My understanding is that initially Khrushchev had little interest in Sputnik. His primary concern was simp!y developing an ICBM; launching a satellite was Korolev's reward for doing so. Khrushchev only became interested when he saw the West's reaction to the Sputnik launch.
Exactly. Moreover, Sputnik flew by a pure chance: engineers couldn't figure out a thermal protection for reentry of the nuclear warhead, and Korolev asked to use one of the spare rockets to launch hastily-assembled Sputnik-1, because actual first Sputnik also haven't been completed yet. This "actual first Sputnik" known as Sputnik-3.
Exactly! When R-7 development began, Korolev gladly accepted inflated requirements for warhead mass parameters. Because he wanted to build a rocket, capable of launching man to space. Somewhat similar story repeated with N1 rocket. From start this was a missile to deliver “100mt” retaliation, in case NATO attacks USSR
@@danielnigel6920 no... el interes de Kennedy fue devolver la ciencia aeronautica al terreno de demostracion tecnologica. Por eso impuso una meta alta y definitiva. Por eso dividieron el grupo inicial en uno encargado de ICBM y el otro que se encargaria de las ciencias al servicio de la propaganda. Los cohetes en cada caso son diferentes. Un cohete con gases licuados no sirve para la guerra porque se tarda demasiado tiempo en preparar el lanzamiento. Despues de la explosion del Mariscal Nedelin los rusos entendieron que esos propergoles hipergolicos son debiles y estremadamente peligrosos mientras que los cohetes con hidrogeno y oxigeno liquidos no sirven para la guerra. Pero ya estaban derrotados porque el Saturno V habia volado en 1967 a la perfeccion.
Well, some gaps and errors in the story. The Soviets got a group of 50 or so German engineers from the V2 program, my grandfather was one of them. They build the Soviet rockets. Study the history of the island village of Gorodomlija on the Seliger lake in central Russia. Sergej Korolev might have been a great engineer himself, but the heavy lifting was done by the German engineers of the "Bureau Göttrup". My grandfather returned to Germany together with his family, including my mother, in 1953. The 'release document' was signed by the comrades Berija, Molotov and Josef Vissajonovich Tschugaschvili himself...
"There is every reason to believe that [German engineers'] contribution to the Russian space program was almost negligible. They were called on to write reports...they were squeezed out like lemons, so to speak. In the end they went home without being informed about what went on in the classified Russian projects." Wernher Von Braun as quoted by Arthur C Clarke in his book The Promise of Space. The information from the German program certainly would have helped the Soviet Union, but they built the rockets themselves (mostly after 1953), using teams from design bureaus that had been among the world leaders in rocketry in the mid 1930s. The real missing details in the story are about how much of the corner cutting of the Soviet program was a result of the fundamentally smaller economy and especially industrial base, of the Soviet Union. And how competing design bureaus split what resources were available in ways that made things even worse. Few people know that the first living beings to ever travel beyond the Moon and return safely to Earth were the animals on the Zond 5 mission, launched atop a Proton rocket. Had the Soviet politicians been knowledgeable enough to force the engineers to focus on the best path, and more concerned with the goals of the country as a whole rather than political infighting, four Proton launches would have had a good chance of launching an upgraded Zond capsule, a lunar lander, and a pair of kick stages to send them to the moon before the Americans. Or at least closely enough behind them that America couldn't claim the space race was over with their victory.
The personnel and hardware from the Nazi weapons program were not "stolen" by the Americans and Soviets They were essentially spoils of war, going to the victors thereof.
One small criticism: It is flatly impossible for Leonov's body temperature to have risen by anything remotely like "35 degrees Celcius" during the spacewalk. Normal Human body Temperature is 98.6 F or about 37C. Another 35 C would have Leonov at 72C, or 161 F - like a cup of tea too hot to drink , or even hold for long. Humans die if body temp exceeds about 109F, or 43C. TAssuminhg this is just a case of a missing decimal point, the correct figure for Leonov's temp increase might be 3.5 C, or 6.3 F, putting him at around 105F - a very serious state of affairs, but survivable for a fit young man.
No gurantee of death at 109, but it is likely. People have survived excursions up to 115 ish. At 108 everyone can survive, not that they'll feel great though haha
@@DarkAttack14 115 Celsius would mean that the body would be "self-roasting" The boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius. Would that the United States would join most of the rest of the world in the realm of measurement.
@@acanuck1679 Nope 212 F. We would but, in case you haven't noticed, we are rebels at heart ! - - By the way your firing orders are backwards also. LOL
@@DarkAttack14 that 115 ish is external temperature and recorded by something likely hotter than the ambient air, 115 body temp and your almost insta dead dude
To be fair,NASA was a bit reckless too. And 3 astronauts paid with their lives when a fire consumed their capsule during a ground test on Jan.27,1967. It was only after that sobering experience that NASA adopted a more careful approach to the space race. Even so,Apollo 11 had some close calls.
Put the blame in the contractor rather than NASA. NASA promised a bonus if the capsule was delivered ahead of schedule, which was achieved. However, the post-fire investigation found shoddy work on the contractor's part. As I understand it NASA did not pay the bonus.
It wasn’t without reason, oxygen makes up 20% of air. Thus filling the capsule with 100% oxygen enables them to only pressurize it to .2 atm during flight, putting less stress on the mechanical systems and space suits. Unfortunately it’s very dangerous with fire.
Unfortunately humanity has a propensity to need to touch fire to learn that it is hot. Though often the worst tragedies in history can be said to have prevented an even greater tragedy had humanity not learned its lesson.
Okay SR, forgive my bluntness here. I'm a loving, devoted subscriber to your channel. However, the title of the episode says one thing while the content is something else entirely. In the episode, there is near-zero insight on the Soviet space program or anyone associated with it having any obsession with NASA at all. Quite the opposite, apparently. But what the content DOES contain is more bothersome. It's just boilerplate history. It sounds as if someone opened up an AI bot and said "write a script describing the space race." It objectively does to anyone listening to it. As such, this stops being worthwhile.
согласен, нам нужны даты,имена,детали ,самые мелочи,создающие атмосферу той эпохи,а не простой общий пересказ "газетных заголовков" для скучающих обывателей без базовых знаний по теме ролика.
I was more surprised about the statement : « stole the technology of the Nazi’s » really stole. What about used it or took it? How many lives did the Nazi’s steal, especially Werner Von Braun who benefited from cheap labor!
I disagree. I think it can be inferred that without the threat of losing to NASA and the capitalists, the soviets might have been more careful and measured with their testing
Yea this is full of errors and nonsense, as soon as he said "...started the same way as the American space program, by stealing intellectual property from the (Germans)..." I just shut it off right there. The fact is it was the Germans who "stole intellectual property" from the US for their rocket program, and Von Braun himself admitted after the war that without that stolen intellectual property from Dr Robert Goddard he'd never have gotten a rocket off the ground before the war ended. A German spy network in the US had been intercepting the results from Goddard's work in the form of reports he was sending to Universities, some were showing up opened and some even came up missing, since Goddard wasn't doing work for the government the FBI wasn't alerted to investigate what was going on, the military at the time was being run by a bunch of bone heads who just didn't "get it" about rocketry in the 30's. Modern science credits Goddard with "ushering in the age of space travel" in March of 1926 with the launch of his first successful liquid fueled rocket, liquid fueled throttlable engine's mounted on gimbals for direction control, turbo pumps for fuel, gyro stabilization and others were things Goddard had patented when Von Braun was in high school, his rocket was basically a great big government funded copy of what Goddard had already developed by the mid 30's, it's just that nobody paid any attention to Goddard and he didn't receive government funding or support, that came from the Guggenheim Foundation and various universities, there's even the famous story about when US Army intelligence personnel were interrogating German rocket scientists after the war and one thought they were playing mind games with him, in a fit of frustration he blurted out "Why are you asking us these questions? Surely your own Dr Goddard has the answers to them.", but of course the Army interrogators had never heard of Goddard which astounded the Germans because to them he was the number one rocket scientist. The narrative that Von Braun was the leading rocket scientist and America learned everything from him is History Channel nonsense, aside from Goddard there was Reaction Motors Incorporated, a US company who pioneered many things involving rockets during the 1930's including "regenerative cooling", it's the process of circulating liquid fuel and oxygen through passages wrapped around the engine bells, without it space travel isn't possible as engines can't be burned long enough to achieve orbit without the engine bells burning up, Reaction Motors Incorporated patented that process in 1936, another American first, Scott Crossfield the famous X-15 pilot noted in an interview that before Von Braun and his crew working at the Army's Redstone Arsenal got their first rocket off the ground the X plane program already had over 50 successful flights using Reaction Motors Incorporated's engines in their aiaircraft.
It's not even particularly accurate, it completely omits the entire relationship between the soviet space program and missile program. Ex:The entire reason the program was so dangerous was that the space group had little independent funding or political power beyond their diminishing contributions to the missile program.
Whatever you can say about the Soviets' disregard for safety, you have to admire the courage and wits of the early cosmonauts. The American astronauts were equally talented and courageous. I suspect that, had these men been able to meet secretly, they would have had much in common.
@@ontheruntonowhere they can’t just bail, they’re responsible for certain functions. Guess I should’ve said,”they’ve committed to bailing in the very near future.” You RUclips fact checkers most definitely have better shit to do than an incorrectly worded statement. Fuck off :)
@@kerrybigkans Maybe you should look up the definitions of 'recently' and 'after' because one refers to the past and the other to the future. Your two claims are diametrically opposed in meaning. Regardless, you're still wrong. Russia has indicated it will likely continue to participate until 2028, when its planned independent station is scheduled to be operational (which I highly doubt because of the economic and demographic fallout from their misadventure in Ukraine).
The Soviet Moon missions were to have a crew of two Cosmonauts, not three. The early versions of the Soyuz couldn’t accommodate three Cosmonauts in pressure suits. It could only accommodate two. They would have to depressurize the Soyuz and have a Cosmonaut spacewalk to the LK lunar lander. The lack of pressure suits led to the death of the Soyuz 11 three man crew.
Why the USSR lost the space race? Korolev died. The chief designers who took over after him were competent engineers but they could not steer their lunar program through the one thing that was arguably more difficult than the depths of space, namely the Soviet bureaucracy. Alexei Leonov, in the splendid autobiography he co-wrote with David Scott, essentially says as much. Korolev doesn't have all the ill health effects of years in Stalin's camps, and bad habits of smoking and drinking the history of the space race could have been very different. Nevertheless, a huge tip of the hat to both the Astronauts and Cosmonauts who were the first men to go to the stars. Here's to a restoration of peace so that humanity may return to the moon, and go beyond.
@@FourthWayRanch then why did they send several unmanned probes there? Why did they spend billions of roubles trying to get there? They had the technology for it, but after Korolev died they didn't have anyone to steer a very expensive program through the Soviet bureaucracy
@@midwestguy1983 The Russians won. They got there first. You can’t change the terms of the bet after you lose. First man in space. They did that. Nobody likes a bad loser
The Soviets didn’t lose the space race. They had tremendous early success that exceeded expectations and broke the stereotype of Russia being backward. Then the USA put in place the leadership necessary to leverage their technological advantages to break the stereotype of being soft and unfocused, and unable to marshal such resources in peacetime. Both countries had tremendous victories and successfully avoided unleashing Armageddon, our greatest collective victory in the space race
@@FourthWayRanchthe percentage of people that believe NASA put a man on the moon is higher in Russia today than it is in the US. The economic inequality in the US has nothing on the intellectual inequality. The same country that put a man on the moon can no longer educate its own people with the foundation to understand how it was done. There is an entire subset of the population that proudly states they know less about the world than humans that were incapable of basic agriculture. I'm pretty certain this number would be lower if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed. In the words of Bane to Batman..."Victory has defeated you."
Sorry to break it down to you. The Russians never wanted to bring people onto the moon. They just became the 1st to ever fly to space. 1st ever to land to the moon (not people, but probe). 1st ever to land on ... The US was so embarrassed, that they tried so hard to send people to the moon, just to claim viktory (in something the Soviet never wanted to do). Yet, some naive people still believe, the US won the space race (sorry, but nope). Good job to the US's media and Hollywood teams.
