Problem: G-forces during launch make it hard for the pilot to reach up and hit the switches. NASA: "Better go back and redesign the entire layout of the interior." Russia: "Give the pilot a stick."
***** NASA spent 0 (ZERO, nil, none) money on the spacepen. It was independently developed by a company from whom nasa and the soviets bought pens from for $2.95 a piece. WOW, $2.95 = millions! NASA used pencils initially too, but the reason neither the soviets or NASA continued using pencils is because if you break the tip, now you have a conductive piece of graphite flying around that can get into small cracks and equipment. Youd think in the age where a simple google search brings the information of the world to your fingertips, moronic assumptions and urban legends would die, but nope.
+Ron Ramen In present time yes but back in 60's soviets used a pencil on the other hand nasa (or contractor it's irrelevant) develop a pressurized pen and it wasn't near as cheap as a pencil back in time
Its literally $2.95 and it was the Fisher Pen company that spent money developing it.They weren't even a contractor (which they would be if NASA paid them to research pressurised pens) NASA literally just bought pens from them. They could have bought them from BIC, or Mead or whoever. You're just splitting hairs.
never realised how failproof this rocket really is. no wonder nobody died in this rocket in the last 40? years lol. huge respect for the engineers designing this masterpiece.
Exactly! If political types had allowed Goddard, Korolev, and von Braun to work cooperatively, Humanity would be a LOT further along in space exploration than the current state of affairs.
I think the rivalry worked superior to cooperation. The ultimate driving force behind the space programs was political rivalry. Having an incredibly highly funded space program was one thing. But a lot of new ideas and different engineering directions were developed by the Russian space program specifically due to their lack of funding and pressure to get things done. The US could have developed closed cycle engines, but chose not to due to initial concerns of them exploding. Russians HAD to develop closed cycle engines to have enough efficiency to bring cost/launch down. In the spirit of cooperation, I very much doubt closed cycle engines would have become available.
Although i loved the Space Shuttle, the Soyuz is a much safer vehicle for getting humans into space, and very reliable. Very interesting to be able to see all that is involved with the launch.
+SanFranciscoBay Yes, I agree that the shuttle was a totally awesome program, but it wasn't logical. Each flight costed around 500 million dollars, while the Soyuz costs 60 million. The Soyuz is also much safer, as if something goes wrong you can shut down the engines. On the shuttle, once the solid rocket fuel is ignited there is no going back for 2 minutes. Personally, I would take the Soyuz,
The good thing about the shuttle was that it was reusable. Or at least somewhat. The orbiter itself was obviously reusable and the solid rocket boosters would be reused, refurbished or recycled. The external tank was left to burn up in the atmosphere after separation. It would considerably lower the costs of each launch if some of the soyuz parts were reused.
KlixTrio _"On the shuttle, once the solid rocket fuel is ignited there is no going back for 2 minutes."_ This is exactly right. I think it was von Braun who said that no human should ever ride a solid booster rocket. With the Space Shuttle, it was a combination of the two so there was at least _some_ room to manoeuvre. The issue came up about ten years ago when NASA proposed a spacecraft powered by a single solid booster (Orion?). It was supposed to be ridden by humans... But you are absolutely right: once that thing is alight, there's no shutting it down. And I agree with your conclusion. I would take the Soyuz too, 100% and for exactly that reason.
The soyuz system is truly an amazing work of engineering. Sometimes we tend to belittle the Russians for their 'robust' designs, but the more i read about the launcher and the capsule, the more i am impressed by its functional elegance. maybe nasa will in the future review their often convoluted and overly complicated systems in favour of a more practical and economical approach.
Would that be the same - how did you put it - "convoluted and overly complicated systems" that took man to the moon while Russia has STILL got to get a human out of Low Earth Orbit?
Some americans think the spacerace was about going to the moon, going to the moon did nothing, russia was first in space, and russia has been to space the most times. Russa is the master of space. Noone cares about going to the moon xD
HAHAHAHAHA.... you're a comedian, right? Getting to the moon WAS the goal, why the hell do you think the Soviet Union pored so much money into it if they didn't want to get there first?
My two favorite Rockets are the Saturn V, and the Soyuz. The V is just a no holds barred monster, while the Soyuz is civilized, and as pretty a rocket as has ever been flown.
