America in 1951. Furthermore, even German historians say, that von Braun only faked a scientist, but war in reality a careerist. AND: Even American scientists know well, that Russians began their intensive rocketry development and space program in the 1920ies. Somehow your auther also forgot to tell it to you. Such projects like many others were desturbed or interrupted by the WW2. However first solid fuel rocket starts were realized in the 1930ies. 1946 Soviets took, what they found in Germany (it was not much compared to what USA took from Germany) and rebuilt the V2 n 1947. Right after that these German scientists were sent back. The only scientists, which actually stayed in the USSR were researchers in the nuclear are. V2 was useless for Korolyov and he continued his work on his designs. It is well known, that his construcion was fundamentally different from V2. Finally, von Braun used Russian, even Soviet works for his rocket. Such information is absent in your book for idiots. There are a lot more of such "mistakes". Popov's achievement was indeed the first radio broadcast of a text! AND: Absolutely every important invention is a result of many little steps made by different engineers!!! Is it so hard to understand for you??? For example Germans want to be the inventors of the automobile. But there were many early inventors. For example the car of Kulibin in the 18th century(!) had important essential elements of a modern car. There was also another very early Russian car-prototype, the car of Leontii Shamshurenkov from 1752. Etc. Boy, I see, you suffer under terrible inferiority complexes. But your attempts are useless. Btw. the "God" Apollo comes from Russia, according to Greeks - Scythian Hyperborea. Do you want me to repeat, how fundamentally US technologies base on Russian inventions and achievements of Russian immigrants? For example Vladimir Zvorykin, Igor Sikorsky, Aleksandr Lodygin, Alexandr Poniatoff etc.?
pepitheman i sincerely hope that's sarcasm i really do otherwise im sorry but that could be the dumbest youtube comment in the history of youtube (aside from saying i like trains in a random comment)
pepitheman Hahahaha!!!!!! In which chauvinistic, idiotic world do you live??? :D American industry and science is still built by minds from other country and especially from Eastern Europe. You use day by day dozens of Russian inventions wihout any knowledge and respect to Russian achievements. Why? Because your TV-brainwashing system didn't tell it to. Instead of this it drummed a lot of shit into your "brain".
pepitheman This is a list with some Russian inventors, which co-built American industry: 1. According to an American patent court, the modern type of the electric bulb wasn't invented by Edison, but by Russians Alexander Lodygin. 2. The first American helicopter (modern design) was designed by the Russian Igor Sikorsky, who also co-built the US aircraft industry, his compan still produces US helicopters. 3. Another very early US helicopter, the "flying octopus", was built by the Russian Gregory Bothezat. 4. Air-to-air refueling was invented for US airforce by the Russian Alexander Seversky. 5. The first video recorder was designed by the team of Alexander Poniatoff in his US company AMP. 6. The first television broadcast succeeded in Russia by Boris Rosing. His student, Vladimir Zworykin emigrated to the USA and invented there the iconoscope and kinescope, the main devices of the television. Philo Farnsworth tried to realize his own system, however Zworykin's ideas prevailed. 7. Even the Teddy bear was invented by a Russian Jewish emigrant Morris Michtom. 8. Google was mainly realized by the emigrant from Russia, Sergey Brin. 9. The stealth technology in US jets was developed by the Russian Pyotr Ufimtsev. Soviet militaries estimated it as not very practicable and allowed him to publish his results. Americans copied it, built jets for billions of $... which were shot down by Soviet radar systems from 1970ies in the Serbia war. :D Etc. Welcome to the reality!
pepitheman Next time I will tell you about Russian inventions, which British and Americans declared as their own. ;) And then I will tell you, why all British peoples called Russians (Scythians) founders of their nations.
Im sorry by a lot of this comes off as Russian propaganda. They seem to brag about how superior their engines were compared to the American engines. The F1 engine on the saturn V was designed knowing that it was inefficient. They did it that was to cut down on the complexity. Smaller engines are more efficient but increases complexity. Hence the reason the N1 rocket never made it more than a few thousand feet before succumbing to its own over-engineered propulsion system. So what if the atlas uses soviet engines? We could have made our own but why spend the money designing a new engine when the Russians have dozens laying around in a warehouse? The US has built the most sophisticated launch vehicles ever created, put a man on the moon, proved the reusable vehicle concept, and retired more advanced vehicles than the Russians have ever thought of creating. But sure. Gloat about your 50 year old engines.
This documentary was good however what is with the "Americans couldn't do it" EVERY 5 SECONDS!? Like what is the agenda here? Awesome, Russia made a great rocket among other things! I don't care what country furthers space science. Did anyone bother rereading the script before producing this. I literally lost count of how many times that was said. I swear I heard "Americans couldn't do it" 3 times in 5 seconds at one point.
I suspect the reason is that when originally broadcast it would have had about 3 or 4 commercial breaks in it. It's not unusual for British programmes to briefly repeat the attention grabbing info after the break for those who only tuned in during the adverts.
+M1DHW lol I guess it shows the true agenda of the Documentary when after each commercial they must drop in the subject matter which is "America couldn't do this!" That should have been the title actually... Lolol.
Mate, I don't want to alarm you or anything, but, it's important you know : Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either. Americans - could - not - do - it
+Glenn V Love it: "Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either. Americans - could - not - do - it." - Perhaps now we'll stop hearing US morons brag and we can explain why the US needs 16 TV channels + bragging 24-7, 365 days a year about the superiority of "american" "technology" and science....
Not pro US or Russia... But ffs relax with the "the Americans could not do" attitude in this movie :S If the demand had been great enough for a closed loop enigne, it would have been build eventually. But why go invest billions in development of something you can just buy? It would make no sense. And please spare us that childish "Russia could have won the moon race" BS in the comments. Didn't couldn't wouldn't
Sir_J Well at least this is one of those rare documentaries which is not the US stroking it's own massive ego. There are way too many of those as it is.
United States essentially stole European technology on all levels and yet American public think of American exceptionalism that somehow we are better than everybody else ,you didn't invent the Turing machine you didn't invent the car ,combustible engine you didn't invent the aeroplane you did not invent fractional distillation you didn't invent Apple Pie .You broke the sound barrier by Stealing British technology including the computer, forcing them to give it up because they were bankrupt .Europe is where it happened without Europe United States was China copying everything and passing it on as own. all you seem to make these days are algorithms ........Facebook ...wow !
Everything was going fine and business as usual for Lockheed and Aerojet until a dude by the name of Elon Musk came along with a start-up company called SpaceX.
Well, when the head of the Lockheed Martin team said it - calling it a bitter pill to swallow -It didn't seem so bad, no 'agenda' there at all. I think it was acknowledgement of the Russians' engineering advances despite their "losing the space-race" et al, despite being cancelled 20 years ago - admitting that the Russian rocket program achieved superior design goals with respect to propulsion performance that, twenty years later has not been equaled anywhere else. There's no 'agenda' - except maybe it's part of the sales pitch to market these things.
It wasn't only the "15% performance increase". It's America STILL can't make a decent engine (except for SpaceX). Thanks Russia! We'll catch up someday.
It is only because after Von Braun left NASA, American rocket engines were shit and they had been all shit except Von Braun's designs, the Vanguard, Atlas, etc. If Russian rocket engines were so good, why didn't they land on the moon then? it wasn't all because of synchronizing 30 engines was impossible.
US Long range missiles and boosters during von Braun's life Redstone (Jupiter C) - Von Braun Vanguard Jupiter (juno) - Von Braun Thor IRBM Thor (Able) Thor (Delta) Atlas ICBM Atlas (Able) Atlas (Agena) Atlas (Centaur - Von Braun) Titan I Titan II Titan III Titan III (Centaur - Von Braun) Saturn 1 - Von Braun Saturn 1B - Von Braun Saturn 5 - Von Braun Minuteman Polaris Poseidon Trident Shuttle most of them had no input from him whatsoever.
Good stuff. As an American I'm glad to see the old timer Russian rocket engineers finally get the respect they deserve. Really good documentary.
It's unfortunate they had to work under the system they did.
Agree ... as a non american but westerner i have always been so amazed how intelligent the russian engineers were at this time ... the moon landing couldn't have been achieved without this technology and unfortunately 99.9% of americans are ignorant to this fact!!
Oh for sure, if the engineers were given the support and facilities Nasa provided, they easily could have made the moon. Soviet politics ruined their chances
Well sed, not too many can admite the hard work on the other side!
@@PS-Straya_M8"... how intelligent the Russian engineers were at this time." Lol
They weren't only Russian, they were from different countries.
P. S: Without Ukrainian rocket scientists/engineers (like Valentin Glushko and his RD engines), Russia (Soviet Union) wouldn't have achieved these things.
I worked for George Mueller when he was older on his yacht, he was a fascinating man to chat with. His anecdotes regarding NASA, Apollo, and Soviet programs were amazing.
Good luck comes in many forms.
Starship is the descendant in many ways of the n1
My thoughts exactly. Still, I would prefer Saturn engines to dozens of smaller ones.
Thank God somebody had the foresight to preserve the engines...