The one major thing not mentioned is that the entire Soviet space program was done in complete secrecy. They only announced their successes (except for one manned flight). All failures were kept secret. The US space program proceeded completely in the open. It was a careful methodical program where safety was paramount for the astronauts. I know everyone is going to say "What about Apollo 1?" . Yes safety was out the window on that one but that changed over night. The entire program was changed with regard to safety after those deaths. BTW All safety rules are written in blood!
You always think that crew safety was priority for US. But Russians had launch escape system on Soyuz while US had nothing on Space Shuttle even after its 1st failure. Blood did not write anything there. And there were moon missions with no backup whatsoever, while USSR's plan was to send backup spacecraft to the moon before any crewed mission. Your comment is just a cope. Russians did not have fatal accidents since 1971.
@@DamirAsanov No, yours is cope. Large, multi decked space *ships* can no more have launch escape systems than airliners can have ejection seats. Russia will probably never build such ships but if it ever does, it will have to accept the same fact.
Considering the content, the video should have instead been entitled NASA’s fascination with the Soviets. I enjoyed the video, but it’s not what I expected from the title
I did not watched because just the title it self told me it is some USUAL US maniach twisting and turn everything to the the US which make me through up by now. when you know the truths... SO PERVERT OF THEM but I agree with you even if I did not watched that it is the NASA which is fascinated and interested to lear from the Russians . They try everything for to get near to the Russian but THANKS GOOD the Russians helped them for to go and play in the space with the international (?) space craft but they are building their own for a MAN and MANKIND.
I've always liked how both the US and the Soviets were willing to congratulate each other on the breakthroughs they achieved, and expressing sympathy during the related tragedies. It says quite a bit about the class of the leaders of the time. It really embodies that each side wanted to win by their own victories and not the other's failures. "You don't get taller when others fall down"
The US used pure oxygen at 3 psi, the Soviets used air at 15 psi. The lower pressure of the US system reduced the amount of work the astronauts had to do, compared to the Cosmonauts.
Yeah, poor little thing. It was bad enough that she was going to have to be euthanized, but to instead die of overheating is just tragic. She looked like a very cute and friendly pup. I understand that, the night before her flight, one of the engineers took her home and let her play with his children and spend time with a family. At least she got that.
Gagarin wouldn't have been pulverised during landing in Vostok 1 had he not ejected. He might have been injured though, because Vostok had no braking rockets, as Soyuz and Shenzhou do.
If you know much about Apollo, it's less that the Americans were responsible and more that they were slightly less irresponsible than the Soviets and a bit more lucky.
@@nichijoufan ? THEY = SOVIETS talking about Main Players like Astronauts or Heads, not rocket tests. #1 "irresponsible" .... #13 unlucky (cult) 13 just cancelled Landing. (People already bored) Challenger is way latter, no racing.
"Luck had truly run out which is inevitable when you take such a reckless path to success." It's hard to write a line that captures so much. Well done!
How can you say the Soviet Union lost ? And the USA won except for the USA going to the moon it lost in every other thing 1st in space man/women, satelite to moon / Venus/ Space , space station etc
Soviet Union or Russians always screwed themselves because of they're delusional greedy leaders. It was a waste of money to go to Venus there was no value in it at all. Should've concentrated on going to Mars instead.
Yeah, for some reason Americans just unilaterally decided that the Moon landing was the end goal of the Space Race. Probably because that event makes for a good propaganda. Flag on the Moon, whooooo!
Being first is irrelevant when your opponent replicates your accomplishments quickly and do it several times. Being first matters not if you fail to exploit the fact you’re first.
Yup. As if USA and NASA NEVER killed anyone or did things secretly that would be criticised if known to the general public. 😂 I'm mean, Russia is problematic asf but this is totally USA propaganda. Space Race channel, who is hurting you to come up with these scripts? 😂
Well, Soviet space program recklessly took lifes of one dog and four cosmonauts (Komarov and later Dobrovolskiy, Patsaev and Volkov on Soyuz-11). NASA very carefully took the lives of 17 astronauts (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia) and who know how many monkeys.
What about the soviet N1 rocket that exploded on the launch pad killing over 100 people? Or shall we just ignore that. Oh and that out of control Chinese rocket that crashed onto a village killing hundreds of innocent citizens. Communism sucks
@@YankeeCommie true, but in defence of the video, they were talking about the space race, which was over by the time the space shuttles flew & blew up.
@@IblameBlame, over? Are you sure? Different sources point different dates on the end of space race - from 1975 to 1993, but I ain't sure if it ever ended.
14:17 "a lunar lander with a crew of three men aboard". No, the Soyuz 7K-LOK (the equivalent to the Apollo CSM) only had room for two. One would stay in the capsule and the lander the "LK", being a lot smaller than the Apollo LM could only carry one cosmonaut.
I have seen sources that claim the parachute pre-heaters lacked the power they needed due to the failed solar panel. As a result the parachutes came out as what some have called "blocks of ice" and could not open.
It might have been in the old "Quest" journal where I read that surface roughness of the container and lack of tapering to its sides contributed to the failure.
There was actually some people that pushed back against putting an American flag on the moon. Some felt putting it up took away from it being something done for humanity and not simply Americans. It wasn't just the nature of the space race that led to the flag being used. It was done in response to the Kruzchev statement that was made when the Soviets were able to orbit the moon, "From now on, Americans sleep under a Soviet moon."
Technically the space race didn't end. Though most would have thought the Russians would get the silver. It's obvious the Chinese will end up with it now. The big question is "will Russia even medal?" Think about that for a second. A country that didn't even have a space program when the US walked on the moon was able to build a space program from scratch, and come from behind to beat Russia for the silver. And I promise you the US wants the Russians to pull it together and become the Russia that Challenged America. You were our only rival, and you guys are better than losing to Chinese clowns
Claiming the US won the space race is like claiming you've won the 100m by extending the finish line mid-race to the point where you eventually pass your rival. No shame in saying the Russians got there first.
The reason the Soviet R7 was first to Orbit and is still used today with improvements from the original is because at the time the Soviet Nukes were a lot heavier than the US weapons and needed that lifting capability. US weapons were and still are compact and lighter and didn't need that amount of thrust to get to orbit just get to their targets. Eventually the US did use the Atlas and Titan ICBMs modified for the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft. Just look how small in comparison the SpaceX Falcons are and they are re-useable!
Ham, the chimpanzee that the US shot into space was recovered safely from space and died January 19, 1983. There was never any intention for the Soviets to recover Liaka. The dog would die in space.
One thing missing from the US side of the space race was the testing of the X15 rocket plane rising to the edge of space. Some of these pilots got their astronaut wings. This was going on from 1957 on.
Great stuff! You should make a video about NASA's accidents next, like the 1967 Apollo 1 disaster where three American astronauts were rapidly burned to death by an accidental fire breaking out in the command capsule, causing the astronauts to burn alive while desperately trying to escape the locked capsule. Maybe our hastiness to beat the Soviets to space caused the deaths of Grissom, White, and Chaffee. The space race went two ways, and the highly decorated pilots who led humanities first attempts into space knew full well that they were going into territory that no living being is meant to survive. The engineering challenges faced both then and now are always going to be a possibility in a place where one faulty component, one miscalculation, or one ill-conceived test make the difference between life and death. The Soviets were no less heartless than LBJ or Nixon.
It's telling that you don't even know who was president when the Apollo 1 fire happened. In contrast with the USSR, NASA was extremely deliberate during the race to the moon, and Republicans hadn't yet begun to dismantle the US education system, so we had extremely well-educated and talented engineers and contractors methodically solving problems. The fire was a tragedy which in hindsight should have been foreseen, but it wasn't the result of haste or political pressure. Additionally, the astronauts themselves were very involved in the engineering, construction, safety and testing of the vehicles, as well as providing input into the flight plans. They were also celebrities which NASA would be stupid to 'heartlessly' waste. Get your facts straight before posting verifiable misinformation.
@@ontheruntonowhere NASA was extremely deliberate during the race to the moon? You have never researched the Soviets plan to the moon right? Soviets plan was to send a backup spacecraft to the moon before crewed mission. Which makes them more deliberate about returning crew back.
@@DamirAsanov I am very familiar with the moon race, and with the space programs of the various countries. Russians have never put individual humans at the forefront, which is why their program was conducted in secrecy from the public, and their launches only publicized if they were successful. The Russians couldn't even get one ship to the moon, let alone two. If they had, it's quite likely both would have broken. NASA was able to go to the moon many times because it is deliberate and able to solve the challenges of such missions. If Russia was deliberate, they would have made it to the moon. And back. But instead Russia hasn't ever been out of LEO because it's always been a backwards-ass country run by dictators.
@@Armata6348 We're talking about the moon race and whether either country traded vehicle or crew safety for politics. Challenger was a terrible tragedy, not going to deny it. The launch director should have listened to those who were warning of potential catastrophic failure of the o-rings due to freezing temperatures. But it was an accident of hubris, not one of political expediency, since Russia was barely a player by 1986.
This is quite an eye-opener. One correction: the R-7 booster was just barely capable of putting one of the Soviet nuclear weapons on the closests parts of the US, not all of it. However, as those bombs were quite heavy, a sizable payload could instead be placed in orbit.
I wouldn't say the R-7 had 5 rocket engines, it had 5 modules all of which were ignited at launch for simplicity. 4 modules being discarded when exhausted of fuel so the final module could accelerate the smaller mass in the near vacuum. Each module was essentially Four V2 rocket engines all being fed by one fuel-pump and from one larger set of tanks. They are only considered to be one engine because they used the same fuel-pump, the fuel pump also fed into some smaller rocket engines that were used to control the direction of the rocket. This was all very simple tech, essentially WW2 era technology well suited to mass production but it's a technological dead end. This couldn't be scaled up any more than it already was.
Well, the thing is, that's the definition of a rocket engine. It's based on the fuel pumps. All of the combustion chambers and nozzles being fed by a single fuel pump are defined to be a single engine. I don't know why, I wasn't there when that technical decision was made, but that is how it is. Thus, all of the combustion chambers and nozzles, including the vernier thrusters, on each booster of an R-7 rocket are a single engine, and the rocket has only five. If you want it otherwise, you must argue with the dictionary.
@@odysseusrex5908 It can't be defined that way as you CAN have a rocket engine without a fuel pump, you can just have the pressure feed passively from pressurized tanks. A rocket engine is based on the combustion chamber. That is the most fundamental component. The pump is not really the tricky part. The V2 (A4) rocket's pump was an off-the-shelf component, it was just used for pumping water for fire engines. Yes, the pump is more integral than the pump of some other engine like a piston gasoline engine, but it's misleading to act like this was just 5 "engines" without specifying that many combustion chambers were multiplied. By analogy this is like treating a vehicle that has two separate piston engines that can operate independently both power a common crankshaft of a single gearbox and then decide that it's a single "engine" for sharing the same gearbox. Obviously it makes sense to have a single gearbox, you don't need two smaller gearboxes, one for each engine. Just as it makes sense to have one giant pump to feed multiple combustion chambers rather than multiple smaller pumps one for each chamber. I find it interesting that each combustion chamber of the R7 was almost identical size to the A4 rocket's single combustion chamber and also almost identical thrust per nozzle. Though using RP1 rather than Ethanol.
It's so interesting to notice the nuances in the meaning of words depending on who the subject is, for example, Soviets or Russians are incompetent,thieves, have no regard for safety, etc, but if the subject is American the preferred words would be, adventurous, bold, focused and so on. Never ceases to amaze me...
@@MrEh5 ----Psst!, I think our Comrade is looking for how to start a Super NASA of the people's republic for peace, and absolutely not... a non-science exploita/ er, I mean, go USA!
its not 'claimed' that the soviets appropriated some german rocket scientists, they 100% did according to numerous reliable primary and secondary sources
As they new they were losing the war the majority opted to flee west where they new they’d be better treated by the allies.. and hence the USA nabbed them from the British
@@ShokkuKyushu yes, both sides used german rocket scientsts. The west used golden handcuffs, and the soviets used regular handcuffs. Seriously, true story, the Soviets had a whole bunch of german scientsts working for them in eastern germany, and the soviets got them blind drunk one night and then kidnapped them back to the soviet union as they were worried about them (not unreasonably) scurrying off to the western sectors as relations got worse and worse between the soviets and the allies.