Four hours to launch for the Soyuz TMA-13M crew! This video explains the journey ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst and his crewmates are about to take to get to the International Space Station. The Soyuz launch sequence explained #BlueDot
10 ปีที่แล้ว
14-17g, damn for the escape system... wow. I love how quickly they can put up a rocket.
3.5 G is an acceleration of 34.3 ms^-2 (neglecting gravity) which is like accelerating from 0 to 124 km/h in one second. That is a good way to visualise it, I think. 17 G is like accelerating from 0 to 600 km/h in a second, which I find unimaginable.
Part 3 is actually scheduled for release first - the landing. This is planned for November when ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano is due to return to Earth from the ISS.
I see. For now ESA is focussing on the International Space Station & learning more about human exploration in space through the research being done there. There is a robotic mission to Mars in preparation called ExoMars .. Maybe one day there will be a human mission to our nearest neighbour, but that is a long way off.
What are the parts of the Soyuz rocket? What are the stages into orbit? Prepare yourself for the launch of #BlueDot with our video of the Soyuz launch sequence. The Soyuz launch sequence explained Subtitles are available in English, Italian, Russian and German. #Soyuz #EXP40 #astronauts #space
+European Space Agency, ESA Verry informative video, however you didnt mention at what distance the other parts fall on the ground... You only did for the two first : 350km and 500+km... Just wondering :P
In reply to Tristan Valenzuela Salazar (for some reason unable to reply to your post): Part 2 - about the rendezvous and docking is expected to be released in May 2014 to coincide with the launch and docking with ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst. Meanwhile - Part 3 was released last week following the return of ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano see: Soyuz undocking, reentry and landing explained
Soyuz is the space craft. The rocket is an R7 variant. Just like the original rocket developed by Segey Koriolov. Just with all problems of reliability and build quality -solved.
I guess for Earth Orbit it is the greatest. Everytime I see one launch I feel like I have no worries, she is going to end up just where they aimed her. No Drama, Workhorse!
B20C0 Definitely agree. It looked great. I got to see a launch and it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I think the crash of Columbia was the final nail in the coffin.
+Wabawoo The II The only one I'm aware of is Gemini, which didn't have the launch escape tower, but it did have ejection seats that served the same purpose.
+B20C0 Actually, the best looking craft we (as in humans) sent to space would have to be the Buran, looking similar to Space Shuttle but far more advanced, including a safety feature for the crew during launch (ejector seats) and fully automated flight control. The first and last (sigh) flight of the Buran was unmanned.
It's interesting watching this after the escape system proved itself invaluable a second time just over a year ago on Soyuz MS-10, when it saved three astronauts headed to the ISS. Scott Manley's video on the subject, "In Flight Camera Shows Damaged Sensor Destroyed Soyuz Rocket" explains it well.
Well the Americans did adapted the engineering of the horizontal landing Soyuz and it could bare about 5=7 passengers and landing at any airport and than now they have the Soyuz based new american rocket will take off this year which called the DREAM CHASER and will have a mission for to further investigate the black hole
Private enterprise is doing one better there is no need, Elon Musk is building better rockets than the Russians and Americans combined at a 10th of the cost and he can reuse them
@@erzsebetnilsson580 ??? Do you know what DreamChaser is ( DreamChaser is Not a Rocket!!!!)??? Can you make a difference between Nasa Americans and Clv? And what the Hell is a horizontal landing soyuz??? Please inform yourself before you write in Here This lies
no, nasa and csa Astronauts are launched BY the russian space angency. So, it's even more true. Just like on a plane they tell you thanks for choosing XXXXXXXXX airline. That doesn't mean all the passengers work for the airline
they were good with the cargo plane as well which could fit in and transport ship and aeroplane as well inside in it and that engine is design up to date is good.... it was the world larges cargo plane ...but that was showing for the public about the mid or late 70s
the Americans adapted on of the horizontal landing space shuttle for or to their own designer and will now send a long mission with that for get more knowledge of the black hole this year . but the ship is created after the Soyuz (i believe the horizontal landing rocket with can land in any normal airport .... amusing staff of the Russians Soyuz the america version based on the Soyuz is called DREAM CHASER.......