Russia is so weird, "destroy them." Protecting them is not weird. But the N1 is emblematic of the Russian psyche dating back to pre-revolution. There's a story of Russian royalty planning a royal scale shindig on a boat at the summer palace. But a few days before it the yacht capsized, lots of people drowned. The royals basically ordered to pretend it didn't happen and continue the celebration with no mention of the tragedy.
These days when I say the US won the space race, folks say no, Gagarin. I say, true but the US didn't know it was in a race, same with Sputnik.
The US published color glossy magazines detailing its space program, announcing goals, the launch details, etc. Lo and behold the Russians managed to just barely beat the US to goal after goal and usually with terrible risks.
Of course Von Braun told Kennedy the Moon was a race we could win. Kennedy threw down a challenge. Russia outwardly ignored it... and here we are in the sixth decade after, watching a clip about another in a long line of Russian cover-ups.
sorry if TLDR, tried to make it readable.
Those engineers spent all those years of hard work for everything to almost be flushed. The people who actually made that country work were kept secret. The party leaders were celebrated as being the heros. This is a story that has happened many times in history and in every country. There's always someone taking credit for someone else's work.
Probably at great personal risk, also. Remarkable technology. Remove the politics and everyone benefits.
@@Jonathan.D Pee poo pot pot poo pee pee poo pot poo pot pee poo pot pot pee pee poo pee poo pot poo pee poo pot
just saved for money, really.
This was tremendous background info! I'm in the middle of editing a book on the N-1, and this filled in a few gaps, but they also took a few shortcuts regarding the politics behind the project. For instance, the N-1 wasn't started as a response to Kennedy's challenge to land on the moon. It was already well underway as the heavy lift booster intended for planned Mars missions. It was "repurposed" by Khrushchev into a moon mission in 1964.
and this book ?
@@nobody6803 It’s called “N-1 For the Moon and Mars: The Soviet Superbooster”
It’s not cheap…
@@literallyshaking8019 What do you mean by "It's not cheap"?
@@xenophagiathe book is not cheap
With all of the media outlets at our fingertips, it is rare to get a view of history that accurately reflects the experiences and viewpoints of other cultures. I appreciate learning about the accomplishments of people of all backgrounds. This documentary provided an insightful perspective on a facet of Cold War history. Just overlook the tidbits of propaganda. What these Russian scientists accomplished is worthy of recognition.
With all of the tidbits of our fingertips it is rare to get a Russian scientist
Travel make you wiser. It should be compulsory for young Americans to spend a year in Europe. Any country in Europe. You'll mould a better nation for yourselves.
@@TimPerfetto, & now the Russians are imprisoning its scientists.
RIP Dr. Dmitri Kolker. You didn't deserve what happened to you.
Korolyov is so hardcore, he can hold conversations on two phones simultaneously (6:39)
I am extremely proud to be an American but my God, those Nk-33 Engines are an absolute marvel of mankind's inginuity. My hat is off to the Russian's for this beautiful technological achievement. Also, thanks Russia, for the RD-180. It will take us to Mars.
@Tadano SpaceX wants you to hold it's beer..
@@dynamic1385 Try the RS-25
That's no longer the case thanks to the blunder in Ukraine. The new engines will be entirely made in the USA.
Then please go to Mars yourself. I say no thank you. I do not like cancer. Do you?! Read something about radiation and Mars. It is not fun, over there. And they offer you a one way ticket for a reason.
@@voornaam3191 For some reason UR comment is shadow banned. So it can only be seen as a highlighted reply by the few people who already commented. Maybe it's because U mentioned the big C. It's the only thing I can imagine.
Most people don't understand the realities of colonizing a planet. The radiation from the sun makes it impossible to carry out terraforming on Mars. Because of Mars' small size it doesn't have a magnetosphere strong enough to protect it from the sun's solar winds. That means any atmosphere generated would be quickly swept away. It's like trying to put air in a tire that has no rim. Pfffffft! Mars' small size also means less gravity acting on anyone and anything living on the surface. That might not sound like a big deal but it is and would cause more than a few issues with the human body. Some genius will say, "People can live under ground and in containment pods" and "Astronauts live in zero gravity." For humans to successfully colonize Mars they need to thrive and not just simply survive. That can't happen if everyone is forced to live in what is considered as quarantine conditions. The last few years is proof of that. Astronauts who are trained and selected for space missions only survive in those conditions for very short periods of time. That little time has a huge impact on them physically and mentally. None of that compares to the biggest issue of all, supplies. To set up a small scale colony the amount of time, money, and effort would be more than what is required to restore the Earth. Imagine restoring a car, the Earth just needs paint, tires, oil change, and a thorough detailing. Mars is a car that is little more than a pile of rust and remnants, with no hope of being restored into a home for human habitation. So why does the gov and so called "genius" billionaires keep pushing this agenda if it's not feasible. 1: It generates money for the rich investors, more tax dollars will be taken in than those spent, creates new jobs, and stimulates the economy. 2: It's used as a way to distract people from the destruction of the Earth by the gov and the "genius" billionaires. If you are too busy looking up at the stars, you won't notice what's happening to the ground under your feet. (Cue the music: Metallica, Sad But True.)
This is such a cool story. I never knew anything about this at all. All those engines from a failed moon rocket, mothballed for 20 years and then successfully tested on an American rocket, built as a missile originally intended to destroy Russia... A testament to the skill of a true genius who never lived to see his dream, and a story of collaboration for the future of mankind. So we are pretty much borrowing Russian developments to continue our own space program.
I have seen many videoes about these (fantastic) engines , this was one of the very best . Thank's for almost 50 min with good input . Although recorded in 2012 .
HBO should make a mini series about this like Chernobyl
Great idea! Then they could combine multiple different male characters and build another bullshit Mary Sue! Just like they did with Chernobyl.
@Heisenberg They combined a number of real life Men, and built a Mary Sue female character out of them in order to sell a woke agenda.
There was a documentary, i forggrt the name, about both Von Brawn and Sirgey Koreliov, it could easilly be adapted, showing the perspective of both lead dessigners, and their struggles
@@jesusramirezromo2037 Space Race
Not everything needs a mini series. Just enjoy the documentary
The Soyuz capsule was intended for the Moonshot too. I was very surprised to learn that. No wonder it can spend such a long time in orbit! The power and life support were more than adequate for mere orbital missions.
18:00 Brezhnev himself was Korolyov`s pallbearer. Wow! What an honour.
As an Engineer myself I respect and feel for the Russians that worked on the lunarr program, they achieved a lot!! and it was not their fault the program eventually failed.
+2000Betelgeuse Cheers, completely agree. Time pressure and the lack of exchange to other more educated countries, including the government and communism, many soviet projects were sadly doomed. Buran being one of the (in my opinion) biggest highlights in the many Soviet space programs also had great potential, if the CCCP didn't fall down, but it had to happen at some point though.
+Ozon ' it had to happen...'? Why?
+Ozon You forgot to mention the most important factor.....money. Before the revolution Russia was a backward country full of serfs. WW1 was very hard on tsarist Russia.....then came the revolution and civil war which was equally devastating as WW!. From 1924 to 41 Russia put everything into industrialization and the military but then came WW2 and the utter destruction of much of the country.
Compared to Russia the USA hasn't had a war on it's soil since the civil war. Russia just didn't have the funds to compete in the cold war, provide for the population and run a space program. Serge Korolov never got more than 50% of the funds he asked for Kennedy gave Von Braun billions.
+2000Betelgeuse The final outcomes of the "finished designs" must have been a long sought after vindication for all those engineers & their prized ideas for "the best" rocket engine. Kudos, & the World thanks you for your efforts.
***** Killing and oppression has been pretty steady in Russia since the dark ages. First there were the invasions by the Mongols, the Turks and the Vikings hired by the Russians to protect them from the above. Then there were the Tsar and boyers who ruled with an iron fist. Then came the Okhrana who oppressed any dissent against the Tsar and who set up the system of gulags the bolsheviks inherited. This force wasn't used against Russian citizens but Russian peasants and workers who were owned by the Tsar's nobelmen. Then after WW1, revolution ,the civil war, famine and extreme poverty. The Russians had to develop the country with no outside capital from the west because the likes of Winston Churchill were angry at the commies for deposing and killing his cousins. Stalin was a brute and a criminal like all the other Russian leaders before him. He developed the USSR with the only capital they had, human capital. When all you have is a hammer every solution looks like a nail.
I love the interwebs. Thank you for finding and uploading this totally absorbing and fascinating video. Somehow I missed it when it was broadcast in the UK!
I grew up in the '60's and just watching and listening to this reminded me of how dangerous the whole political situation was then. What's fascinating here is the dedication of the Russian scientists and engineers in trying to make the engine work and work safely, in order to get into space.
It was a fantastic time to be a child there has been nothing close to a Saturn 5 launch since rockets are as cool as they ever where but just doing donuts around the earth just does not do it for me.
What the USSR was able to do with analog was nothing short of a miracle. The USA had readily available technology in terms of orbital dynamics and control systems. If the two countries had not been embroiled in a war of ideologies, we would have a colony on Mars by now. I was part of that system. It is in the past.
Fascinating video Jon, thanks. I don't agree with some of the conclusions made by the narrator. They don't tell the whole story from a design choices standpoint; why the US went the direction that they did. But it shows the effort the Russians made and the amazing technology that came out of it. Pity the ideologies that drove the programs prevented them from learning from each other.