I have read that Komarov placed his spacecraft into a spin to stabilize it during reentry because, as you point out, his attitude control system was impaired. When the chute deployed the shroud lines spun up and twisted, making full opening of the parachute impossible.
I believe one of the James Burke episodes about Apollo has an interview with James Webb and his unease with the Apollo 8 mission. After the Apollo 1 tragedy, NASA was definitely taking safety more into account. The sudden change of mission objectives for Apollo 8 was something that he felt uncomfortable with because it strayed from that safer path.
This video (or is it ChatGPT?) misses a lot of important things. For example, the first Soviet satellite was meant to be the one that finally went up as Sputnik 3, and was advertised well beforehand as part of the International Geophysical Year. It wasn't ready early enough for when the R-7 was ready to launch a satellite, so the simple Sputnik 1 was quickly built. The propaganda rushed details about Sputnik-2 and Laika of course are correct. The Nedelin catastrophe involved a purely military missile. As for Vostok, the problem was not that "the parachutes could not handle the speed", but that the speed of descent of the capsule under parachutes was too high on landing on hard ground for the cosmonaut not to be injured or killed (true to this day), which is why Voskhod, Soyuz, New Shepard crew capsule and Starliner used/use rockets or airbags to cushion the landing. Water landings are more tolerable and so Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Crew Dragon did/do not fire retro-rockets just before landing (though Crew Dragon has the necessary rockets and probably can be adapted for emergency landing on solid ground, which was the original design goal). The video does not go beyond the 1960's. After the tragedies of Soyuz 1 in 1967 and of Soyuz 11 in 1971, the Soviets/Russians have not lost any more cosmonauts in spaceflight, and their safety systems have functioned well despite some truly hairy episodes. The US has lost many more, and the Shuttle had no launch escape system. Curiously, Elon Musk uses the same design and testing philosophy as Korolev's, and many of his solutions resemble those of Korolev more than those previously associated with NASA. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are assembled and integrated horizontally, whereas American launch systems and spacecraft have previously been integrated vertically. The diameter of Falcon stages is governed by highway clearances, and that of Soyuz stages is governed by railway clearances. The design and construction of Super Heavy appears to have more in common with N-1 than Saturn 5, except for vertical assembly and handling rather than horizontal.
And there were even more details to be incorrect! In all I was pretty much disappointed from this "report". What drove me nuts as well, was the potpourri of haphazardly chosen snippets of films - often completely unrelated with the story told... NOT a prize winner for good spaceflight reporting! Michael B. Butter, Radebeul, Germany
For the Shuttle, that was in part due to just how much they flew it. Think that to this day, more than half of the people that went to space did so on the Shuttle
I have the audio running as I scroll the comments but half way through it and I think I'll call it quits -- just read the comments. Less cringing that way. But a reasonably good primer for younger people who couldn't put something similar together just working from memory. "the Shuttle had no launch escape system" Some history: The original budget had a bit over $300 million in it for "escape rocket" development. At that point, NASA had been given the go-ahead for a 40k-lb payload 60-ft bay partly of fully reusable system of some sort, and got all the money they had asked for (~ $6 billion). It was left to them as to what they built, and things like an Orbiter atop a Saturn V first stage were still under consideration for a brief time after the go-ahead. Not very many months in, the program manager saw that estimates were ballooning fast, and so moved the escape rocket money into Contingency (which had started out as a reasonable 20% of the budget total). Casper "Cap the Knife" Weinberger at the White House had already cautioned NASA that they shouldn't expect to get any more money down the line than what Congress had already approved (for use over multiple years, of course), so that presumably had the program manager thinking proactively when it came to staying within the budget. The other thing he weighed might have been the SAIC study which estimated STS mission losses as ~1 in 1000 missions IIRC. That was a very bottom-up look at all the things which had historically gone wrong with solid-fuel strap-on boosters etc, but was of course mum on things like RCC integrity subject to being struck by foam insulation.
@marcmcreynolds2827 For RCC specifically, they thought that since the military looked at it as a candidate tank armor, it ought to be sufficiently tough. Unfortunately, the results of said tests were classified - and they spelled out that while it is fairly strong, it can be easily penetrated.
IT WAS OPPOSIT and STILL.... these are US LIES and TWISTING IT UNTILL IT GET SO COMPLICATED THAT THEY CONTINUE TO BRAINWASH THEIR CITIZENS> HOPE TO LIVE UNTILL THESE DUSTY HELLS DIE OUT FROM THE HUMAN
Holy schnike, I learned so much from this video! The craziest was thatt Gagarin had been ejected from his space capsule! I thought he rode it all the way down to the earth. Great vid!
Probably should have mentioned Challenger in there somewhere. That was an American example of image progression overcoming safety concerns that led to seven astronauts dying in one go.
I think the fact that NONE emergency safety improvements such as ejectable and/or reinforced crew cabin were applied to Shuttles(which continued carrying full crews and eventually doomed another one) after the Challenger disaster - even if it would've led to reduced payload weight and size - tells everything we need to know about "reckless Soviets and cautious Americans"
I'm a subscriber....but you need an editor. Look at all these comments noting issues that could have been stated better. The V2/V4 was 'devastatingly effective'? Well, yes and no. The cost to the Germans was roughly the same as the Manhattan Project that yielded the nuclear bomb, which arguably would have been a better idea. It's famous as the only weapons system that killed more people building it than it killed on the receiving end.
Video can't shut up about the "reckless disregard to safety" of the Soviet space program. Meanwhile: Number of Soviet or Russian cosmonauts that were killed in space missions: 4 Number of NASA astronauts that were killed in space missions: 17
@HalNordmann Your logic doesn't seem to be working. The number of USSR launches is 2,453 (136 emergency launches), the number of US launches is 1,058 (119 emergency launches) How do you explain this?
@AposTrof-s1t I meant crewed launches. Besides, a lot of those launches are because Soviet satellites were less capable than their US counterparts, and so more of them were needed. And what do you even mean by "emergency launches" anyway?
The Politbeuro didn't care about the space race until they saw the front page headlines from around the world. For example the when Sputnik went up the only initial coverage in Pravda was a single paragraph tucked away on page 3 it didn't get any serious attention until they saw how the rest of the world reacted and they quickly forgot Kruschev only ever pushed them for something headline grabbing so they did the worlds first spacewalk which very nearly killed the Cosmonought. Kruschev was deposed the next day
They definitely started out strong, but as the US caught up, their interest and efforts waned. In the late 70s to current date, most of the latest achievements, discoveries, and advancements are done by NASA, ESA, and China. In the late 80s, the Soviet space program effectively ended with their space shuttle, the Buran and their space station Mir, which was taken over by the Russian Federation. The Soviet Union simply did not have the resources to spend on continuing their space program. Out of the ESA. China, Japan, and other space faring countries, only China has put a space station into orbit, the Tiangong. The other agencies / countries have participated in the International Space Station. Apart from the US, no one else has landed a person on the Moon. If you call the race here, the US won and the Soviet Union lost. Personally, I don't think the "space race" is over. I do think that the original participants are dropping out having "been there, seen that, done that". Neither the US or Russia wants to dedicate much time, effort, or money into continuing space exploration. Most of the new developments are from the private sector and not so much NASA. A few years back under the Obama administration, NASA was retooled to focus more on Earth studies to combat global climate change. Russia... has other issues on their plate.
they do this all the time now again on the you tube. They show the russian missle and put that prison striped flag in to or say it is the USA missile. ELong Musk google and the MAFIA VIDEOS on you tube.
The Nedelin disaster had nothing to do with NASA nor did it have anything to do with the Moon race or even a race to conquer space. It was a test launch of an ICBM to be used in combat should a war break out between the USSR and the US. True, safety procedures were overruled on launch day because of a desire to continue with the launch, and it cost lives. But all you can cite from this is a single wrong decision by one individual in charge, and the very fact that there were safety procedures in the first place tells us that the Soviets in general cared about safety. The Americans cared about safety too but that didn't stop them from overriding the warnings of junior engineers not to launch the Challenger in cold weather in 1986. You could build a similar argument for the installation of a known faulty tank in apollo 13 in a desire to keep to schedule. Ditto for Apollo 1. What I hear in your narrative is a desire to show that the Soviets were characeristically reckless by compiling together all the instances of recklessness you can find. If you're going to go down this path you have to be objective about it and balance this against America's reckless obsession with beating the soviets to the Moon, which also cost lives. You can't say that one side was reckless and the other side exercised measured risk. That's just rewriting history to suit your biases.
@@Canraptor Calm down. Americans are every bit as guilty of propaganda, although I do believe we were more deliberate in our space program, which is why we succeeded where the Soviets failed.
Yes it is when you as the USSR push the race to two man orbits, a space station and landing on the Moon. The US landing on the Moon ended the space race for both nations and the beginning of cooperation in Earth orbit. So yes, the USSR lost the space race. And the outcome of the N-1 booster shows this.
@michaelsnyder3871 oh got it the objective of the space race wasn't to be the first to put a satellite in orbit ushering in a new era of space study, put a man and woman into space send probes to Venus and give us the very first pictures from Venus it's whatever things the US did first and only what the US did first those were the rules! Gotcha. You got a serious career as white house press secretary with your Simone Biles level of mental gymnastics. I like it buddy.
The U.S.A Nasa moon lander was seen taking test runs over the New Mexico desert. In fact, Socorro, New Mexico police officer Lonnie Zamora saw it land in April 1964. Zamora radioed his police headquarters about seeing a UFO land. Zamora got his rifle and drove closer. He saw two men in spacesuits walking around. They saw Zamora and got back in the lunar lander. They inside their spacecraft lifted off and took off in the direction of Holloman air force base in Almogordo, New Mexico. The lunar lander was also tested at Meteor crater, Arizona to see how it could land on the rugged bumpy lunar surface. BTW, where the lunar lander landed in Socorro, the mayor owned that land. A roadside souvenir gift shop cafe was built there. Today it not only feeds truckers but sells t shirts and other UFO memorabilia.
No, that's inaccurate. Leonov's spacewalk garnered little, if any, actual data, and it was four years before they did another. In contrast, the first American spacewalk a couple of months later was the first in a series of planned EVAs during the Gemini program that gradually developed knowledge and tested capabilities, doing steadily longer and more complex spacewalks. Leonov's EVA was a pure publicity stunt just to "do it first", before the Americans.
I read about titled Soyuz. The parachute never had a chance to work. They redesigned the system. Previous Soyuz worked because the crew compartment had depressurized.
Poor video. Regarding safety someone can rightly say that NASA also put schedule before safety and paid the price in human lives, 17 of them. And this after the Soviet experience, they should have known better than the Soviets.
Exactly. Launching a space shuttle in cold weather it was not designed for certainly wasn't reckless disregard for human lives because muh democracy 🙄🙄
Most of the US lost of life was due to accepting a design, the Shuttle, which the designer considered would have a 5% loss rate. Additionally the Winner of the Solid Fuel Boosters was Aerojet. This was overridden by a NASA employee who came from Salt Lake City. Morton Thiokol had to use a segmented solid boosters to fit into railway loading gauges.
@@digitalnomad9985No, you are talking about Communism and a dictatorship. Social welfare is a different thing altogether. Here are some origins of social welfare: H.H. Asquith - In the early 1900s, Asquith's Liberal government introduced reforms such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, and pensions for the elderly. Otto von Bismarck - In the 1880s, Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society in Imperial Germany. Emperor Ashoka - In the 3rd century BCE, Ashoka of India proposed the idea of a welfare state. Emperor Wen - In the Han Dynasty, Emperor Wen (203 - 157 BCE) implemented measures similar to modern welfare policies. Caliph Umar - In the 7th century, Umar introduced a universal social security tax called zakat, which was distributed to the needy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt - Roosevelt's New Deal established a national welfare system in the United States in 1935.