The vast majority, if not all, is burnt up in the atmosphere. Any small remnant that does survive the reentry mostly falls in the ocean, other parts might fall on land and are not recovered.
*_Honestly I'm not a person who watch this documentary /education experiment...but this mission really make me into to space matter.. It's make me feel when I was in schools again...tq for the awesome video & knowledge that I get more about this magnificent world_* ♥♥♥
It's interesting how without much fanfare the Soviets/Russians managed to developed a simple yet reliable program. Almost like the AK46 it was made to last
Fun fact: the 4 strap-on boosters and the white fairing fall back to Earth, about 350 kilometers downrange from Baikonur launchsite, where these are recovered for the metal. Swiss watch-company Werenbach even produces wristwatch dials from the scrap metal of these flown Soyuz launchvehicles... After 2 minutes, the 4 boosters fall back from an altitude of 50 kilometers !
3:43 In case you are wondering those 4 "paddles" are used for steering. (fins on rockets are usually not used for steering only for stability and controlling roll)
4:13 correction: today Soyuz MS-10 has failed and now has made three times crew used an escape system to get out of a failure (don't worry they lived). 7:29 they escaped and the failure happened around there. It also makes all three abilities used. One with the tower, one with the fairings, and one with just the capsule.
Hi ESA, I want to contribute a Vietnamese subtitle and introduced this serie to my fellow but it seems that you don't allow community's subtitle. How can I contribute, does using Amara possible? Thanks.
When the escape system was introduced, I thought about those lattice thingies on the side: Repeat after me, tovarisch, this device of use for craft stabilizing, not for making of the space waffles
I'm totally thriving on aerospace knowledge and it's history, love it! Never seen how Soyuz works before this ever! Is this rocket the same basic one Russia has been using forever? Like since the Sputnik days? If so, wow, what a workhorse! And I'd always wondered how that tailend worked - didn't know those were boosters that separated. Didn't know any of it! Interesting stuff. I'm hooked.
Same basic design principles, but not the same as the first Soyuz of course. Been upgraded several times as technologies advanced. That booster separation is called the Korolev cross. :)
Thanks for info Miki because always curious on that. Just whenever I see Soyuz Russian launch the rocket used never seems to change design-look. I figured it had to AT-LEAST been upgraded since those days!! Always liked it's look. Do those "boosters" all separate at same time? I think I read the fuel is pure "kerosene" is that true? (!?)
Am I the only one that thinks that they were about half an hour late with activating the escape rocket at 4:30? I mean, the whole platform was already on fire.
Thanks for sharing, especially the reentry part has been awaited since I was a kid and wasn't able to imagine the head built up via air traction in my daydreams beeing an Astronaut... Greetz Frank
+TheRenaissanceman65 Actually, they really did. With the exception of the political fuckup of Soyuz 1, almost everything they did with their Cosmonauts was designed for safety. The same cannot be said for some parts of their ICBM development, however (a comment which also applied to the US, particularly their Titan programme).
They did, as John Brown notes - but not just for rockets. Soviet subs were designed to be far more survivable in combat than US subs - they could dive deeper, had far more watertight compartments, and most included one or more escape capsules for the crew. US subs carried much more sophisticated electronics and were generally quieter, but the Soviets really built theirs to survive battle damage and keep their crews alive. Unfortunately, rushed design in other areas (K-19's reactor cooling system, for example) and poor quality control let down what were otherwise excellent designs. Poor QC was also what helped doom the N-1 program. Ironically, to return to subs, the Thresher and Scorpion disasters (coupled with Rickover's... "influence") led to the US being overly cautious, spending more time training crews in nuclear engineering than actually fighting their boats. I've heard US submariners who go on exchange into the RN get quite a shock when they find the situation reversed. In a sense even supposed "death traps" like Soviet tanks were designed with as much effort put into crew survivability as possible. They get an unfair reputation fuelled by exaggeration and fantasy about "human waves". Ultimately, the pattern seems to be that the Soviets dreamt big but were hampered by the realities of their industrial and economic capacity, while the US was far better off in both of those areas but in many cases took a much more conservative design approach.
It's a strange duality of methodology. The Russians were not able to fully test much of their equipment on the ground as the US did. A lot of their final development happened in test flights. However, despite being forced to test components in flight, and having a much lower budget, they still managed to maintain high safety standards. Russia and the US had 2 major spacecraft losses each, but the US lost more people in testing.