Glad you enjoyed it John.
Jon Preston The space was pure competition. It sparked top performance on both sides. I doubt that there would even be a sattelite today without it. I believe, if you want a Mars colony, you need some serious competition again.
+Dieter Himmel I agree. The whole thing started because of the competition between the two countries. I celebrate the Space Race as one of the few really good things to come out of the Cold War.
Jon Preston u
I'd heard something about an N-1 rocket-engine legacy and now know that this is indeed the case. Thanks for uploading!
I grew up during the height of the cold war and the space race in the San Francisco Bay Area where one of NASA's main engineering center is located and its human space flight center is located. I was taught that The Soviets had better rocket engines than we did and the Americans were the innovators for the most part. Lets just say that I was taught the it was the nation of the USSR, not its people, that we were fighting or trying to out do.
As for those on here who say we didn't go to the moon answer these questions.
1. Where did we get moon rocks?
2. How come there are photo graphs of the equipment, lunar rover tracks and human foot prints taken from earth.?
3. How come there aren't hundreds of NASA and Contracted engineers and technicians that say we didn't?
Don't forget the main proof: the mirror, placed on the moon and targeted on a daily basis with lasers, for measuring the distance between Earth and Moon.
Thanks for that additional bit of proof, Player101. I forgot about that.
Yes same in the UK. We were never told it was the Russian people responsible for the Cold War.
As far as I know there are no photographs taken from Earth or Earth orvit that show the moons surface with enough detail to show any trace of moon landings. I don't believe it was a hoax, but optically it is impossible to photograph from this far or through the atmosphere. Just some info. Thanks.
In 1961, the rocket engines P7 were thrust less than A4 rocket, 21 tons. But Korolev always took an ingenious solution, and made Glushko to install 20 low-powered engines. Rocket N1 was established 30 engines of 154 tons. Therefore, the increase of thrust from 21 to 154 tons this is huge progress. Today, modern RD - has traction 196 tons - is the ultimate craving for a closed cycle of burning kerosene and oxygen.
The R7 didn't have 20 engines it had 5!!! Each engine had 4 main nozzles (plus 2 or 4 smaller steering ones).
The N1 is still a high water mark in rocket design, and it's still a huge gap in space flight history. Maybe goes to show that a collaborative effort would have brought man much closer to space than where we are currently. Sergei Korolev seems to this day to be the best rocket scientist the earth has seen so far.
The N1 was a reckless design and nothing ever compares to the Saturn 5 and the F 1 engine.
It was a terrible design. I wish people would stop daydreaming. They did the best with what they had... To be sure. And some really innovative ideas came from it. But it was still a terrible design. And suffered from it. Instead of admitting this, and listening to others, he forced the program forward.
The Saturn program originally looked very similar. But Van Braun listened to his staff, engineers... And changed and adapted. And this is why Americans space program prospered and succeeded. Because they didn't try to hide anything. Failure or success. Everyone had input. The F1 engineers alone changed the engines on the fly... Custom building each one to work. Making the changes they "felt" needrd to be made.
"The N1 is still a high water mark in rocket design," lol, what were they.. 0 for 3? After I read that I assume everything else you wrote was equally suspect.
I disagree Germans were very much ahead of Russians. Wernher von Braun
The F1 engine was a terrible design from every perspective.
From 11 years ago...how am i just now seeing this.
Very good!!!!
Me too.
A masterpiece that never got a chance. I am glad we give respect to the scientists and engineers that worked on this unknown cold war secret.
It just had to wait for 20 years to have its day but when it did it was spectacular.
Both the Soviets and the Americans made amazing strides in rocket science. Quit looking at it as us versus them. Let's try to cooperate and make even greater strides in the future.
It was us vs them. Now it's SpaceX vs Blue Origin, with maybe China in the mix. Russia is stuck in a fifty year old paradigm which works for them, but fundamentally just keeps putting them further and further behind. Soon the United States will once again have a manned space capability, at least two, maybe three or four platforms. None of them as good as the Space Shuttle, but all far superior to the Soyuz. In four or five years we will have true spaceships again, with SpaceX's BFRs that will be far beyond the Space Shuttles. By the mid 2020s we will be back on the Moon, perhaps the Chinese will too, and the Russians will still be flying their Soyuz's, only without us as a customer. If they want to put a cosmonaut on the Moon, they will have to buy a ticket on a BFR, or whatever the Chinese might be flying. It's unfortunate, but that is the case because Putin is playing a game that does not involve advancing Russian spaceflight capability.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that russia was still the main supply train to the ISS.
If there was a new race to the moon I wonder who would get there first since the Americans say they don't have the skills to re-engineer (or reverse engineer their own old tech) and the US would have to start from scratch..
ARCA's revolutionary aerospike engine completed and ready for testing..
newatlas.com/arc-aerospike-linear-engine-complete/51431/
PLUS
The Biggest Rocket ever Designed? - The Sea Dragon.
ruclips.net/video/6e5B7EKVg48/видео.html
Sea Dragon Rocket: Worlds Largest Reusable Rocket Concept.
Sea Dragon was a 1962 concept for a reusable, two-stage, sea-launched carrier rocket. The project never materialised as NASA's Future Projects Branch was shut down in 1965. It would have been the largest rocket ever built.
ruclips.net/video/hHG3Z0O9Xzo/видео.html
Technology stolen from the Nazi s
Dorian Lindberg, You are correct! The only way for humans to get there. Correct if I am wrong, I believe they have unmanned supply ships. The Germans started it all, to bad they had a mad man for a leader. Humm, sound familiar?
This video simply shows that the Russians had a technological issue figured out 20 years ago that the Americans (I am one by the way) thought was impossible to produce. All of this "America is #1 and Russian tech is crap" posting below is ridiculous.
Name me Russian tech that put men in the moon or shut the fuck up?
@@slyguythreeonetwonine3172 you moron it was German tech not American that made you go up. Since then you haven't gone back- 90% of inner close circles of Von Brauns team were nazis..look up operation paperclip.
At least Korolev used Russians in their space program and treated nazis as they should be treated in addition giving them not much in the way of being crucial part of Russian space achievements. Simple basic look at v1 rocket and after that Vostok and Soyuz was a Russian design with Russian engines and later n1 with nk15 again Russian engines to be used on American rockets. Now go shove it somewhere else.
Ah, the good old days when ads were a full 15 minutes in! Today, programmes sometimes appear to be a bunch of ads interrupted by bits of a programme!
I love the fact that Korolov was in the damn gulag on trumped up charges dring Stalin's paranoia for 6 years. They had to release him and give him a commission to decipher the technology of the V-2 rockets in Germany. Too bad the damage had already been done to his heart from a lack of nutrition and extremely hard labor.I guess the individual is much more important than the communist system would care to admit.
The real irony is С. П. Королёв's jaw was broken by guard in the gulag, and then set improperly, causing the oksydzen mask used during his surdzery to fit badly, contributing to his death.
CSM101 = A pile of rotting shit not worth another comment
And added to that, Glushko, the rocket engineer that wanted to use hypergolic fuel- something Korolev was against- was one of the people who denounced Korolev, helping to send him to the gulag.
This is a very interesting piece of information. Do you have a source to back that up?
Dorian Lindburg. Was your reply meant for me or the top comment? Either way the answers are all in the BBC mini series, The Space Race- think that's it's name anyway. Korolev was sent to the gulags, his jaw was broken plus all of his teeth and Glushko was one of the many who denounced Korolev in the purges of the mid thirties- though if he hadn't he'd have probably been sent to the gulags himself. There's well known footage of a hypergolic disaster you can find on youtube were they worked on a rocket stupidly when it was full of this corrosive fuel.
Been looking for something like this on the N-1 for quite some time now. Thank you!
"It does not work comrade! What do we do?" -The Russians
"Add more rockets." - The Russians
Moar Boosters
Great video! Turbo pump and cooling system is the key. Contain the thurst forces.The russians have mastered this problem... Time just ran out for the moon shot. I like their design concept. Just my thoughts...
That's some good thinkin Ricky, you must've got your grade 11
orange70383 Your rude, if have no positive input on the subject, keep quiet. Learn more about the world around you. The past history is a good teacher! I looked at your site. It is not worth the time I wrote this reply. Learn all you can. Then you can play with other people minds...
Sunnyvale877
Did you miss the Trailer park Boys ref. in his reply? fucking dirty mustard tiger.
man this docu has some really rate footage and photos of the n1 some i have yet to see.
i wish russia would fully declassify it. there has to be videos of every launch.
i especially want to see a full video of N1-5L
the only videos of that launch failure are the cut up short clips at 22:26 of extreme close ups that only show fire.
i want to see how big the initial explosion was because its considered one of the largest man made non nuclear releases of energy i human history.
euroaaRON1 the original videos are on eBay right now. Check out Putin’s personal eBay account.
Maybe they are the only surviving clips of that explosion, or maybe you are right they might still be classified, who can tell really this was just another guess
Also watch this ruclips.net/video/U9fkYIrRwbo/видео.html
A very interesting piece...The Russian technology that was suppressed by their own government for many years, was finally put to use to build superior engines here in the U.S.