Good that you say that allthough I do not live in the US but it gives me a hope that people like you encourage the young generation for to change their own inviroment to what they wish to live in IS BIGGER ACHIVMENT than live in a bias
Sputnik I was a useful scientific tool. By careful analysis of the Döppler shift in the frequency of the electronically beeps, gravitational density anomalies inside of the Earth were measured as a Soviet contribution to the International Geophysical Year (1957). It may not have been part of the plan for Sputnik, but was useful all the same.
They didn’t because the video says otherwise. It doesn’t matter they were the first to space, or have a man in orbit and back, or even the first satellite… what matters is who was first to make a landing on the moon that is even til this day being doubted by some. You wouldn’t get it.
@@brokencat2662 Oh I'm sorry, you're right, the Americans clearly got into space first before Yuri Gagarin. Best head down to the mini truth and get that amended
ok so the soviets won the "space race", and murricans won the "moon race". Ok, yet the "moon race" is umpteen times cooler and more significant than your "space race". But then come to find out, actually both soviets and murricans were in only one race, a race to the moon, that everybody then and now calls the Space Race. Which the murricans won. Peace.
Soviets: First artificial satellite (Sputnik 1, October 4, 1957) Soviets: First animal in orbit (Laika, November 3, 1957, aboard Sputnik 2) Soviets: First human-made object to impact the Moon (Luna 2, September 14, 1959) Soviets: First photograph of the far side of the Moon (Luna 3, October 7, 1959) Soviets: First human in space (Yuri Gagarin, April 12, 1961, aboard Vostok 1) Soviets: First woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, June 16, 1963, aboard Vostok 6) Soviets: First multi-person crew in space (Voskhod 1, October 12, 1964) Soviets: First spacewalk (Alexei Leonov, March 18, 1965, aboard Voskhod 2) Soviets: First spacecraft to soft-land on the Moon (Luna 9, February 3, 1966) USA: First human to orbit the Moon (Apollo 8, December 21, 1968) USA: First man on the Moon (Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969, Apollo 11) THAT'S IT GUYS!! IT WAS ALWAYS A RACE TO THE MOON, haha! it was what we agreed at start!! whoever gets to moon first wins! bye losers!!!
A few years ago I spoke to some Russians my age (baby boomers) about the subject and asked them how they were taught about it at school in the USSR. They all said unanimously that the first man in space was the most important thing in history. From their point of view, that was certainly logical and understandable.
This is a fun game, let's list all the Soviet firsts and ignore all the American ones at that time, such as the first probe to scan another planet (Mariner 2 reaching Venus in 1962), first weather satellite, geocentric satellite, and all kinds of communications and Earth observation systems (photographs, TV transmissions, etc.), first successful Mars probe (Mariner 4 in 1964), and the ten Gemini spacecraft successfully operating between 1964 and 1966 to safely gather the experience needed for the bigger Apollo missions while on the other side the Soviets only launched the two wildly unsafe Voskhod missions merely to grab space firsts and then the ill-fated Soyuz 1. And let's not talk about what happened after 1969 with NASA's continuation of the Apollo Program, first missions to all the other planets, the space shuttle, etc. - and actually employing women as astronauts instead of only hurriedly sending one into space whenever the Soviets thought the Americans would beat them to a first or second woman in space (those were the only female Soviet cosmonauts to go into space).
Also yes the Russians took extreme risks with life in the space race, but that's not to say the Americans were not pushing the envelope somewhat too. The Saturn 5 launch system and particularly the launar craft would never have been allowed to be 'human safe' without far more testing if created today. The pure oxygen atmosphere particularly was a compromise you could not get away with today.
Koroliev had to insist on quality standards higher than accepted in the Soviet system. He was considered overbearing which is how he was able to get as far as he did.
Knowing the history of the V2 and Wernher von Braun role, it's damning that the USA elevated him to mythical status, wiped clean of his particular role in WW2. I know why it was done, but to the British, he is no man who should be celebrated. I remember sitting in front of our TV in 1969. I didn't really understand what I was watching live. My mother told us to sit still and watch the screen as history was being written, and a new era had begun. I'm glad she forced us to watch. I saw man walk on the moon. I watched Halley's Comet (rather disappointing, dirty snowball). I saw the Challenger disaster live. In the mid 1970s, I remember our teacher wheeling in a large TV. It was the Viking landers transmitting images of Mars. I remember I was in awe as the photos slowly appeared in vertical stripes. This was the first time we had ever viewed a distant planet, and it started an obsession. I now own a modest telescope.
That catastroph in 1960 happened with different rocket, not R-7, but a ballistic missile desighned by Mikhail Yangel on Dnepropetrovsk design bureau "Yuzhnoe" and built in the factory "Yuzhmash".
да,патенты,оборудование и работа немецких инженеров были частью репараций и компенсацией за причинённый ущерб,а сами немецкие инженеры и учёные продолжили работать по специальности вместо случайного трудоустройства ради прокорма семей у себя на родине .
They won that space race. We just kept setting different goals until we could call it a win. 1st to succsefully make it to space. Or wait.. 1st to make it to the moon. Or wait.. 1st to land on the moon.
"Soviet Obsession With NASA" what a big ego you have XD Except that the USSR was catching up and the Russians were more advanced. Especially that emotional introduction, don't forget how many American crews didn't survive NASA missions. During such missions about 21 people died, of which as many as 15 in US space missions... P.S. it's funny that you mourn 1 animal, a dog Laika, and when the Americans killed the monkeys, you completely change your tone to "it happened, but technology and other excuses" LOL
Don't Forget how many rockets the Americans or even Musk lost before they started flying - and yet the Russians did it in the past when the technology wasn't that advanced. Add to that the fact that for a long time the US used the Russian space program to deliver a manned mission to a near-orbital station
@@Ilumin2000it's almost like Elon musk is creating brand new ships, which are running on completely new engines with different fuel, causing very little emissions instead of the classic booster rockets. Almost as if they're creating brand new tech, not failing at doing something that had already been done..
О каких "огромных ресурсах империи" в руках Королёва речь если весь бюджет СССР равнялся бюджету только одной космической отрасли в США? СССР всегда был догоняющим из-за недофинансирования, эта практичность и экономия стали особенностью советской инженерной школы.
In my head, that shocked look on the monkey is happening in the moments that massive rocket engines are being fired under the monkey, and it starts to feel multiple G's. While sad for the monkeys fate, its still one of the funniest things I've ever heard of
After that the US used a gorilla offspring for to win the gymnastic in some of the olympic for to kill out the human race capacity made by Nadia Comanec
I love this channel but so far this is one of the most biased videos I've seen here. Could you please refrain from political bias and to concentrate on the topic of space, please ? Is it too much to ask ?
Yeah, but no. Laika was indeed a stray from the streets of Moscow - along with a couple of dozen other dogs that the Soviet rocket programme had collected to use as test subjects. They also used mice and rats, but didn't give them names. Sputnik 2 was not cobbled together in just four weeks. It had always been viewed as the logical next step for the space programme (assuming that Korolev could secure Krushchev's support for the programme in the first place). Sputnik 2 was in early development while Korolev's team was working on Object D (the originally-intended payload for Sputnik 1, that ended up being launched as Sputnik 3 in January 1958). It was certainly *finished* in a rush, but most or all of the drawing-board work had already been done when Korolev got the go-ahead for Sputnik 2.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The 1950's. When the phrase "I can see your house from here." became a clear threat.
hahahah
ha haha can not even see apollo descent stages from orbit.
@@wildboar7473 Actually, you can. they were all photographed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
@@wildboar7473 🤦♂️
So, do you think the earth is flat too? If so, how are you coping with that 24 hour sun in Antarctica? 🤣
@@xenophagia Coping *FINE!* and You still afraid?
My understanding is that initially Khrushchev had little interest in Sputnik. His primary concern was simp!y developing an ICBM; launching a satellite was Korolev's reward for doing so. Khrushchev only became interested when he saw the West's reaction to the Sputnik launch.
Exactly. Moreover, Sputnik flew by a pure chance: engineers couldn't figure out a thermal protection for reentry of the nuclear warhead, and Korolev asked to use one of the spare rockets to launch hastily-assembled Sputnik-1, because actual first Sputnik also haven't been completed yet. This "actual first Sputnik" known as Sputnik-3.
Exactly! When R-7 development began, Korolev gladly accepted inflated requirements for warhead mass parameters. Because he wanted to build a rocket, capable of launching man to space.
Somewhat similar story repeated with N1 rocket. From start this was a missile to deliver “100mt” retaliation, in case NATO attacks USSR
West had the same interest
Correct. The space scientists had to beg Krushchev for the use of an ICBM.
@@danielnigel6920 no... el interes de Kennedy fue devolver la ciencia aeronautica al terreno de demostracion tecnologica. Por eso impuso una meta alta y definitiva. Por eso dividieron el grupo inicial en uno encargado de ICBM y el otro que se encargaria de las ciencias al servicio de la propaganda. Los cohetes en cada caso son diferentes. Un cohete con gases licuados no sirve para la guerra porque se tarda demasiado tiempo en preparar el lanzamiento. Despues de la explosion del Mariscal Nedelin los rusos entendieron que esos propergoles hipergolicos son debiles y estremadamente peligrosos mientras que los cohetes con hidrogeno y oxigeno liquidos no sirven para la guerra. Pero ya estaban derrotados porque el Saturno V habia volado en 1967 a la perfeccion.
Well, some gaps and errors in the story.
The Soviets got a group of 50 or so German engineers from the V2 program, my grandfather was one of them. They build the Soviet rockets. Study the history of the island village of Gorodomlija on the Seliger lake in central Russia. Sergej Korolev might have been a great engineer himself, but the heavy lifting was done by the German engineers of the "Bureau Göttrup".
My grandfather returned to Germany together with his family, including my mother, in 1953. The 'release document' was signed by the comrades Berija, Molotov and Josef Vissajonovich Tschugaschvili himself...
German engeniers .... a legends of it;s own.!
only engines before RD101 was assisted by germans
@@listener-tt1gw .. the cummunists tell that.
"There is every reason to believe that [German engineers'] contribution to the Russian space program was almost negligible. They were called on to write reports...they were squeezed out like lemons, so to speak. In the end they went home without being informed about what went on in the classified Russian projects." Wernher Von Braun as quoted by Arthur C Clarke in his book The Promise of Space. The information from the German program certainly would have helped the Soviet Union, but they built the rockets themselves (mostly after 1953), using teams from design bureaus that had been among the world leaders in rocketry in the mid 1930s.
The real missing details in the story are about how much of the corner cutting of the Soviet program was a result of the fundamentally smaller economy and especially industrial base, of the Soviet Union. And how competing design bureaus split what resources were available in ways that made things even worse. Few people know that the first living beings to ever travel beyond the Moon and return safely to Earth were the animals on the Zond 5 mission, launched atop a Proton rocket. Had the Soviet politicians been knowledgeable enough to force the engineers to focus on the best path, and more concerned with the goals of the country as a whole rather than political infighting, four Proton launches would have had a good chance of launching an upgraded Zond capsule, a lunar lander, and a pair of kick stages to send them to the moon before the Americans. Or at least closely enough behind them that America couldn't claim the space race was over with their victory.
The personnel and hardware from the Nazi weapons program were not "stolen" by the Americans and Soviets They were essentially spoils of war, going to the victors thereof.
One small criticism: It is flatly impossible for Leonov's body temperature to have risen by anything remotely like "35 degrees Celcius" during the spacewalk.
Normal Human body Temperature is 98.6 F or about 37C.
Another 35 C would have Leonov at 72C, or 161 F - like a cup of tea too hot to drink , or even hold for long.
Humans die if body temp exceeds about 109F, or 43C.
TAssuminhg this is just a case of a missing decimal point, the correct figure for Leonov's temp increase might be 3.5 C, or 6.3 F, putting him at around 105F - a very serious state of affairs, but survivable for a fit young man.
No gurantee of death at 109, but it is likely. People have survived excursions up to 115 ish. At 108 everyone can survive, not that they'll feel great though haha
@@DarkAttack14 115 Celsius would mean that the body would be "self-roasting" The boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius. Would that the United States would join most of the rest of the world in the realm of measurement.