Excellent, much more detail than NASA videos, that always seem a bit general - Any more detail on parachute stowage and how it gets from inside beside the astronauts to outside? And a better quality of informed comments below as well!
One small error in the narration: "Fortunately, it was quickly realized that the crew was endangered and the ground controllers activated the escape system." It's true that they recognized the danger and attempted to activate the escape system, but not before the fire had destroyed the wires that would have carried the command. What actually triggered the abort was the tanks of the second stage rupturing, which triggered an automatic abort mode.
wikipedia says escape was launched by radio control by two ground control centers within 5 s, so it took 20 s to coordinate themselves. it wasn't automatic abort, because you cannot construct an automatic system for such an unpredictable situation
you just made that up Indy.. I could say the same about NASA engineers that's from all over the world. NASA is only good for recruiting smart people doesn't matter their nationality
Since it doesn't get any reboost it falls down to earth sooner or later. If you want super realistic space travel than I suggest you use the software in the video description, it is free.
How about explaining the startup sequence for the engines and the lighting using what is really some giant matches? The startup seems to take forever, there is smoke and some fire, then more fire, then even more fire and then it really lights up and gets going.
El cohete más bello, eficaz y duradero de la historia. Y lo seguirá siendo durante mucho tiempo. Mis respetos a los ingenieros que crearon esta obra de arte.
17 G's g-force for 5 seconds during the escape ? Damn !! Imagine that ! With the space suit you must weight at least 100 kgs. So 17 G's would make you feel like you weigh 1.7 tons !! Like a rhino sitting on you for 5 seconds.
Hey ESA, ever heard of anti-aliasing? This thing can make your vids like this less shittier in the Orbiter simulation part. I never played orbiter, but if it doesn't have AA settings, you can force the AA thru the videocard driver.
'Baikonur Cosmodrome' is WAY cooler sounding than 'Cape Canaveral' or the even worse 'Cape Kennedy'. But, being an American Capitalist Tool, I have to go with 'Wallops Island' as the coolest sounding Launch Complex. Anyway, I don't care who or where, I am for all Peaceful Rocket Launchings.
I can't understand a single thing. Falcon Heavy is the first reusable rocket we all know that but Soyuz has been used for all those years but all the times it launches it looks so new. Just like a reusable rocket. Are they building a new Soyuz for every launch? Or they are using the parts which are came back to earth?
Soyuz is an expendable booster, it's so cheap that they don't need to recover it, and the production lines are well established as they've been running for 60 years
Problem: G-forces during launch make it hard for the pilot to reach up and hit the switches.
NASA: "Better go back and redesign the entire layout of the interior."
Russia: "Give the pilot a stick."
lol this is so true. It's the same story with the Pen in space - Nasa spent millions to design a pen - Russians always used a pencil -)))))))))))
***** NASA spent 0 (ZERO, nil, none) money on the spacepen. It was independently developed by a company from whom nasa and the soviets bought pens from for $2.95 a piece. WOW, $2.95 = millions! NASA used pencils initially too, but the reason neither the soviets or NASA continued using pencils is because if you break the tip, now you have a conductive piece of graphite flying around that can get into small cracks and equipment. Youd think in the age where a simple google search brings the information of the world to your fingertips, moronic assumptions and urban legends would die, but nope.
Ron Ramen Stephane Ghiste
USSR used chemical pencils. Without graphite
+Ron Ramen In present time yes but back in 60's soviets used a pencil on the other hand nasa (or contractor it's irrelevant) develop a pressurized pen and it wasn't near as cheap as a pencil back in time
Its literally $2.95 and it was the Fisher Pen company that spent money developing it.They weren't even a contractor (which they would be if NASA paid them to research pressurised pens) NASA literally just bought pens from them. They could have bought them from BIC, or Mead or whoever. You're just splitting hairs.
Well done and very informative! The Soyuz is a classic, workhorse. It's also aesthetically pleasing as well.
MY fav aspect is that Launch CRADLE! ITS SO COOL THE WAY IT OPENS UP LIKE A BIG HAND.
never realised how failproof this rocket really is. no wonder nobody died in this rocket in the last 40? years lol. huge respect for the engineers designing this masterpiece.