This was so informative on so many levels.
@ 39:38 The American Atlas rocket went from being powered by 5 U.S. rocket engines to being powered by just 1 Soviet RD-180, offering an extra 10% more power. Awesome statistics!
Not exactly true, but it’s complicated
Why its not true?@@sc1338
Equinox was the best documentary series in the uk.
The RD 170 First flight was in 1985, the US are still buying the RD180 ( A scaled-down version ) today.
Your welcome. For space buffs I have put some links in the description for three Horizon documentaries made after glasnost called Red Star in Orbit. They are a little outdated but they give a lot of insight.
Russia were always good at taking a system starved off resources and screwing every last inch of performance, until they mastered what the Americans had rejected on the grounds of being technically too hard to get operational; what Russia has to offer america needs and visa versa; it is long time both sides worked together this way, good to see
Xteve Tyler, Yes, now we are all going to be in a race together to save ourselves from cooking, on our own planet.
lets hope we can all pull together forget our differences and win one for a change, they know how now lets do it chaps, the rewards are life vs death.
They don't make documentaries like this anymore such a shame.
As an old man - does my heart good to see the Russian old-timers teaching the young bucks a few lessons. They had an idea and stuck with it until it worked.
Young Americans: "Our data show this won't fly."
Old Russians: "Oh yeah we fixed that problem. Here's our engine."
I'm a Yank and I think this is pretty funny.
And in the end, the Russians sat in a puddle, and the N-1 never flew. What conclusion? You're stupid.
brinbrin62 62200 NASA in 4 days will show us astronauts who will fly to the ISS on the Dragon V2 Falcon9. In December or January.
> "Angara looks great."
LOL, why? This missile has been under construction for a quarter of a century. It is obsolete a decade ago.
1). It is disposable.
2). Obsolete RD-191 engines, which have a poor ratio of thrust to mass.
3). Huge weight of dry stages (in comparison with the maximum weight of the payload delivered to orbit).
This, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that composite materials are not used in this rocket.
> "Reusable rockets may well reusable element be ever reused?"
Where did you spend the last few years? SpaceX re-uses the first stage of its Falcon9 rocket. The return of the pen stage costs $ 10 million and preparation for its re-launch takes 2 months, while the production of the new first stage costs $ 26 million and takes 6 months.
So no, reusability is an advanced idea now. That's why reusable Falcon9 occupies 60% of the world market of commercial satellite launches.
brinbrin62 62200 "Oh, and now the American astronauts use a Russian Soyuz rocket to go to space." Quite true but also as much a circumstance due to timing of the politics and changing goals of space. If the US had kept its Saturn V infrastructure we could be producing rockets with incredible lift for decades just like the Soviets are with the tried and true Soyuz rockets. So we have the technology if needed, just not the political desire etc, which sucks.
The space shuttle really shot crewed rocket, and heavy lift rocket development in the foot. The Soviets had a better concept for a reusable space plane with less downtime, lower launch costs, and heavier payload, but largely because they were able to learn from the mistakes made in the US shuttles.
NASA had spent too much time and money developing the shuttles, so they HAD to be used. And simply using them took up a significant amount of budget.
So the reason astronauts were using the soyuz to get to the ISS was because NASA put all their resources into the space shuttle, and Russia having already built a space shuttle decided it was more cost effective to simply keep using the soyuz rockets instead of spending millions more on political icons.
The US had a few working, reliable rockets at the time the shuttles were discontinued in 2011, but none of them were rated for crewed missions. Whereas the soyuz had been performing crewed missions for decades.
To put it in perspective; the design, prototyping, and launch of the first falcon 9 cost less than a single space shuttle launch.
That's an enlightening documentary. Thx for uploading.
I don't care what any of my fellow Americans say, these Russian engines are ridiculously good. They had a LOT of knowledge about metal alloys that we didn't. Compare the operating chamber pressure on an RD 180 or RD 170 derivative (between 3400 to almost 3900 psi) to anything that has flown. The SSME, which nasa calls the Ferrari of rocket engines, could only run at 2900 to 3000 PIS maximum. To my knowledge, only the final iteration of the Raptor will be able to match that kind of pressure . I'd love to have more information/video on Glushko's RD 270 (full flow staged, running UDMH/N2O4). That thing sounds fuckin' wild.
Ukrainian* engines.
This is a fascinating and eye opening presentation. One of the best I’ve seen in a very long time!
There are so many mistakes in this video it's very very unfortunate
The F-1, commonly known as Rocketdyne F1, is a rocket enginedeveloped by Rocketdyne. This engine uses a gas-generator closed cycledeveloped in the United States in the late 1953 and was used in the Saturn V rocket in the 1960s and early 1970s. Five F-1 engines were used in the S-IC first stage of each Saturn V, which served as the main launch vehicle of the Apollo program. The F-1 remains the most reliable and most powerful single combustion chamber liquid-propellant rocketengine ever developed.[1]
Rocker Dyne F1 vs RD 170
Simply amazing , the power of human ingenuity never ceases to amaze me.
The Soviets were able to get all of the easy "low hanging fruit" accomplishments with their program, but the program could not be scaled up to do the Moon. Having one man run everything can't work. The infighting just slowed them down and cost them.
Simply fantastic and thrilling every second. I enjoyed every second. Sad to to know the communists ignored such an ingenious scientist Sergi. What a great man he is. He is the real gaint man of space.
While the successful design of a close-ended rocket engine is commendable and worthy of high praise, I think the implication that the entire American design paradigm is somehow faulty as a result is both arrogant and erroneous. Space exploration requires the integration of many different types of systems, not all of which are represented by Soviet technical superiority. What's important here is the introduction of good technology into the global efforts at space exploration. This has a propaganda edge that is reminiscent of Pravda from the 70's. Seriously, it's not necessary. We get it. Russia made a better engine. Too bad they all got hidden in a warehouse for 20 years rather than put into service to launch lunar missions. Maybe we'd be on Mars today if they hadn't hidden them away.
Be quiet
This is so good it warrents Restoration and upscaling
Soviet computing technology is the only thing held them back from winning space race...
The "only" thing? Are you kidding? There were hundreds of things, not least of which is their utterly dysfunctional system (and bully dictators running their various fiefdoms, so lack of cooperation and communication, still prevalent today in the typical Russian male brain).
2
Aleksander Poniatoff. The modern electric bulb, which we used untill today, wasn't invented by Edison, but by Alexandr Lodygin, that also confirmed a US patent court. US stealth jets technology was invented by Pyotr Ufimtsev. Goddard built his fuel rocket after the plans of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.
The first airplane wasn't built by Wright-brothers but by Aleksandr Mozhaisky. The first radio wasn't invented by Nicola Tesla but by Aleksandr Popov. The decimal currency was first introduced in
Build, Test Launch, Reiterate, Repeat - Elon probably saw this story when he was 14.
i just love this documentary ! in particular the n1 rocket part... nostalgic
First manned flight to Mars will have at least 1 Russian aboard. The project will cost too much for any 1 nation to go-it alone.
this show teaches me to be more determine and be more creative throughout the difficult times. A light will always be at the end of the tunnel
The reason the Soviets advanced so quickly in space, is because they took lots of risks, which a totalitarian, single party regime like the USSR could do, because the entire space program was enveloped in secrecy. They could tout all of their success stories, while brushing all their failures under the rug, and didn't have to deal with political fallout from the opposition party, because there was no opposition party. The USA had no such luxury, and failures like Apollo 1 quickly became public relations nightmares for NASA.
The Shuttle fleet lost two orbiters and 14 astronauts in two disasters: Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003
+rcpmac duh! And Apollo I on the pad in a training exercise. And each time someone dies, there are calls to end the space program, because it's "too risky."
Who knows how many lives would have been lost if Buran had survived? There is no other flying spacecraft to compare the shuttle to.
The USA never turned one of their astronauts into a lawn dart (cough-Komarov-cough...). And how many successful manned missions did the Soviet shuttle fly? What's that? Zero? Hmmmm.... With bigger successes come bigger failures, hence more American lives lost...Live with that.
i find it amazing, that the soviets didn't test the Soviet shuttle manned but automated. NASA decided to fly the maiden flight fo the shuttle manned! think about that and about the chances that something goes wrong with an untested spacecraft without escape system (the russian shuttle had one for the pilots). you're probabily not completly wrong however the usa took many risks too. if you'd asked an astronaut of the mercuy or gemini program they would say you that they believed to have a 80% chance to survive.
Almost a decade and a half later and this still holds up. I love Jeremy, but I’m glad they sent him and not someone who wouldn’t appreciate the gravity (no pun intended) and majesty of the experience.
Pot pot pee pee poo poo pot pee pee? Poo pot pee pot poo poo pee pot pot poo?
Why am I here I was searching for cheesecake recipes
Fast forward 17 years to 2017, and now we rely on Russian EVERYTHING to get us into space.
Excuse me, but let me say one thing to your statement Space X .
TruthB Told Space X is still in development. Does Space X of 2017 get humans to the International Space Station? No. It gets supplies to the ISS, and that's all. We're currently developing Orion, but it won't be ready for a few years. Dragon delivers our supplies to the ISS, and the Roscosmos Soyuz gets our people there and back.