@@acanuck1679 Nope 212 F. We would but, in case you haven't noticed, we are rebels at heart ! - -
By the way your firing orders are backwards also. LOL
@@DarkAttack14 that 115 ish is external temperature and recorded by something likely hotter than the ambient air, 115 body temp and your almost insta dead dude
This channel is interesting but every video plays fast and loose with the facts. I wish they'd get their research together.
To be fair,NASA was a bit reckless too. And 3 astronauts paid with their lives when a fire consumed their capsule during a ground test on Jan.27,1967. It was only after that sobering experience that NASA adopted a more careful approach to the space race. Even so,Apollo 11 had some close calls.
Put the blame in the contractor rather than NASA. NASA promised a bonus if the capsule was delivered ahead of schedule, which was achieved. However, the post-fire investigation found shoddy work on the contractor's part. As I understand it NASA did not pay the bonus.
Filling a damn capsule with pure oxygen was stupid
Thanks
It wasn’t without reason, oxygen makes up 20% of air. Thus filling the capsule with 100% oxygen enables them to only pressurize it to .2 atm during flight, putting less stress on the mechanical systems and space suits. Unfortunately it’s very dangerous with fire.
Unfortunately humanity has a propensity to need to touch fire to learn that it is hot. Though often the worst tragedies in history can be said to have prevented an even greater tragedy had humanity not learned its lesson.
Okay SR, forgive my bluntness here. I'm a loving, devoted subscriber to your channel. However, the title of the episode says one thing while the content is something else entirely. In the episode, there is near-zero insight on the Soviet space program or anyone associated with it having any obsession with NASA at all. Quite the opposite, apparently. But what the content DOES contain is more bothersome. It's just boilerplate history. It sounds as if someone opened up an AI bot and said "write a script describing the space race." It objectively does to anyone listening to it. As such, this stops being worthwhile.
согласен, нам нужны даты,имена,детали ,самые мелочи,создающие атмосферу той эпохи,а не простой общий пересказ "газетных заголовков" для скучающих обывателей без базовых знаний по теме ролика.
I was more surprised about the statement : « stole the technology of the Nazi’s » really stole. What about used it or took it?
How many lives did the Nazi’s steal, especially Werner Von Braun who benefited from cheap labor!
I disagree. I think it can be inferred that without the threat of losing to NASA and the capitalists, the soviets might have been more careful and measured with their testing
Yea this is full of errors and nonsense, as soon as he said "...started the same way as the American space program, by stealing intellectual property from the (Germans)..." I just shut it off right there.
The fact is it was the Germans who "stole intellectual property" from the US for their rocket program, and Von Braun himself admitted after the war that without that stolen intellectual property from Dr Robert Goddard he'd never have gotten a rocket off the ground before the war ended.
A German spy network in the US had been intercepting the results from Goddard's work in the form of reports he was sending to Universities, some were showing up opened and some even came up missing, since Goddard wasn't doing work for the government the FBI wasn't alerted to investigate what was going on, the military at the time was being run by a bunch of bone heads who just didn't "get it" about rocketry in the 30's.
Modern science credits Goddard with "ushering in the age of space travel" in March of 1926 with the launch of his first successful liquid fueled rocket, liquid fueled throttlable engine's mounted on gimbals for direction control, turbo pumps for fuel, gyro stabilization and others were things Goddard had patented when Von Braun was in high school, his rocket was basically a great big government funded copy of what Goddard had already developed by the mid 30's, it's just that nobody paid any attention to Goddard and he didn't receive government funding or support, that came from the Guggenheim Foundation and various universities, there's even the famous story about when US Army intelligence personnel were interrogating German rocket scientists after the war and one thought they were playing mind games with him, in a fit of frustration he blurted out "Why are you asking us these questions? Surely your own Dr Goddard has the answers to them.", but of course the Army interrogators had never heard of Goddard which astounded the Germans because to them he was the number one rocket scientist.
The narrative that Von Braun was the leading rocket scientist and America learned everything from him is History Channel nonsense, aside from Goddard there was Reaction Motors Incorporated, a US company who pioneered many things involving rockets during the 1930's including "regenerative cooling", it's the process of circulating liquid fuel and oxygen through passages wrapped around the engine bells, without it space travel isn't possible as engines can't be burned long enough to achieve orbit without the engine bells burning up, Reaction Motors Incorporated patented that process in 1936, another American first, Scott Crossfield the famous X-15 pilot noted in an interview that before Von Braun and his crew working at the Army's Redstone Arsenal got their first rocket off the ground the X plane program already had over 50 successful flights using Reaction Motors Incorporated's engines in their aiaircraft.
It's not even particularly accurate, it completely omits the entire relationship between the soviet space program and missile program. Ex:The entire reason the program was so dangerous was that the space group had little independent funding or political power beyond their diminishing contributions to the missile program.
Whatever you can say about the Soviets' disregard for safety, you have to admire the courage and wits of the early cosmonauts. The American astronauts were equally talented and courageous. I suspect that, had these men been able to meet secretly, they would have had much in common.
He is a yankee propagandist.
Great point! As I'm sure they do on the International Space Station today, even though the two countries are militarily enemies just like back then.
@@kerrybigkans False. There are presently several cosmonauts on the ISS.
@@ontheruntonowhere they can’t just bail, they’re responsible for certain functions. Guess I should’ve said,”they’ve committed to bailing in the very near future.” You RUclips fact checkers most definitely have better shit to do than an incorrectly worded statement. Fuck off :)
@@kerrybigkans Maybe you should look up the definitions of 'recently' and 'after' because one refers to the past and the other to the future. Your two claims are diametrically opposed in meaning. Regardless, you're still wrong. Russia has indicated it will likely continue to participate until 2028, when its planned independent station is scheduled to be operational (which I highly doubt because of the economic and demographic fallout from their misadventure in Ukraine).
The Soviet Moon missions were to have a crew of two Cosmonauts, not three. The early versions of the Soyuz couldn’t accommodate three Cosmonauts in pressure suits. It could only accommodate two. They would have to depressurize the Soyuz and have a Cosmonaut spacewalk to the LK lunar lander. The lack of pressure suits led to the death of the Soyuz 11 three man crew.
Why the USSR lost the space race? Korolev died. The chief designers who took over after him were competent engineers but they could not steer their lunar program through the one thing that was arguably more difficult than the depths of space, namely the Soviet bureaucracy. Alexei Leonov, in the splendid autobiography he co-wrote with David Scott, essentially says as much. Korolev doesn't have all the ill health effects of years in Stalin's camps, and bad habits of smoking and drinking the history of the space race could have been very different. Nevertheless, a huge tip of the hat to both the Astronauts and Cosmonauts who were the first men to go to the stars. Here's to a restoration of peace so that humanity may return to the moon, and go beyond.
LOL the russians knew it was impossible to go to the moon.
@@FourthWayRanch then why did they send several unmanned probes there? Why did they spend billions of roubles trying to get there? They had the technology for it, but after Korolev died they didn't have anyone to steer a very expensive program through the Soviet bureaucracy
@@midwestguy1983 The Russians won. They got there first. You can’t change the terms of the bet after you lose. First man in space. They did that. Nobody likes a bad loser
The Soviets didn’t lose the space race. They had tremendous early success that exceeded expectations and broke the stereotype of Russia being backward. Then the USA put in place the leadership necessary to leverage their technological advantages to break the stereotype of being soft and unfocused, and unable to marshal such resources in peacetime. Both countries had tremendous victories and successfully avoided unleashing Armageddon, our greatest collective victory in the space race
@@FourthWayRanchthe percentage of people that believe NASA put a man on the moon is higher in Russia today than it is in the US. The economic inequality in the US has nothing on the intellectual inequality. The same country that put a man on the moon can no longer educate its own people with the foundation to understand how it was done. There is an entire subset of the population that proudly states they know less about the world than humans that were incapable of basic agriculture. I'm pretty certain this number would be lower if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed. In the words of Bane to Batman..."Victory has defeated you."
The USSR lost the moon race. They have a great deal to be proud of with their space program and adventurous spirit.
if US landed on the moon, which would mean that we also trust in Nixon 😂
The USSR was at least 10 or 15 years before the US already in the SPACE !
@@eng3d we did land
Sorry to break it down to you. The Russians never wanted to bring people onto the moon. They just became the 1st to ever fly to space. 1st ever to land to the moon (not people, but probe). 1st ever to land on ...
The US was so embarrassed, that they tried so hard to send people to the moon, just to claim viktory (in something the Soviet never wanted to do).
Yet, some naive people still believe, the US won the space race (sorry, but nope). Good job to the US's media and Hollywood teams.
@@eng3d Richard Nixon had nothing to do with Apollo.
The one major thing not mentioned is that the entire Soviet space program was done in complete secrecy. They only announced their successes (except for one manned flight). All failures were kept secret. The US space program proceeded completely in the open. It was a careful methodical program where safety was paramount for the astronauts. I know everyone is going to say "What about Apollo 1?" . Yes safety was out the window on that one but that changed over night. The entire program was changed with regard to safety after those deaths. BTW All safety rules are written in blood!
You always think that crew safety was priority for US. But Russians had launch escape system on Soyuz while US had nothing on Space Shuttle even after its 1st failure. Blood did not write anything there. And there were moon missions with no backup whatsoever, while USSR's plan was to send backup spacecraft to the moon before any crewed mission. Your comment is just a cope. Russians did not have fatal accidents since 1971.
@@DamirAsanov No, yours is cope. Large, multi decked space *ships* can no more have launch escape systems than airliners can have ejection seats. Russia will probably never build such ships but if it ever does, it will have to accept the same fact.
alah la alah....!
But the Ussr did build similar ships. Buran
@@jobalisk6649 Good point, even though it did only fly once, unmanned.
Considering the content, the video should have instead been entitled NASA’s fascination with the Soviets.
I enjoyed the video, but it’s not what I expected from the title
And now the title's been changed 🙂
@@Jan_Strzelecki Do you remember what the title used to be?
@@Dorumin "Soviet's fascination with NASA", as alluded to in the OP.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Gotcha, lots of other comments about the misleading title but none calling it out specifically. Thanks
I did not watched because just the title it self told me it is some USUAL US maniach twisting and turn everything to the the US which make me through up by now. when you know the truths... SO PERVERT OF THEM
but I agree with you even if I did not watched that it is the NASA which is fascinated and interested to lear from the Russians .
They try everything for to get near to the Russian but THANKS GOOD the Russians helped them for to go and play in the space with the international (?) space craft but they are building their own for a MAN and MANKIND.
I've always liked how both the US and the Soviets were willing to congratulate each other on the breakthroughs they achieved, and expressing sympathy during the related tragedies. It says quite a bit about the class of the leaders of the time. It really embodies that each side wanted to win by their own victories and not the other's failures. "You don't get taller when others fall down"
I remember that our astronaut had the same spacesuit problem during the US Gemini space walk.
The US used pure oxygen at 3 psi, the Soviets used air at 15 psi. The lower pressure of the US system reduced the amount of work the astronauts had to do, compared to the Cosmonauts.
@@brianboye8025 No. The American astronaut was able to easily return to the capsule and take his seat inside.
R.I.P Laika 🫡
Yeah, poor little thing. It was bad enough that she was going to have to be euthanized, but to instead die of overheating is just tragic. She looked like a very cute and friendly pup. I understand that, the night before her flight, one of the engineers took her home and let her play with his children and spend time with a family. At least she got that.
Gagarin wouldn't have been pulverised during landing in Vostok 1 had he not ejected. He might have been injured though, because Vostok had no braking rockets, as Soyuz and Shenzhou do.
If you know much about Apollo, it's less that the Americans were responsible and more that they were slightly less irresponsible than the Soviets and a bit more lucky.
And a lot more money.
Wonder if they had as many deadly accidents and walkouts ?
@@wildboar7473 apollo 1, apollo 13, challenger, etc
One thing you can say about the Soviets. much of their technology, they earned it the old fashioned way ! They stole it.
@@nichijoufan ? THEY = SOVIETS talking about Main Players like Astronauts or Heads, not rocket tests.