Not in the last 40 years, but in the last 47 years, sadly yes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11
Korolev knew his business
Exactly! If political types had allowed Goddard, Korolev, and von Braun to work cooperatively, Humanity would be a LOT further along in space exploration than the current state of affairs.
just the rivalry was driving the progress. After the Cold War, cosmonautics is experiencing stagnation
I think the rivalry worked superior to cooperation. The ultimate driving force behind the space programs was political rivalry.
Having an incredibly highly funded space program was one thing. But a lot of new ideas and different engineering directions were developed by the Russian space program specifically due to their lack of funding and pressure to get things done. The US could have developed closed cycle engines, but chose not to due to initial concerns of them exploding. Russians HAD to develop closed cycle engines to have enough efficiency to bring cost/launch down.
In the spirit of cooperation, I very much doubt closed cycle engines would have become available.
The third stage remains in orbit for a few days. The orbit gradually decays and it eventually burns up on reentering Earth's atmosphere.
i used to know nothing about the soyuz but these videos taught me all about the soyuz
thanks for making this series!
You guys should Make More videos like this!This way Interest in Space will rise.
Although i loved the Space Shuttle, the Soyuz is a much safer vehicle for getting humans into space, and very reliable. Very interesting to be able to see all that is involved with the launch.
+100SteveB. I wonder how hard the landings on the Soyuz are on their bodies? The Space Shuttle landings are very gentle on the Astronauts bodies.
+SanFranciscoBay Yes, I agree that the shuttle was a totally awesome program, but it wasn't logical. Each flight costed around 500 million dollars, while the Soyuz costs 60 million. The Soyuz is also much safer, as if something goes wrong you can shut down the engines. On the shuttle, once the solid rocket fuel is ignited there is no going back for 2 minutes. Personally, I would take the Soyuz,
The good thing about the shuttle was that it was reusable. Or at least somewhat. The orbiter itself was obviously reusable and the solid rocket boosters would be reused, refurbished or recycled. The external tank was left to burn up in the atmosphere after separation.
It would considerably lower the costs of each launch if some of the soyuz parts were reused.
KlixTrio
_"On the shuttle, once the solid rocket fuel is ignited there is no going back for 2 minutes."_
This is exactly right. I think it was von Braun who said that no human should ever ride a solid booster rocket. With the Space Shuttle, it was a combination of the two so there was at least _some_ room to manoeuvre. The issue came up about ten years ago when NASA proposed a spacecraft powered by a single solid booster (Orion?). It was supposed to be ridden by humans... But you are absolutely right: once that thing is alight, there's no shutting it down. And I agree with your conclusion. I would take the Soyuz too, 100% and for exactly that reason.
Actually I'd take new Federatsiya spacecraft aboard the new Angara rocket. To the moon.
The soyuz system is truly an amazing work of engineering. Sometimes we tend to belittle the Russians for their 'robust' designs, but the more i read about the launcher and the capsule, the more i am impressed by its functional elegance. maybe nasa will in the future review their often convoluted and overly complicated systems in favour of a more practical and economical approach.
Would that be the same - how did you put it - "convoluted and overly complicated systems" that took man to the moon while Russia has STILL got to get a human out of Low Earth Orbit?
Warriorking1963
Stanley Kubrick put a man on the Moon...
Yeah... and you're from another planet.
Some americans think the spacerace was about going to the moon, going to the moon did nothing, russia was first in space, and russia has been to space the most times. Russa is the master of space. Noone cares about going to the moon xD
HAHAHAHAHA.... you're a comedian, right?
Getting to the moon WAS the goal, why the hell do you think the Soviet Union pored so much money into it if they didn't want to get there first?
My two favorite Rockets are the Saturn V, and the Soyuz. The V is just a no holds barred monster, while the Soyuz is civilized, and as pretty a rocket as has ever been flown.
Same, but with Energia (and possibly with Buran) as well.
Just wait for dragon 2 on the falcon 9.
@@Anay469 Dragon 2 has been cancelled to focus on BFR :(
@@merc1f485 Dragon 2 is docked with the ISS so much for being cancelled
@@merc1f485 lol
Four hours to launch for the Soyuz TMA-13M crew! This video explains the journey ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst and his crewmates are about to take to get to the International Space Station.