Do the Russians (or anyone else besides Blue Origin) have booster rockets that are self landing? No. Space X will have their crew ready Dragon capsule ready next year. Their Falcon heavy is scheduled for it's first test launch shortly. It will have the greatest thrust at liftoff of any existing rocket (second only to the Saturn 5). Thank God that Space X is an American company. They are planning to go to the moon and on to Mars. I feel fortunate to be still alive (70) to witness this new revival in the ongoing manned exploration of space ("The Final Frontier").
for now space x is just going in the footsteps of NASA, the know how they collected thru the decades...and its a private company thez want to do money not risk it on unknown ....
Only because ODumass cancelled funding for the US space program....
Wonderful and fascinating. Thank you for uploading.
At 6:40 and on:
1) No acknowledgement those are captured German V2s
2) "Rocket had been built, flown & improved" - Duh! Like everyone had done (V2) & will forever do...
3) "The conquest of space, a political priority..." - LOL! It was to develop a nuclear armed ICBM. The Russian military fought tooth & claw with Sergei Korolev *against* doing a satellite launch.
The drivel in this mocumentary is endless.
What’s interesting is that no one ever discusses the assistance that the Swedish scientist provided to the Soviet union technology time out telemetry and some software that was directly applied to the 1950 Soviet space program
"Soviet" engineering, not "Russian".
Small point, the atlas only used 3 engines, a main 'booster' and to 'sustainer' engines one on each side I believe.Also a small Vernier steering rocket on each side near the base of the 'fuselage'.
Most people don't know the Russians were actually much further ahead in rocket engine technology in the initial stages of the cold war. The only reason why, is because they captured over a dozen of Germany's top rocket scientists. The Russian scientists had basically no real experience with advanced rocket engine design.
The one main scientist America got was von Braun, and luckily he was quite good because he was the head of Germany's rocket program. Many other German scientists came to the US as well, but most went into other fields of research, like nuclear technology, since nuclear was already a very advanced science.
What most people don't know, is that Ameica had some pretty good rocket technology because of all the original science done through Robert Goddards foundation. However, all the research done in America had not been collaborated until well after WWII to advance it to higher level. Once Von Braun got everyone together under gov't control to form Nasa and the military's Nuclear Ballistic Missile Program, it wasn't long before our collective minds would make real progress in this area. That's why America was able to make leaps and bounds by the end of the 60's. Our collective scientific minds finally caught up with our industrial might.
America's approach to rocket technology and testing was also far more cautious than Russia. Russia was more than willing to take a lot more risk, since most of their program was kept highly secret away from the prying eyes of its citizenry. Most of America had no idea what the Russians were doing. Even our own intelligence agencies didn't know exactly how far along the Russians were. However, the whole world knew everything Nasa was doing on a daily basis. America's Nasa was under constant civilian oversight through Congress and the Press. We simply couldn't be as reckless in an attempt to make such rapid advances.
+Condor1970 You are forgetting about operation Overcast in which the Americans evacuated 500 german engineers, more than 14 TONS of technical documentation and almost the whole Nordhausen rocket building factory. In 9 days they managed to load 341 railcars with more than 100 complete V2 rockets and hundreds of tons of spare and other parts. The loot was enough to fill up 16 Liberty ships. All this right under the nose of the Russians which had to gain control over the area by june 1 1945. The Americans managed to finish the job at may 31.
+player101player101 You can bet the remnant German forces and civilian scientists and workers were quite eager to assist in making that happen. Especially when they knew exactly what would happen if they were still around when the Russians got there. The Germans deserved what they got, as far as losing the war goes. However, after the Russians had control, the atrocities they committed against the German people were just horrible. It's estimated that over 50% of the women in Berlin had been raped at one time or another by Russian soldiers, some as many as 60 times. Many of them killed afterward.
So, yes, I can see why the Germans would be quite eager to help the Americans load up everything, and haul it off ASAP!!!
Condor1970
Which confirms that your statement about the Russians being ahead of US just because they captured over a dozen engineers is not exactly right. As you have said it yourself, most of them fled to west.
I personally think that the reason giving a headstart to the Russians is their lack of strategic aviation, i.e. the means to deliver weapons to US soil efectively. So probably they took the idea of space rockets more seriously, seeing the potential of those vehicles to deliver their payload anywhere arround the globe. Sending satelites and people in space was just a bonus. At least in the beginning. Who knows...
+player101player101
No, the Russians really did have a head start on rocket technology because they really did have more German scientists working in the field,. As you said, they probably took it more seriously, so they allocated their captured scientists more effectively in rocket engineering. Also keep in mind, the Russians were no dummies either. Many Russian scientists picked up the engineering and advanced on it very quickly as well.
We had a few scientists, but mainly it was Von Braun and American scientists from the Goddard foundation. All the other German scientists that fled west primarily went into other fields, like nuclear technology, chemical and materials engineering, and aviation.
My take on it is this: The US had political reasons for not utilizing the GRS (German Rocket Scientists) fully in the pre-Sputnik days. Vanguard was a Navy program if I remember correctly, while the ABMA headed by Von Braun was an ARMY resource. The inter-service rivalry and political machinations with the Eisenhower administration handicapped the GRS in the USA. Furthermore, the resources put into bigger engines in Russia was primarily (if I recall correctly) because the guidance capability of the Russian systems was much lower than that of the USA. They had to have bigger warheads to assure the warheads would hit the target. Bigger warheads = bigger rocket. Make no mistake: The Russian engineering was awesome. The USA engineering was awesome. Their focus was different. Pure and simple, the engineers have to work on the critical problem of the day - and for the USA the efforts were guided by different principles.
Not directly related to this video, but one thing not often mentioned when discussing the success on the US space program is the fact that the US Germans were largely responsible for that success. In the early days of rocket development the US "recruited" Werner Von Braun. His knowledge was a huge boost for the US. Von Braun is mentioned many times but not once have I heard anyone give him proper credit for putting a man on the moon. No doubt the space race could have ended much differently if not for his help.
I'm not praising Von Braun, nor am I a fan . Just pointing out that the progress made in the US space program was largely a result of the knowledge gained from research by the Germans. It is what it is.
If the Germans had not followed the mad man, and his psychopathic cronies they would have been the first in space and to the moon. There is a great lesson to be learned here, but it is falling on def ears!
If Korolev hadn't been tortured by Stalin in the Gulag concentration camps, his health had not been ruined, and he could have lived much longer. So, if the Soviet Union had been a humane and democratic system, they would have made it to the moon first. But they were not. For good reason.
You might be right. But invasions and repeated genocides against the populace ensures at best the country will be authoritarian.
Superb documentary. Many thanks.
If the Russians captured the late great Dr, Werhner von Braun after WWll the moon race would have turned out differently.
Isukaman yea exactly, american rocketry and nuclear technology is mostly because of german engineers
Isukaman Or if Sergei Korolev had died in the Gulag. There probably would never have been a space race or moon landings.
Isukaman Hate to be the one to burst your bubble but von braun didnt do JACK SHIT! for the American space program. If you every read the book from the earth to the moon in it the author writes how many of the astronauts and scientists always complained how von braun was always getting in the way of things.
Von braun was a know nothing dumb fucking nazi scumbag who was simply trying to save his own worthless hide from being prosecuted for war crimes.
The Russians put the first man in space, the first woman in space the first vehicular activity in space.
Going to the moon was something the Russians had no interest in and the only reasons the Americans did it was because they wanted to do something 'first' that the Russians didnt do.
So fuck von braun and I shit on the grave of that fucking lying kraut.
ThunderAppeal The Russians wanted to get to the moon even after Apollo 11. And Mars,,,And Pluto. But as of today they cannot. If Russia wants to get to Mars before the US let them give Boeing and Space X the money and they'll get them there.
+Isukaman And remember that von Braun's team was pretty much held hostage at Texas for 5 years before actually working with the Americans. So, if Dr. von Braun were in Russia, the moon landing would have occurred on 1950's
Great documentary!
Most brilliant Russians emigrated to the West during the slaughter of the Russian Civil war in 1921. Stalin killed the rest. All that was left were a few like Dr. Korolov who ran the whole show - and he almost was killed after a 10 year sentence in Siberia death camps. Skorsky helicopters etc. were all Russian emigrants. My family was the same. The British let the Tzar get assassinated so there was no competition among the great Monarchies. This is all BS! Von Braun was a genius. He was ready to orbit a satellite a year before Korolov. Remember, the Bolsheviks killed many you never hear about.
Excellent documentary!! Thanks for uploading!!
As an engineer, I was sitting here watching this film, listening as they implied that the Russian engineers were better than US engineers and that the rocket engines were better than anything in the US inventory and that the Russian's had "figured out"something that the US engineers hadn't.The whole time I am thinking "o.k., higher performance and more efficient, but you are also taking big risks that a rocket engine of that design type won't simply MELT and/or explode running at those kinds of pressures and temperatures"! When, finally, in the LAST 7 minutes of the film they admit that the Russian engineers hadn't actually "figured out" anything the US engineers hadn't, but that IN FACT the US engineers simply felt it was too risky to operate a single engine at those pressures and temperatures and THAT was why the US decided not to go with the "Close Circuit" rocket engine design. Yeah, US engineers like to build in a "safety factor", ESPECIALLY where human cargo is concerned. The Russian approach of making things more powerful or faster by sacrificing safety isn't unique to rockets. It is a well known fact that when the Russians began building Nuclear Powered submarines that the reason that they were faster than anything in the US arsenal was that the Russians had sacrificed the amount of shielding around the reactors as a weight saving measure which then greatly increased the danger of radiation exposure to the crews aboard those subs. Well, we in the US like to see our boys come home NOT glowing green, just like we like to see our payloads actually REACH orbit, whether human or machine, whenever possible.