#1 "irresponsible" ....
#13 unlucky (cult) 13 just cancelled Landing. (People already bored)
Challenger is way latter, no racing.
"Luck had truly run out which is inevitable when you take such a reckless path to success."
It's hard to write a line that captures so much. Well done!
How can you say the Soviet Union lost ?
And the USA won except for the USA going to the moon it lost in every other thing 1st in space man/women, satelite to moon / Venus/ Space , space station etc
Soviet Union or Russians always screwed themselves because of they're delusional greedy leaders. It was a waste of money to go to Venus there was no value in it at all. Should've concentrated on going to Mars instead.
The US built the space station Russia was just used as a taxi
I love how the soviets got actual data from Venus, that planet is dangerous.
Yeah, for some reason Americans just unilaterally decided that the Moon landing was the end goal of the Space Race. Probably because that event makes for a good propaganda. Flag on the Moon, whooooo!
Being first is irrelevant when your opponent replicates your accomplishments quickly and do it several times. Being first matters not if you fail to exploit the fact you’re first.
This episode sounds a tad bit bias against the soviets
Yup. As if USA and NASA NEVER killed anyone or did things secretly that would be criticised if known to the general public. 😂
I'm mean, Russia is problematic asf but this is totally USA propaganda.
Space Race channel, who is hurting you to come up with these scripts? 😂
Its also factual wrong: Kruschev did not realize the potential of sputnik before US began to fear it.
Because it's propaganda
@@kirillperov3843 I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here lol
That's the reason it randomly showed up in our recommendations.
The Vostok at 11:33 looks like it was built out of LEGO pieces. That’s kind of neat actually.
This site nicked it from Airfix. Of course they 'forgot' to mention the late Roy Cross
Well, Soviet space program recklessly took lifes of one dog and four cosmonauts (Komarov and later Dobrovolskiy, Patsaev and Volkov on Soyuz-11).
NASA very carefully took the lives of 17 astronauts (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia) and who know how many monkeys.
What about the soviet N1 rocket that exploded on the launch pad killing over 100 people? Or shall we just ignore that.
Oh and that out of control Chinese rocket that crashed onto a village killing hundreds of innocent citizens. Communism sucks
People aren't big on facts that don't support their propaganda
@@YankeeCommie true, but in defence of the video, they were talking about the space race, which was over by the time the space shuttles flew & blew up.
@@IblameBlame, over? Are you sure? Different sources point different dates on the end of space race - from 1975 to 1993, but I ain't sure if it ever ended.
You forgot the 50 some deaths from the soyuz explosion. But nice try to spin it.
14:17 "a lunar lander with a crew of three men aboard". No, the Soyuz 7K-LOK (the equivalent to the Apollo CSM) only had room for two. One would stay in the capsule and the lander the "LK", being a lot smaller than the Apollo LM could only carry one cosmonaut.
I have seen sources that claim the parachute pre-heaters lacked the power they needed due to the failed solar panel. As a result the parachutes came out as what some have called "blocks of ice" and could not open.
It might have been in the old "Quest" journal where I read that surface roughness of the container and lack of tapering to its sides contributed to the failure.
A4 Rocket. Vergeltungswaffe 2 (V2) was the name of the weapon system
There was actually some people that pushed back against putting an American flag on the moon. Some felt putting it up took away from it being something done for humanity and not simply Americans. It wasn't just the nature of the space race that led to the flag being used. It was done in response to the Kruzchev statement that was made when the Soviets were able to orbit the moon, "From now on, Americans sleep under a Soviet moon."
and STILL DO IT
Technically the space race didn't end. Though most would have thought the Russians would get the silver. It's obvious the Chinese will end up with it now. The big question is "will Russia even medal?" Think about that for a second. A country that didn't even have a space program when the US walked on the moon was able to build a space program from scratch, and come from behind to beat Russia for the silver. And I promise you the US wants the Russians to pull it together and become the Russia that Challenged America. You were our only rival, and you guys are better than losing to Chinese clowns
Claiming the US won the space race is like claiming you've won the 100m by extending the finish line mid-race to the point where you eventually pass your rival. No shame in saying the Russians got there first.
But that was the point. The US politicians were intent on proving their superiority. If it meant changing the end goal, so be it.
The reason the Soviet R7 was first to Orbit and is still used today with improvements from the original is because at the time the Soviet Nukes were a lot heavier than the US weapons and needed that lifting capability. US weapons were and still are compact and lighter and didn't need that amount of thrust to get to orbit just get to their targets. Eventually the US did use the Atlas and Titan ICBMs modified for the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft. Just look how small in comparison the SpaceX Falcons are and they are re-useable!
Layka died like a hero. US also did the same with chimp, who also died like a hero
hero or just animal cruelty
@@aaaaa5272 they are heroes, they opened the door to safe human space flights
@@Merku808 Sure, they totally volunteered to do that...
Ham, the chimpanzee that the US shot into space was recovered safely from space and died January 19, 1983. There was never any intention for the Soviets to recover Liaka. The dog would die in space.
Animals can't be heroes when they have no choice. They were the subjects of experiments.
One thing missing from the US side of the space race was the testing of the X15 rocket plane rising to the edge of space. Some of these pilots got their astronaut wings. This was going on from 1957 on.
Great stuff! You should make a video about NASA's accidents next, like the 1967 Apollo 1 disaster where three American astronauts were rapidly burned to death by an accidental fire breaking out in the command capsule, causing the astronauts to burn alive while desperately trying to escape the locked capsule. Maybe our hastiness to beat the Soviets to space caused the deaths of Grissom, White, and Chaffee. The space race went two ways, and the highly decorated pilots who led humanities first attempts into space knew full well that they were going into territory that no living being is meant to survive. The engineering challenges faced both then and now are always going to be a possibility in a place where one faulty component, one miscalculation, or one ill-conceived test make the difference between life and death. The Soviets were no less heartless than LBJ or Nixon.
It's telling that you don't even know who was president when the Apollo 1 fire happened. In contrast with the USSR, NASA was extremely deliberate during the race to the moon, and Republicans hadn't yet begun to dismantle the US education system, so we had extremely well-educated and talented engineers and contractors methodically solving problems. The fire was a tragedy which in hindsight should have been foreseen, but it wasn't the result of haste or political pressure. Additionally, the astronauts themselves were very involved in the engineering, construction, safety and testing of the vehicles, as well as providing input into the flight plans. They were also celebrities which NASA would be stupid to 'heartlessly' waste. Get your facts straight before posting verifiable misinformation.
@@ontheruntonowhere NASA was extremely deliberate during the race to the moon? You have never researched the Soviets plan to the moon right? Soviets plan was to send a backup spacecraft to the moon before crewed mission. Which makes them more deliberate about returning crew back.
@@DamirAsanov I am very familiar with the moon race, and with the space programs of the various countries. Russians have never put individual humans at the forefront, which is why their program was conducted in secrecy from the public, and their launches only publicized if they were successful. The Russians couldn't even get one ship to the moon, let alone two. If they had, it's quite likely both would have broken. NASA was able to go to the moon many times because it is deliberate and able to solve the challenges of such missions. If Russia was deliberate, they would have made it to the moon. And back. But instead Russia hasn't ever been out of LEO because it's always been a backwards-ass country run by dictators.
Don't forget the Challenger disaster, where seven people died unnecessarily because of NASA's leadership.
@@Armata6348 We're talking about the moon race and whether either country traded vehicle or crew safety for politics. Challenger was a terrible tragedy, not going to deny it. The launch director should have listened to those who were warning of potential catastrophic failure of the o-rings due to freezing temperatures. But it was an accident of hubris, not one of political expediency, since Russia was barely a player by 1986.
This is quite an eye-opener. One correction: the R-7 booster was just barely capable of putting one of the Soviet nuclear weapons on the closests parts of the US, not all of it. However, as those bombs were quite heavy, a sizable payload could instead be placed in orbit.
I wouldn't say the R-7 had 5 rocket engines, it had 5 modules all of which were ignited at launch for simplicity. 4 modules being discarded when exhausted of fuel so the final module could accelerate the smaller mass in the near vacuum.
Each module was essentially Four V2 rocket engines all being fed by one fuel-pump and from one larger set of tanks. They are only considered to be one engine because they used the same fuel-pump, the fuel pump also fed into some smaller rocket engines that were used to control the direction of the rocket.
This was all very simple tech, essentially WW2 era technology well suited to mass production but it's a technological dead end. This couldn't be scaled up any more than it already was.
Well, the thing is, that's the definition of a rocket engine. It's based on the fuel pumps. All of the combustion chambers and nozzles being fed by a single fuel pump are defined to be a single engine. I don't know why, I wasn't there when that technical decision was made, but that is how it is. Thus, all of the combustion chambers and nozzles, including the vernier thrusters, on each booster of an R-7 rocket are a single engine, and the rocket has only five. If you want it otherwise, you must argue with the dictionary.
@@odysseusrex5908 It can't be defined that way as you CAN have a rocket engine without a fuel pump, you can just have the pressure feed passively from pressurized tanks.
A rocket engine is based on the combustion chamber. That is the most fundamental component.
The pump is not really the tricky part. The V2 (A4) rocket's pump was an off-the-shelf component, it was just used for pumping water for fire engines.
Yes, the pump is more integral than the pump of some other engine like a piston gasoline engine, but it's misleading to act like this was just 5 "engines" without specifying that many combustion chambers were multiplied.
By analogy this is like treating a vehicle that has two separate piston engines that can operate independently both power a common crankshaft of a single gearbox and then decide that it's a single "engine" for sharing the same gearbox.
Obviously it makes sense to have a single gearbox, you don't need two smaller gearboxes, one for each engine. Just as it makes sense to have one giant pump to feed multiple combustion chambers rather than multiple smaller pumps one for each chamber.
I find it interesting that each combustion chamber of the R7 was almost identical size to the A4 rocket's single combustion chamber and also almost identical thrust per nozzle. Though using RP1 rather than Ethanol.
It's so interesting to notice the nuances in the meaning of words depending on who the subject is, for example, Soviets or Russians are incompetent,thieves, have no regard for safety, etc, but if the subject is American the preferred words would be, adventurous, bold, focused and so on. Never ceases to amaze me...
The tortoise and the hair dates back far further than the 16th century. It is one of Aesop's fables, so it goes back at least to the 6th century BC.
can you guys make a video about how nasa was formed, would be interesting
Started out as NACA
@@MrEh5 ----Psst!, I think our Comrade is looking for how to start a Super NASA of the people's republic for peace, and absolutely not... a non-science exploita/ er, I mean, go USA!
That would be TOO EMBARESSING ! not for the US people but for the top.
its not 'claimed' that the soviets appropriated some german rocket scientists, they 100% did according to numerous reliable primary and secondary sources
You are a hard core fascist!! (Sarc.)
As they new they were losing the war the majority opted to flee west where they new they’d be better treated by the allies.. and hence the USA nabbed them from the British
Just like the US with operation Paperclip.
@@ShokkuKyushu yes, both sides used german rocket scientsts. The west used golden handcuffs, and the soviets used regular handcuffs.
Seriously, true story, the Soviets had a whole bunch of german scientsts working for them in eastern germany, and the soviets got them blind drunk one night and then kidnapped them back to the soviet union as they were worried about them (not unreasonably) scurrying off to the western sectors as relations got worse and worse between the soviets and the allies.
I think they even got more of them than the US, but the best ones were already picked
I have read that Komarov placed his spacecraft into a spin to stabilize it during reentry because, as you point out, his attitude control system was impaired. When the chute deployed the shroud lines spun up and twisted, making full opening of the parachute impossible.
I believe one of the James Burke episodes about Apollo has an interview with James Webb and his unease with the Apollo 8 mission. After the Apollo 1 tragedy, NASA was definitely taking safety more into account. The sudden change of mission objectives for Apollo 8 was something that he felt uncomfortable with because it strayed from that safer path.