But the US chooses to use the design now. Ironic huh.
You literally turned that frown upside down didn't you!
I'm sure if we kept the same story and swapped the nationalities around, either you or another American would be boasting about how crap the Russians were and how bold and fantastic the US was for taking the risk to further the technology.
Also, you fail to mention that the US have now started to design and build a staged combustion engine (Raptor sounds cool doesn't it! murica!) along with India, China and Japan to name a few. Could it be because they were proved wrong and that it was possible by the Russians(damn those pesky commies). You also fail to mention the metallurgy they developed to combat the problem of corrosion, which was one of the main reasons why the US didn't think it was feasible.
Also your example in your regard to shielding on Russian submarines, I don't know if what you said about less shielding is true or not, but the weight of a submarine does not affect its top speed only its acceleration. Just like a LSR cars top speed is influenced by drag, gearing and HP, added weight only means it will take longer to get there but will not alter its top speed. So all that means is, if your statement is true, then a Russian sub will accelerate faster but will not have a higher top speed. Great for them undersea 1/4 races.
So why don't you give credit where credit is due?
They developed the technology and designed and built something that the US deemed virtually impossible. So well in fact, that now the rest of the world is following their example, including the US.
Not too hard is it?
Firstly, saying that the US "chooses" to use the Russian rocket design now, isn't quite accurate. Because of the deep and ridiculous cuts made to NASA's R&D budget, US scientists were FORCED to find a less expensive alternative to advancing the state of the art in rocket engines. If you ask THEM (not the ones "paid off" by the Russian filmmakers they show in this film to say what the Russians WANTED them to say) the US scientists will tell you that their decision to do so was based on being FORCED to find a less expensive, but less capable system because of purely POLITICAL reasons which were pushed through by the current administration. Going to the Russian design was an out and out BACKWARDS step. That being said (and you may not be aware of this as it is not widely known), new funding has recently been approved for continued development of a US design which had been kept in "cold storage" since the Obama administration began its anti-science, anti-exploration, anti-research blitzkrieg. This new funding has been largely the result of the "cooling" in relations between Russia and the US, and has had the HAPPY result of forcing our politicians to reevaluate the "I'm ok, you're ok" stance which has pervaded the US space program for too long and kept us stagnant, just like the Russians, who, except for the ISS (which the US is largely responsible for building), are still stuck in the late 60's, space technology wise. Not so much "state of the art" as "state of the ark".
On the issue of Russia developing "metallurgy to combat corrosion", well, the fact is, we don't consider that very important since we take better care of our equipment than the Russians do as well as using higher quality materials from the start, and all parts which show any corrosion or mechanical stress after a flight are replaced before being re-flown ANYWAY. If that is something that is important to Russian scientists, that is wonderful, but that has to do with a different approach to the business and using lower grade materials to build with.
As far as your comments regarding submarines and whether weight affects "top speed" or not, are concerned, they clearly indicate that you have NO knowledge of the subject and it would be a pointless exercise to debate you on it. I will give you ONE clue. Water ISN'T air and they don't have the same coefficient of drag. Your analogy of dry, land based race cars is just not applicable when referring to something in salt water, sorry. As we ENGINEERS like to say, you can make a BRICK supersonic if you put a powerful enough engine on it.
Again, the US isn't following Russia's "lead" because they made a "better" engine, it was a desperate attempt to find something which, while less capable than US designs, was cheaper to produce. Well, cheaper is RARELY better when it comes to high performance technology. Also, the only reason that the countries you named are CONSIDERING the Russian design is for the same reason, its cheaper, not better. The heavy lift capability requirements of India, China and Japan, thus far, doesn't need to be anywhere NEAR what the US requires of its systems. Those countries are just taking their first baby steps into space on their own. We in the US didn't consider the Russian approach "impossible", as you and this film claim, we simply consider it a lesser design. I mean, if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO.
US commercial space companies will fly with what engine they can afford, which means they will have to sacrifice capability for cost. Most NASA and US contractors performing heavy lift launches are still using the proven and more capable US designs, such as Titan and Atlas, etc...The new "Saturn Class" vehicle called the Space Launch System (SLS) slated for its first launch soon uses four RS-25 engines in its Core Stage. The RS-25 is a US design originally used as the main engines for the Space Shuttle and has the highest thrust to weight ratio of ANY rocket engine in the world. It is also the most reliable rocket engine in the world. SO, after all your claims that the US is somehow "coming over" to the Russian way of thinking, the FACT is is that we are powering our newest heavy lift vehicle with a US designed, tried and true powerplant, NOT some Russian designed cheapy stopgap engine.
Russia's new spacecraft, the...OH, that's right, Russia is still flying the same limited capability Soyuz capsule that it has been flying since 1967. They tried to build a space shuttle, Buran, which looked EXACTLY like the US Space Shuttle, only it wasn't powered and was only ever flown ONCE on a remote mission and then was quickly retired because the Russian copy didn't work. I think one of them is a theme restaurant now, in Gorky Park? Russia STILL has never landed a MAN on the moon, or anywhere ELSE, for that matter. Russia is HARDLY on the red hot edge of technology, are they?
Does that turn that frown upside down, COMRADE? Not too hard is it?
Chris Cline Ok, now we know you are a condescending arrogant fanboy of US technology (with the attitude if the US didn't design it then it must be shit) that assumes that you know everything and the rest of us know nothing. What a refreshing change!
I don't care about your political situation or who was voted in and cut spending. The Russians space program deals with the same factors but you bag it for not having done much and then proceed to defend and make excuses as to why the US program hasn't progressed under the same circumstances. The FACT is your space program has stalled and that it has dropped the ball is no fault of anyone but the US alone. So don't cry about it. I am fully aware that funding has been released only due to the fact the sanctions the Russians put on the US after the US did it to them meant that you had no way of getting your own rockets up into space without the Russian RD-180 and NK-33 engines. You know the ones that are so shit that most of your main launch vehicles use them and now you can't get them you are left in a bit of a pickle. It seems around 4 years is the estimate.
aviationweek.com/space/replacing-russian-made-atlas-antares-engines-would-take-four-years
Tell me how does the US currently get its astronauts up the the ISS? The very Soyouz that you reckon is shit, but you have to pay them for a ride cause you don't have anything to do the job. The Soyouz may be old and "limited tech" but the US has nothing to do the same job. It could be a flying turd but its still better than what the US has today. How can you even talk half the shit you have when that is the truth, geez it must grate on you lmfao. Here it is from Time.com itself with a nice video of them doing something the US can't do.
time.com/132946/watch-russian-soyuz-rocket-launch/
How old is the Atlas (discontinued 2005) and Titan? Both 1950's, so according to your reasoning older than the "state of the ark" Soyouz, yet somehow they are "proven" so it makes it all ok. The only recent rocket the US has that could be said to be totally US is the Delta IV as the Antares was designed with Russian help and has, wait for it, Russian engines. Please refer to the Aviation Week link for proof.
As for the SLS until one is actually made and launched the US has nothing new either so I wouldn't boast about it. You can't even launch a Astronaut atm.
As for the metallurgy argument, you did not address the point being made instead you decided to go on about the quality of metals used which was irrelevant or you are stupid or maybe both. It had nothing to do with the quality of metal being used but to do with the types of metal being used. Due to the corrosive effect of the fuels the normal metals used in engines were not up to the task. So using your awesome made in the USA metals would not have made a iota of difference because they were not the type needed. Thats why they developed new alloys to combat the problem. Also seeing as they were designed for single use, there is no need to make it last for more than one trip, just like the SLS does with its main engines. So if you can't bring a rational counter to that point or just plain don't understand the point I am making then don't bother.
Quick point here. Oh how I laughed when you said ", if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO." notice how you did not use as American car like a Corvette or Mustang. That would be because in the supercar world they are kind like a Yugo as well.
And to finish it off, back to the submarine side of things. I don't know what sort of engineer you are but Fluid Dynamics is all about the movement of solids through all liquids and gases and therefore pertains to your inaccurate statement. Just in case you can't be bothered to read it here is the answer to the question.
And I quote " Now to your actual question, if both submarines had exactly the same shape, and size and were in the same medium, they would in theory hit the same equilibrium if they had some sort of magical engine that produced a 10N thrust constantly, the equilibrium for the heavier submarine would take slightly longer to reach as its acceleration is lower (and the derivative of its drag is therefore lower) but they should reach a point where Fe=Fd and Fe=10N constantly"
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182815
So in simple speak for your "engineering" mind, two identical objects (ie the same shape and size) with the same thrust but different weight will have the same top speed. The only difference is the heavier sub will take longer to get to that speed.
And finally I am not a Commie nor a Russian, I'm Australian and just believe respecting all forms of technology regardless of where it was made or designed. I also get sick of seeing arrogant Americans always putting shit on anything that anyone else had made without a decent argument to back it up. You know shit excuses like "it's Obama's fault" or bagging something for its age then saying your older designs are "proven" you fucking hypocrite. Your argument is so full of holes and contradictions its almost funny.
Don't bother answering because I don't care because I've proved my point and anyone rational will see all the holes in your biased argument.
And as us Aussies say, get a big black one up ya, ya wanker.
yobgow
My my, temper, temper. Who's "WE" here? I don't need to be a "fanboy" of US Technology. I'm the REAL deal and help other scientists further advance US technology while the Russians sit there, stuck in the 60's, both technologically and socially. So, go back to the cave you crawled out of to stomp your foot and try to insult the United States, the single GREATEST entity ever devised. We've heard it all before. I don't have the time to consider your feelings while I explain the errors in your thinking and the flaws in your "logic". We have a saying, don't know if use it too in Australia..."If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". Well, you sure TALK like a commie and seem to be a big fan of that wonderful, free nation. SO, I say Commie Down Under. I have several Aussie friends and I am VERY HAPPY not to count you amongst them.
I have really important things to do now, so I am going to leave you to your own devices and maybe see if you are going to waste more of your time in a futile effort to strain your brain trying to rise to my level, or will you simply resort to puerile name calling because you can't master your emotions? By the way, the internet isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. Try reading a book with more than pictures in it sometime. Quoting and linking to physics websites...Jeez! You don't know the FIRST THING about ACTUAL physics and have proven that throughout your inane scribble. I think you might be happier in the kiddies classes than up here with the big boys.
I don't feel it necessary to use profanity or cast graphic insults, which are the province of the uneducated, so as we American's say "I'm sorry, did you say something. Well, whatever it was wasn't important".
Fair Dinkum?!
Have a Happy Day...;)
You couldn't even put a decent factual argument down in writing whether you are an engineer or not. Using links to prove my point is the only viable way of giving evidence on the internet because I can't grab you by your throat and ram a book into you face fool. You stupidly assume that only you have higher education, but you must realise that most people aren't pompous egotistical wankers that try and shove it down others throats as they let their argument do the talking. Actually the way you parrot on about how you're the "real deal" ect makes me wonder if you really are. Or maybe you're just insecure, probably a bit of both. You can't be a very good engineer because whether you like it or not your argument over a heavier submarine having a lower top speed is so wrong its laughable.
The fact that you choose to try and question my background and education instead of refuting any of my points shows that you really have no valid counter points. You ridicule my education but can not give me a simple fact based answer to prove me wrong. Thats probably because your top shelf space program has to go to the Russians to get an astronaut into space. Bit hard to refute that gem. I think I'll take that as a win.
As for you comments inferring that I am a commie, my grandfather was shot by communist partisans so, use your duck (which guess what, the rest of the us use but I'm sure you'll claim it as your own) analogy all you want it, it's far from the truth. But you are what we Aussies call a real wanker and thats fair dinkum. And in no way would I ever want such a close minded arrogant redneck as a friend either. Because I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire.End of story.
4
Shamshurenkov.
- Periodic system of elements by Dmitri Mendeleev,
- Radio remote control by Nicolai Pylchykov,
- artificial earth satelite, manned space flight, space stations, (unmanned) landings on the moon and another planet, moon robot,
- assault riffle by Vladimir Fyodorov,
- electric tram by Fyodor Pirotsky,
- LED by Oleg Losev,
- computer animation by N. Konstantinow, 1968,
- pc by Arsenii Gorokhov
- electric welding by Nikolay Benardos,
- gas mask by Nikolai Selinsky.
Just check it.
I would have built two smaller rockets and docked their payloads in orbit then headed to the moon. Not one big one. Surly with all of their early successes they could have pulled that off.
David Vermillion. Seems a good idea especially as they had the Proton available.
Imp5011 Unfortunately, Proton at it’s early days was extremely unreliable..
However they could of used the R-7 booster, it could bring a lander into low earth orbit on it’s own..
then a second R-7 could bring a manned Soyuz to dock with lander in low earth orbit..
however it still wouldn’t be a enough to get to the moon..
Great video!
awesome documentary loved every minute russian engine strapped to an american rocket LOL just goes to show america's not always the world leaders in technology no matter how much money they throw at it..! 20 yr old russian engine technology and still better than modern day american engines.
Amazing Report. Thank you for this History Lesson.
N1 always blew up. Years later surplus engines are refabricated and used on Antares rocket, which also blew up. I don't think Korolev being alive would have mattered much as these engines always blow up.
***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job.
they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing.
instead, piggies got a nice, large home.
***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job.
they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing. and now, piggies got a nice, large home.
now, the other version of the engines are still used today. Proton rockets still send satellites in space and they're nearly flawless.
Jamie Godman The development of the N1 engine was close to not having it blow up before the program got shut down, and the refabricated version served the American launches faithfully until very recently. So no, these engines don't "always blow up".
They actually has several failures during testing of the re-fabrication of these engines. It should have been obvious enough that running them at 108% being as old as they are and being a closed cycle system that they should not have been used for the Antares. But in order to close the COTS deal with NASA orbital needed a launch vehicle so this was rushed together. And I think the fact it failed due to the engine proves my point. So you believe what you want to believe, I'll stick with facts.
maksphoto78 Indeed, t'was oot the engine, but the rocket, its design and conception, from what I read.
So, when are humlans going back to the moon?
thank you for loading this.
I noticed that the engineers weren't using torque wrenches to tighten the bolts on the engine,OMG how could they get any consistency ? On a rocket engine ,with such pressures one would absolutely need exact torque down numbers, but then it when bang anyhow.
Pretightening
player101player101 could be true but what if the non torque wrench went too far in the first place,because then, backing off on the torque would be too late, just saying.
starview1
Im sure these guys know how to handle wrenches. After all... they are rocket scientists ;)
player101player101 LOL.Yeah,I only mentioned the torque wrench thing, because russia has has serious quality control issues, even to this day. well time for some KFC have a great day
starview1
U have a good one too :)
You have to wonder just where we would be in space if everyone worked together as one people rather than as potential enemies. It is time that we put aside our childish differences so that we can achieve far more together and perhaps make this world a much safer place to live on.
What they forgot to mention in the documentary is that if Korolev lived for few more years (2-3) the USSR would land on the Moon first, and it would be just one of the huge list of space "firsts" in their favour. You Americans act as if landing on the Moon was somehow everything important in space, while the USSR did huge number of things before that which left Americans with their jaws open.
That is just hypothetical. To say "the Russians would have landed on the moon if.." no one really knows. USA was the first to dock in space, leave earth orbit and to land on the moon. Get over it. The Russians did great things and many firsts, no doubt ofcourse.
Igor Flexus Check this out, and compare Soviet firsts "cut off" with the year in which Korolev died: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_exploration_milestones,_1957%E2%80%931969
Also, for at least 1,5 years after his death the Soviets were so shocked that they haven't launched anything. And the first several Soyuz launches which happened afterwards were an utter, utter disaster.
So yes, if Korolev was alive it would be neck-to-neck to the moon. Who would won I don't know, but it sure wouldn't be a clear lead by the US as it was.
I could be wrong but the documentary said 2 weeks after the second N1 explosion America launched apollo 11. If thats true then there is no way they would have been first. They still had 9 unmanned launches planned.
Bozo Juretic Well, both sides, USA and Russia had and has brilliant people on that field. Now, communism is a bad form of politics and is doomed. In my dreams, I wish the Russians landed just half an hour after the eagle. Then they would have maybe said: "we have to go to Mars". But after the landing, no one in the senate would write those checks, bechause they had no threat and competition. Sad for humanity. And in a way, humanity lost when the race was over.
Not with the N1. It was fatally flawed.
Pretty good video, except towards the end when the narrator starts getting judgmental and saying the US was all gloom and doom over this superior technology. Considering how things turned out, I think we proved decisively who was better at getting 100,000 tons to orbit, DESPITE or inferior, less efficient engines. Jeez.
about 2800 tons, rather
THANK YOU! GREAT POST!
Ahahahahaha!.... For this guy (Apollo Antares) it is very, very important to show everybody, how allegedly unabled the Russians are. He uses absolutely idiotic texts to prove that. According to the "book" or "article", which this guy quotes, the Nazis adapted their eugenics ideas from Tsiolkovsky... :D The author forgot to tell you, that these ideas were born and even first tested in the USA!
Furthermore, every intelligent person would recognize, that this "book" is propaganda, just by the selection of some "facts" and ignoring most important things.
The Legend about von Braun's attempts to build his rockets, which failed because US leaders refused the support, is a naive fairytale. V2 was first rebuilt in America in 1951. Furthermore, even German historians say, that von Braun only faked a scientist, but war in reality a careerist. AND: Even American scientists know well, that Russians began their intensive rocketry development and space program in the 1920ies. Somehow your auther also forgot to tell it to you. Such projects like many others were desturbed or interrupted by the WW2. However first solid fuel rocket starts were realized in the 1930ies. 1946 Soviets took, what they found in Germany (it was not much compared to what USA took from Germany) and rebuilt the V2 n 1947. Right after that these German scientists were sent back. The only scientists, which actually stayed in the USSR were researchers in the nuclear are. V2 was useless for Korolyov and he continued his work on his designs. It is well known, that his construcion was fundamentally different from V2. Finally, von Braun used Russian, even Soviet works for his rocket.