Merry Christmas! Hope you have a lovely day🌲🌲
This video (or is it ChatGPT?) misses a lot of important things. For example, the first Soviet satellite was meant to be the one that finally went up as Sputnik 3, and was advertised well beforehand as part of the International Geophysical Year. It wasn't ready early enough for when the R-7 was ready to launch a satellite, so the simple Sputnik 1 was quickly built. The propaganda rushed details about Sputnik-2 and Laika of course are correct. The Nedelin catastrophe involved a purely military missile. As for Vostok, the problem was not that "the parachutes could not handle the speed", but that the speed of descent of the capsule under parachutes was too high on landing on hard ground for the cosmonaut not to be injured or killed (true to this day), which is why Voskhod, Soyuz, New Shepard crew capsule and Starliner used/use rockets or airbags to cushion the landing. Water landings are more tolerable and so Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Crew Dragon did/do not fire retro-rockets just before landing (though Crew Dragon has the necessary rockets and probably can be adapted for emergency landing on solid ground, which was the original design goal).
The video does not go beyond the 1960's. After the tragedies of Soyuz 1 in 1967 and of Soyuz 11 in 1971, the Soviets/Russians have not lost any more cosmonauts in spaceflight, and their safety systems have functioned well despite some truly hairy episodes. The US has lost many more, and the Shuttle had no launch escape system. Curiously, Elon Musk uses the same design and testing philosophy as Korolev's, and many of his solutions resemble those of Korolev more than those previously associated with NASA. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are assembled and integrated horizontally, whereas American launch systems and spacecraft have previously been integrated vertically. The diameter of Falcon stages is governed by highway clearances, and that of Soyuz stages is governed by railway clearances. The design and construction of Super Heavy appears to have more in common with N-1 than Saturn 5, except for vertical assembly and handling rather than horizontal.
Tht was a long winded cope.
And there were even more details to be incorrect! In all I was pretty much disappointed from this "report". What drove me nuts as well, was the potpourri of haphazardly chosen snippets of films - often completely unrelated with the story told... NOT a prize winner for good spaceflight reporting! Michael B. Butter, Radebeul, Germany
For the Shuttle, that was in part due to just how much they flew it. Think that to this day, more than half of the people that went to space did so on the Shuttle
I have the audio running as I scroll the comments but half way through it and I think I'll call it quits -- just read the comments. Less cringing that way. But a reasonably good primer for younger people who couldn't put something similar together just working from memory.
"the Shuttle had no launch escape system" Some history: The original budget had a bit over $300 million in it for "escape rocket" development. At that point, NASA had been given the go-ahead for a 40k-lb payload 60-ft bay partly of fully reusable system of some sort, and got all the money they had asked for (~ $6 billion). It was left to them as to what they built, and things like an Orbiter atop a Saturn V first stage were still under consideration for a brief time after the go-ahead.
Not very many months in, the program manager saw that estimates were ballooning fast, and so moved the escape rocket money into Contingency (which had started out as a reasonable 20% of the budget total). Casper "Cap the Knife" Weinberger at the White House had already cautioned NASA that they shouldn't expect to get any more money down the line than what Congress had already approved (for use over multiple years, of course), so that presumably had the program manager thinking proactively when it came to staying within the budget.
The other thing he weighed might have been the SAIC study which estimated STS mission losses as ~1 in 1000 missions IIRC. That was a very bottom-up look at all the things which had historically gone wrong with solid-fuel strap-on boosters etc, but was of course mum on things like RCC integrity subject to being struck by foam insulation.
@marcmcreynolds2827 For RCC specifically, they thought that since the military looked at it as a candidate tank armor, it ought to be sufficiently tough. Unfortunately, the results of said tests were classified - and they spelled out that while it is fairly strong, it can be easily penetrated.
Projects in the Soviet Union were schedule driven. They would deliver on time and hope it worked.
I didn’t make get the obsession Soviets with NASA.
More like US with Soviet spacing.
IT WAS OPPOSIT and STILL.... these are US LIES and TWISTING IT UNTILL IT GET SO COMPLICATED THAT THEY CONTINUE TO BRAINWASH THEIR CITIZENS>
HOPE TO LIVE UNTILL THESE DUSTY HELLS DIE OUT FROM THE HUMAN
Funfact: the teaser picture of the Soyuz rocket is from the Aitfix model kit box.
It's pretty harsh on Russian spaceflight safety when I believe the US have lost far more people in space flight then the Russians.
but of some 'reson' they forgot to publishe it.... AS USUAL !
Holy schnike, I learned so much from this video! The craziest was thatt Gagarin had been ejected from his space capsule! I thought he rode it all the way down to the earth. Great vid!
Probably should have mentioned Challenger in there somewhere. That was an American example of image progression overcoming safety concerns that led to seven astronauts dying in one go.
I think the fact that NONE emergency safety improvements such as ejectable and/or reinforced crew cabin were applied to Shuttles(which continued carrying full crews and eventually doomed another one) after the Challenger disaster - even if it would've led to reduced payload weight and size - tells everything we need to know about "reckless Soviets and cautious Americans"
Image progression? I am unfamiliar with that term.
@@odysseusrex5908 Sorry. probably not the best expression. I mean 'self promotion' or 'maintaining a façade'.
Ty for this comrade...pioneering stuff👍🚀
I'm a subscriber....but you need an editor. Look at all these comments noting issues that could have been stated better. The V2/V4 was 'devastatingly effective'? Well, yes and no. The cost to the Germans was roughly the same as the Manhattan Project that yielded the nuclear bomb, which arguably would have been a better idea. It's famous as the only weapons system that killed more people building it than it killed on the receiving end.
The Soviets achieved numerous firsts before the Americans, yet your title suggests it was the Soviets who were obsessed with NASA.
Video can't shut up about the "reckless disregard to safety" of the Soviet space program. Meanwhile:
Number of Soviet or Russian cosmonauts that were killed in space missions: 4
Number of NASA astronauts that were killed in space missions: 17
Number of astronaut victims by space shuttle is 14. 14 out of 17 that means 3 without shuttle. How many cosmonaut deaths are censored?
All space shutle victims died in atmosphere, not in space. By Wiki, there has 3 people dies in space, all cosmonauts.
Compare it to how many flew without failure. You fly more, you crash more.
@HalNordmann
Your logic doesn't seem to be working.
The number of USSR launches is 2,453 (136 emergency launches), the number of US launches is 1,058 (119 emergency launches)
How do you explain this?
@AposTrof-s1t I meant crewed launches. Besides, a lot of those launches are because Soviet satellites were less capable than their US counterparts, and so more of them were needed.
And what do you even mean by "emergency launches" anyway?
The Politbeuro didn't care about the space race until they saw the front page headlines from around the world. For example the when Sputnik went up the only initial coverage in Pravda was a single paragraph tucked away on page 3 it didn't get any serious attention until they saw how the rest of the world reacted and they quickly forgot Kruschev only ever pushed them for something headline grabbing so they did the worlds first spacewalk which very nearly killed the Cosmonought. Kruschev was deposed the next day
Did the Soviets lose the space race?
First artificial satellite, first man in space, first woman in space.
They definitely started out strong, but as the US caught up, their interest and efforts waned. In the late 70s to current date, most of the latest achievements, discoveries, and advancements are done by NASA, ESA, and China. In the late 80s, the Soviet space program effectively ended with their space shuttle, the Buran and their space station Mir, which was taken over by the Russian Federation. The Soviet Union simply did not have the resources to spend on continuing their space program.
Out of the ESA. China, Japan, and other space faring countries, only China has put a space station into orbit, the Tiangong. The other agencies / countries have participated in the International Space Station. Apart from the US, no one else has landed a person on the Moon. If you call the race here, the US won and the Soviet Union lost.
Personally, I don't think the "space race" is over. I do think that the original participants are dropping out having "been there, seen that, done that". Neither the US or Russia wants to dedicate much time, effort, or money into continuing space exploration. Most of the new developments are from the private sector and not so much NASA. A few years back under the Obama administration, NASA was retooled to focus more on Earth studies to combat global climate change. Russia... has other issues on their plate.
In minute 11:33, the image is not from a Voskot. It belongs to a Soyuz capsule. It´s first flight was in 1967
they do this all the time now again on the you tube. They show the russian missle and put that prison striped flag in to or say it is the USA missile.
ELong Musk google and the MAFIA VIDEOS on you tube.
The Nedelin disaster had nothing to do with NASA nor did it have anything to do with the Moon race or even a race to conquer space. It was a test launch of an ICBM to be used in combat should a war break out between the USSR and the US. True, safety procedures were overruled on launch day because of a desire to continue with the launch, and it cost lives. But all you can cite from this is a single wrong decision by one individual in charge, and the very fact that there were safety procedures in the first place tells us that the Soviets in general cared about safety. The Americans cared about safety too but that didn't stop them from overriding the warnings of junior engineers not to launch the Challenger in cold weather in 1986. You could build a similar argument for the installation of a known faulty tank in apollo 13 in a desire to keep to schedule. Ditto for Apollo 1. What I hear in your narrative is a desire to show that the Soviets were characeristically reckless by compiling together all the instances of recklessness you can find. If you're going to go down this path you have to be objective about it and balance this against America's reckless obsession with beating the soviets to the Moon, which also cost lives. You can't say that one side was reckless and the other side exercised measured risk. That's just rewriting history to suit your biases.
found the commie
@@Canraptor Calm down. Americans are every bit as guilty of propaganda, although I do believe we were more deliberate in our space program, which is why we succeeded where the Soviets failed.
No one knew the Apollo 13 oxygen tank was faulty.
@@ontheruntonowhere like where? you sound like this yep here in the video...
@@odysseusrex5908 allthough they were and still in the explanation VERY VERY CAREFUL
Great video
Focusing the central thesis
Nice and neat
First man in space first satellite isnt losing the space race
Yes it is when you as the USSR push the race to two man orbits, a space station and landing on the Moon. The US landing on the Moon ended the space race for both nations and the beginning of cooperation in Earth orbit. So yes, the USSR lost the space race. And the outcome of the N-1 booster shows this.
@michaelsnyder3871 oh got it the objective of the space race wasn't to be the first to put a satellite in orbit ushering in a new era of space study, put a man and woman into space send probes to Venus and give us the very first pictures from Venus it's whatever things the US did first and only what the US did first those were the rules! Gotcha. You got a serious career as white house press secretary with your Simone Biles level of mental gymnastics. I like it buddy.
The U.S.A Nasa moon lander was seen taking test runs over the New Mexico desert. In fact, Socorro, New Mexico police officer Lonnie Zamora saw it land in April 1964. Zamora radioed his police headquarters about seeing a UFO land. Zamora got his rifle and drove closer. He saw two men in spacesuits walking around. They saw Zamora and got back in the lunar lander. They inside their spacecraft lifted off and took off in the direction of Holloman air force base in Almogordo, New Mexico. The lunar lander was also tested at Meteor crater, Arizona to see how it could land on the rugged bumpy lunar surface. BTW, where the lunar lander landed in Socorro, the mayor owned that land. A roadside souvenir gift shop cafe was built there. Today it not only feeds truckers but sells t shirts and other UFO memorabilia.
15:54 wrong. Body temperature cannot rise by 35 degrees celsius without killing you.
Ya, that made no sense.
yeah, the narrative of this video is failing the turing test left and right.
The tortoise and the hare doesn't date back to the 16th century. It dates back to at least the 6th century BC in Aesop's Fables.
Saying the 1st spacewalk was nothing but propaganda by the Soviets is nothing but propaganda by you guys lol
The entire “space race” was fake propaganda.
No, that's inaccurate. Leonov's spacewalk garnered little, if any, actual data, and it was four years before they did another. In contrast, the first American spacewalk a couple of months later was the first in a series of planned EVAs during the Gemini program that gradually developed knowledge and tested capabilities, doing steadily longer and more complex spacewalks. Leonov's EVA was a pure publicity stunt just to "do it first", before the Americans.
@ “space walk” space is fake and gay
@@Jokr_Meta Ah, projecting I see.
@@odysseusrex5908I cannot even imagine the amount of copium you've consumed while making comments under this video
I read about titled Soyuz. The parachute never had a chance to work. They redesigned the system. Previous Soyuz worked because the crew compartment had depressurized.