Such information is absent in your book for idiots.
There are a lot more of such "mistakes". Popov's achievement was indeed the first radio broadcast of a text! AND: Absolutely every important invention is a result of many little steps made by different engineers!!! Is it so hard to understand for you??? For example Germans want to be the inventors of the automobile. But there were many early inventors. For example the car of Kulibin in the 18th century(!) had important essential elements of a modern car. There was also another very early Russian car-prototype, the car of Leontii Shamshurenkov from 1752.
Etc.
Boy, I see, you suffer under terrible inferiority complexes. But your attempts are useless.
Btw. the "God" Apollo comes from Russia, according to Greeks - Scythian Hyperborea.
Do you want me to repeat, how fundamentally US technologies base on Russian inventions and achievements of Russian immigrants? For example Vladimir Zvorykin, Igor Sikorsky, Aleksandr Lodygin, Alexandr Poniatoff etc.?
pepitheman
i sincerely hope that's sarcasm i really do otherwise im sorry but that could be the dumbest youtube comment in the history of youtube (aside from saying i like trains in a random comment)
pepitheman
Hahahaha!!!!!! In which chauvinistic, idiotic world do you live??? :D American industry and science is still built by minds from other country and especially from Eastern Europe. You use day by day dozens of Russian inventions wihout any knowledge and respect to Russian achievements. Why? Because your TV-brainwashing system didn't tell it to. Instead of this it drummed a lot of shit into your "brain".
pepitheman
This is a list with some Russian inventors, which co-built American industry:
1. According to an American patent court, the modern type of the electric bulb wasn't invented by Edison, but by Russians Alexander Lodygin.
2. The first American helicopter (modern design) was designed by the Russian Igor Sikorsky, who also co-built the US aircraft industry, his compan still produces US helicopters.
3. Another very early US helicopter, the "flying octopus", was built by the Russian Gregory Bothezat.
4. Air-to-air refueling was invented for US airforce by the Russian Alexander Seversky.
5. The first video recorder was designed by the team of Alexander Poniatoff in his US company AMP.
6. The first television broadcast succeeded in Russia by Boris Rosing. His student, Vladimir Zworykin emigrated to the USA and invented there the iconoscope and kinescope, the main devices of the television. Philo Farnsworth tried to realize his own system, however Zworykin's ideas prevailed.
7. Even the Teddy bear was invented by a Russian Jewish emigrant Morris Michtom.
8. Google was mainly realized by the emigrant from Russia, Sergey Brin.
9. The stealth technology in US jets was developed by the Russian Pyotr Ufimtsev. Soviet militaries estimated it as not very practicable and allowed him to publish his results. Americans copied it, built jets for billions of $... which were shot down by Soviet radar systems from 1970ies in the Serbia war. :D
Etc. Welcome to the reality!
pepitheman
Next time I will tell you about Russian inventions, which British and Americans declared as their own. ;) And then I will tell you, why all British peoples called Russians (Scythians) founders of their nations.
Im sorry by a lot of this comes off as Russian propaganda. They seem to brag about how superior their engines were compared to the American engines. The F1 engine on the saturn V was designed knowing that it was inefficient. They did it that was to cut down on the complexity. Smaller engines are more efficient but increases complexity. Hence the reason the N1 rocket never made it more than a few thousand feet before succumbing to its own over-engineered propulsion system. So what if the atlas uses soviet engines? We could have made our own but why spend the money designing a new engine when the Russians have dozens laying around in a warehouse? The US has built the most sophisticated launch vehicles ever created, put a man on the moon, proved the reusable vehicle concept, and retired more advanced vehicles than the Russians have ever thought of creating. But sure. Gloat about your 50 year old engines.
This documentary was good however what is with the "Americans couldn't do it" EVERY 5 SECONDS!? Like what is the agenda here? Awesome, Russia made a great rocket among other things! I don't care what country furthers space science. Did anyone bother rereading the script before producing this. I literally lost count of how many times that was said. I swear I heard "Americans couldn't do it" 3 times in 5 seconds at one point.
I suspect the reason is that when originally broadcast it would have had about 3 or 4 commercial breaks in it. It's not unusual for British programmes to briefly repeat the attention grabbing info after the break for those who only tuned in during the adverts.
+M1DHW lol I guess it shows the true agenda of the Documentary when after each commercial they must drop in the subject matter which is "America couldn't do this!" That should have been the title actually... Lolol.
+MrFang333333 Could the agenda be the truth?
Mate, I don't want to alarm you or anything, but, it's important you know : Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either.
Americans - could - not - do - it
+Glenn V Love it: "Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either.
Americans - could - not - do - it." - Perhaps now we'll stop hearing US morons brag and we can explain why the US needs 16 TV channels + bragging 24-7, 365 days a year about the superiority of "american" "technology" and science....
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Not pro US or Russia... But ffs relax with the "the Americans could not do" attitude in this movie :S If the demand had been great enough for a closed loop enigne, it would have been build eventually. But why go invest billions in development of something you can just buy? It would make no sense. And please spare us that childish "Russia could have won the moon race" BS in the comments. Didn't couldn't wouldn't
Sir_J Well at least this is one of those rare documentaries which is not the US stroking it's own massive ego. There are way too many of those as it is.
Americans buy that have not been able to do.
+Jebediah Kerman True that :)
+Jebediah Kerman True that :)
United States essentially stole European technology on all levels and yet American public think of American exceptionalism that somehow we are better than everybody else ,you didn't invent the Turing machine you didn't invent the car ,combustible engine you didn't invent the aeroplane you did not invent fractional distillation you didn't invent Apple Pie .You broke the sound barrier by Stealing British technology including the computer, forcing them to give it up because they were bankrupt .Europe is where it happened without Europe United States was China copying everything and passing it on as own. all you seem to make these days are algorithms ........Facebook ...wow !
There's my engineering lesson for the day, few! Humans are quiet remarkable when they can put aside their ego's, what wonders we can achieve.
Everything was going fine and business as usual for Lockheed and Aerojet until a dude by the name of Elon Musk came along with a start-up company called SpaceX.
Who cares about Musk? Find a different video you can kiss him with.
Well, when the head of the Lockheed Martin team said it - calling it a bitter pill to swallow -It didn't seem so bad, no 'agenda' there at all. I think it was acknowledgement of the Russians' engineering advances despite their "losing the space-race" et al, despite being cancelled 20 years ago - admitting that the Russian rocket program achieved superior design goals with respect to propulsion performance that, twenty years later has not been equaled anywhere else. There's no 'agenda' - except maybe it's part of the sales pitch to market these things.
Considering that the time frame for the video is in the mid 90s the Russian Tech was not matched for nearly 30 years...
Bottom line: with their great engine, the Russians still haven't sent a man to the moon.
+Alex De and I bet you think the earth is flat as well, right?
Sure. And the INTERNATIONAL Space Station is a hoax perpetrated by dozens of countries. For what reason? Oh, because they can! Please don't procreate.
+Alex De yes. And mankind never lived on Earth! Did you know that?
wow!!!! the double decker buss to soviet rocket conversion
i didn't know that one
It wasn't only the "15% performance increase". It's America STILL can't make a decent engine (except for SpaceX). Thanks Russia! We'll catch up someday.
It's so sad.Finally someone is spilling the beans !!!
It is only because after Von Braun left NASA, American rocket engines were shit and they had been all shit except Von Braun's designs, the Vanguard, Atlas, etc. If Russian rocket engines were so good, why didn't they land on the moon then? it wasn't all because of synchronizing 30 engines was impossible.
US Long range missiles and boosters during von Braun's life
Redstone (Jupiter C) - Von Braun
Vanguard
Jupiter (juno) - Von Braun
Thor IRBM
Thor (Able)
Thor (Delta)
Atlas ICBM
Atlas (Able)
Atlas (Agena)
Atlas (Centaur - Von Braun)
Titan I
Titan II
Titan III
Titan III (Centaur - Von Braun)
Saturn 1 - Von Braun
Saturn 1B - Von Braun
Saturn 5 - Von Braun
Minuteman
Polaris
Poseidon
Trident
Shuttle
most of them had no input from him whatsoever.
Team Work Makes A Dream work!
this is all bull shit!I should know ---I finished the second grade.Soviet bull shit!
You're either trolling or I have bad news for you.
dream on yankee troll....lol...
That can't be thumbed down enough.
It doesn't stop there, the Soviets had interplanetary missions planned with nuclear electric ships assembled in Orbit by N1 rockets.
They didn't need much assembly, the orignal purpose of the N1 was a Mars flyby using a moddified Soyuz
@@jesusramirezromo2037 Stuck in a Soyuz for 3 years, sounds fun...Tbf, the US had the same proposal with Saturn V.
@@TheNavalAviator Yhea, at least it was a 2 person Soyuz, not a 3 person Soyuz
I love those documentaries from the Cold War era.