Poor video. Regarding safety someone can rightly say that NASA also put schedule before safety and paid the price in human lives, 17 of them. And this after the Soviet experience, they should have known better than the Soviets.
Exactly. Launching a space shuttle in cold weather it was not designed for certainly wasn't reckless disregard for human lives because muh democracy 🙄🙄
Most of the US lost of life was due to accepting a design, the Shuttle, which the designer considered would have a 5% loss rate. Additionally the Winner of the Solid Fuel Boosters was Aerojet. This was overridden by a NASA employee who came from Salt Lake City. Morton Thiokol had to use a segmented solid boosters to fit into railway loading gauges.
first satellite, first animals in orbit, first human in orbit, first impact on the moon, first soft landing on moon...
Race was over before it began.
Also, remember that 40yrs later, the USA was buying russian rocket engines and seats on russian rockets.
The soviets didn’t even need nukes to reduce our cities to rubble. I invite you to take a train from Baltimore to nyc and describe what you see.
They launched socialism.
@@digitalnomad9985No, you are talking about Communism and a dictatorship.
Social welfare is a different thing altogether. Here are some origins of social welfare:
H.H. Asquith - In the early 1900s, Asquith's Liberal government introduced reforms such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, and pensions for the elderly.
Otto von Bismarck - In the 1880s, Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society in Imperial Germany.
Emperor Ashoka - In the 3rd century BCE, Ashoka of India proposed the idea of a welfare state.
Emperor Wen - In the Han Dynasty, Emperor Wen (203 - 157 BCE) implemented measures similar to modern welfare policies.
Caliph Umar - In the 7th century, Umar introduced a universal social security tax called zakat, which was distributed to the needy.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt - Roosevelt's New Deal established a national welfare system in the United States in 1935.
Whats a train?
The USA destroyed it’s with neoliberal capitalism.
Good that you say that allthough I do not live in the US but it gives me a hope that people like you encourage the young generation for to change their own inviroment to what they wish to live in IS BIGGER ACHIVMENT than live in a bias
In all honesty, space will never be safe. At some stage, you just have to accept the risks and go.
Don't forget that in 1970 the soviets were landing stuff on other planets. Space isn't just about planting flags.
The Soviets remain the only ones to successfully land probes on the surface of Venus, though their Mars landers have all failed.
@sailordolly the soviets where also the first to run a rocket into another planet
They lost the "war" but won most battles.
6:53 Laika does sound like a really pretty name💛. But. DAMN! They did that dog dirty... Why'd they do Laika so dirrrty 😭 Laika didn't come🏠
Sputnik I was a useful scientific tool. By careful analysis of the Döppler shift in the frequency of the electronically beeps, gravitational density anomalies inside of the Earth were measured as a Soviet contribution to the International Geophysical Year (1957). It may not have been part of the plan for Sputnik, but was useful all the same.
Not the best video guys. Reeks of USA propaganda and shame on Russia 😂
The US knitting the ONCE UPON A TIME.... they think the whole world is stupid as they did and not only try with their own people
Yeah, we do lover our Start Trek, don't we?!
News flash, the Soviets won the space race
They didn’t because the video says otherwise. It doesn’t matter they were the first to space, or have a man in orbit and back, or even the first satellite… what matters is who was first to make a landing on the moon that is even til this day being doubted by some. You wouldn’t get it.
@@brokencat2662 Oh I'm sorry, you're right, the Americans clearly got into space first before Yuri Gagarin. Best head down to the mini truth and get that amended
ok so the soviets won the "space race", and murricans won the "moon race". Ok, yet the "moon race" is umpteen times cooler and more significant than your "space race". But then come to find out, actually both soviets and murricans were in only one race, a race to the moon, that everybody then and now calls the Space Race. Which the murricans won. Peace.
The V2 was a Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM).
Soviets: First artificial satellite (Sputnik 1, October 4, 1957)
Soviets: First animal in orbit (Laika, November 3, 1957, aboard Sputnik 2)
Soviets: First human-made object to impact the Moon (Luna 2, September 14, 1959)
Soviets: First photograph of the far side of the Moon (Luna 3, October 7, 1959)
Soviets: First human in space (Yuri Gagarin, April 12, 1961, aboard Vostok 1)
Soviets: First woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, June 16, 1963, aboard Vostok 6)
Soviets: First multi-person crew in space (Voskhod 1, October 12, 1964)
Soviets: First spacewalk (Alexei Leonov, March 18, 1965, aboard Voskhod 2)
Soviets: First spacecraft to soft-land on the Moon (Luna 9, February 3, 1966)
USA: First human to orbit the Moon (Apollo 8, December 21, 1968)
USA: First man on the Moon (Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969, Apollo 11)
THAT'S IT GUYS!! IT WAS ALWAYS A RACE TO THE MOON, haha! it was what we agreed at start!! whoever gets to moon first wins! bye losers!!!
A few years ago I spoke to some Russians my age (baby boomers) about the subject and asked them how they were taught about it at school in the USSR. They all said unanimously that the first man in space was the most important thing in history. From their point of view, that was certainly logical and understandable.
This is a fun game, let's list all the Soviet firsts and ignore all the American ones at that time, such as the first probe to scan another planet (Mariner 2 reaching Venus in 1962), first weather satellite, geocentric satellite, and all kinds of communications and Earth observation systems (photographs, TV transmissions, etc.), first successful Mars probe (Mariner 4 in 1964), and the ten Gemini spacecraft successfully operating between 1964 and 1966 to safely gather the experience needed for the bigger Apollo missions while on the other side the Soviets only launched the two wildly unsafe Voskhod missions merely to grab space firsts and then the ill-fated Soyuz 1. And let's not talk about what happened after 1969 with NASA's continuation of the Apollo Program, first missions to all the other planets, the space shuttle, etc. - and actually employing women as astronauts instead of only hurriedly sending one into space whenever the Soviets thought the Americans would beat them to a first or second woman in space (those were the only female Soviet cosmonauts to go into space).
@@Hypernefelos ok murican
@@EvansdiAl I'm not American. I just happen to know more than two things about space programs.
@@Hypernefelos when the chinese reach mars im sure they'll say they won the space race
Great video 👍
Lost??? I see a lot of wins of the Soviets, do you live in a parallel universe???
You do
@@carlossaraiva8213 I doubet it !
Also yes the Russians took extreme risks with life in the space race, but that's not to say the Americans were not pushing the envelope somewhat too. The Saturn 5 launch system and particularly the launar craft would never have been allowed to be 'human safe' without far more testing if created today. The pure oxygen atmosphere particularly was a compromise you could not get away with today.
Bias is off the chrts here. just be honest!
At an astronomical level
I feel that if the Russians had invested in better quality control they may have been successful in their lunar program.
Koroliev had to insist on quality standards higher than accepted in the Soviet system. He was considered overbearing which is how he was able to get as far as he did.
Knowing the history of the V2 and Wernher von Braun role, it's damning that the USA elevated him to mythical status, wiped clean of his particular role in WW2. I know why it was done, but to the British, he is no man who should be celebrated.
I remember sitting in front of our TV in 1969. I didn't really understand what I was watching live. My mother told us to sit still and watch the screen as history was being written, and a new era had begun. I'm glad she forced us to watch. I saw man walk on the moon. I watched Halley's Comet (rather disappointing, dirty snowball). I saw the Challenger disaster live. In the mid 1970s, I remember our teacher wheeling in a large TV. It was the Viking landers transmitting images of Mars. I remember I was in awe as the photos slowly appeared in vertical stripes. This was the first time we had ever viewed a distant planet, and it started an obsession. I now own a modest telescope.
Try spelling Werner correctly
Ahh yes Barker the literal hotdog in space, two hours slow roasted, first home oven in space serving North Korea's favourite dish.
Dog was the first animal in space. Sorry humans.
Nazis were the first to space. Sorry jews.
That catastroph in 1960 happened with different rocket, not R-7, but a ballistic missile desighned by Mikhail Yangel on Dnepropetrovsk design bureau "Yuzhnoe" and built in the factory "Yuzhmash".
Interesting way of judging a race. Soviets lost the Space Race after being the first to get to space!
They easily won the early legs
There is a big difference between going to space and receving orbatal velocity. V2 could fly mach 6, but orbal velocity is 22.000 km/h
"...by stealing intellectual property from the Nazis". That has to be the most intellectually dishonest description of what occured I've ever heard.
да,патенты,оборудование и работа немецких инженеров были частью репараций и компенсацией за причинённый ущерб,а сами немецкие инженеры и учёные продолжили работать по специальности вместо случайного трудоустройства ради прокорма семей у себя на родине .
Well from a legal standpoint it was "spoils of war", but neither the USA nor the USSR paid any royalties or licensing fees for the use of the patents.
Because Germany killed 20 million Soviets
@@sailordollyAll of which they freely gave the rights to by unconditional surrender.
@@Steven_Edwardsthe scientists who could fled quickly for the allies and away from the soviets
They won that space race. We just kept setting different goals until we could call it a win. 1st to succsefully make it to space. Or wait.. 1st to make it to the moon. Or wait.. 1st to land on the moon.
"Soviet Obsession With NASA" what a big ego you have XD Except that the USSR was catching up and the Russians were more advanced. Especially that emotional introduction, don't forget how many American crews didn't survive NASA missions. During such missions about 21 people died, of which as many as 15 in US space missions...
P.S. it's funny that you mourn 1 animal, a dog Laika, and when the Americans killed the monkeys, you completely change your tone to "it happened, but technology and other excuses" LOL
Don't Forget how many rockets the Americans or even Musk lost before they started flying - and yet the Russians did it in the past when the technology wasn't that advanced.
Add to that the fact that for a long time the US used the Russian space program to deliver a manned mission to a near-orbital station
@@Ilumin2000it's almost like Elon musk is creating brand new ships, which are running on completely new engines with different fuel, causing very little emissions instead of the classic booster rockets. Almost as if they're creating brand new tech, not failing at doing something that had already been done..
Sergei Korelov was the one who convinced Krustiev to adapt the missile to space exploration
О каких "огромных ресурсах империи" в руках Королёва речь если весь бюджет СССР равнялся бюджету только одной космической отрасли в США? СССР всегда был догоняющим из-за недофинансирования, эта практичность и экономия стали особенностью советской инженерной школы.
В США явно было больше ресурсов, страна не была в руинах как европейская часть СССР, где располагались многочисленные промышленные предприятия
@@kirillperov3843 My ex said about the US ; some people has more money than brain.
In my head, that shocked look on the monkey is happening in the moments that massive rocket engines are being fired under the monkey, and it starts to feel multiple G's. While sad for the monkeys fate, its still one of the funniest things I've ever heard of
After that the US used a gorilla offspring for to win the gymnastic in some of the olympic for to kill out the human race capacity made by Nadia Comanec
USA make mistake too so dont be so bias
It seems that our astronaut encountered the same spacesuit problem during the US Gemini spacewalk.
title is stupid - what was that “soviet obsession with nasa” exactly?
they was ahead of nasa first ten years, so where that obsession could come from?
Then why does US have a much bigger space program now you Russians are just full of excuses you blame others for what you actually do
3:33 that lines got me real twitchy about spamming the skip time button… those kind of words in that kind of order…
America is a Constitutional Republic,not a democracy.
Constitutional Republic is a democratic form of government.
The thumbnail is the picture from the box-lid of the Airfix construction kit of the Vostok launcher.
I love this channel but so far this is one of the most biased videos I've seen here. Could you please refrain from political bias and to concentrate on the topic of space, please ? Is it too much to ask ?
Yeah, but no. Laika was indeed a stray from the streets of Moscow - along with a couple of dozen other dogs that the Soviet rocket programme had collected to use as test subjects. They also used mice and rats, but didn't give them names.
Sputnik 2 was not cobbled together in just four weeks. It had always been viewed as the logical next step for the space programme (assuming that Korolev could secure Krushchev's support for the programme in the first place).
Sputnik 2 was in early development while Korolev's team was working on Object D (the originally-intended payload for Sputnik 1, that ended up being launched as Sputnik 3 in January 1958). It was certainly *finished* in a rush, but most or all of the drawing-board work had already been done when Korolev got the go-ahead for Sputnik 2.