The Soyuz launch sequence explained
#BlueDot
14-17g, damn for the escape system... wow.
I love how quickly they can put up a rocket.
Wow, never knew about the launch escape system.
Mark Peterson US rockets had it, too.
If I remember corectly the blackout/breathing training for Airforce pilots is done using 15G.
Cool vid. Thanx.
3.5 G is an acceleration of 34.3 ms^-2 (neglecting gravity) which is like accelerating from 0 to 124 km/h in one second. That is a good way to visualise it, I think. 17 G is like accelerating from 0 to 600 km/h in a second, which I find unimaginable.
ChunkOfNorris Its like, ull pass out for sure. But, still better than dying.
It must have been.....unpleasant.
Wow thats insane, what a great way to put it in perspective
Part 3 is actually scheduled for release first - the landing. This is planned for November when ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano is due to return to Earth from the ISS.
I see. For now ESA is focussing on the International Space Station & learning more about human exploration in space through the research being done there. There is a robotic mission to Mars in preparation called ExoMars .. Maybe one day there will be a human mission to our nearest neighbour, but that is a long way off.
What are the parts of the Soyuz rocket? What are the stages into orbit? Prepare yourself for the launch of #BlueDot with our video of the Soyuz launch sequence.
The Soyuz launch sequence explained
Subtitles are available in English, Italian, Russian and German.
#Soyuz #EXP40 #astronauts #space
Hello *****, our video on rendezvous and docking will be produced later.
Cool video I enjoyed this :)
No French Sub ...
Very interesting video, thank you very much !
+European Space Agency, ESA Verry informative video, however you didnt mention at what distance the other parts fall on the ground... You only did for the two first : 350km and 500+km...
Just wondering :P
In reply to Tristan Valenzuela Salazar (for some reason unable to reply to your post): Part 2 - about the rendezvous and docking is expected to be released in May 2014 to coincide with the launch and docking with ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst. Meanwhile - Part 3 was released last week following the return of ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano see: Soyuz undocking, reentry and landing explained
Thank you for the info!
I already saw part 3, this is why I was wondering about the release of part 2.
Yes thanks, was also wondering
Any word on part 2?
I really enjoy nice presentations like these
so interesting. I learned a lot and enjoyed the footage immensely. Don't chase the ratings - keep this standard up!
The best explanation i have watched ever about rocket launch.
escape system got proven successful again yesterday!! Good thing! All survived!!
brought tears in ma eyes
And it proved again how safe it is !!
Space shuttle has taken livesin the past but in Soyuz you are safe.
Soyuz it's the best rocket ever...
Soyuz is the space craft. The rocket is an R7 variant. Just like the original rocket developed by Segey Koriolov. Just with all problems of reliability and build quality -solved.
+mowtow90 the rocket could also be called Soyuz.
+mowtow90 the spacecraft they use now is the Soyuz MS on the Soyuz-FG rocket.
I'm
I guess for Earth Orbit it is the greatest. Everytime I see one launch I feel like I have no worries, she is going to end up just where they aimed her. No Drama, Workhorse!
The safety system is brilliant. If that error had occurred on the space shuttle they astronauts would be dead.
B20C0 Definitely agree. It looked great. I got to see a launch and it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
I think the crash of Columbia was the final nail in the coffin.
+Wabawoo The II Even the Mercury missions had a launch escape system.
+Wabawoo The II The only one I'm aware of is Gemini, which didn't have the launch escape tower, but it did have ejection seats that served the same purpose.
Justin Franks t
+B20C0 Actually, the best looking craft we (as in humans) sent to space would have to be the Buran, looking similar to Space Shuttle but far more advanced, including a safety feature for the crew during launch (ejector seats) and fully automated flight control. The first and last (sigh) flight of the Buran was unmanned.
It's interesting watching this after the escape system proved itself invaluable a second time just over a year ago on Soyuz MS-10, when it saved three astronauts headed to the ISS. Scott Manley's video on the subject, "In Flight Camera Shows Damaged Sensor Destroyed Soyuz Rocket" explains it well.
I wish the United States and Russia would work together on building the most beatiful launch vehicle the world has ever known
yes, better go to Mars together than war...
they may already work on it....!
Well the Americans did adapted the engineering of the horizontal landing Soyuz and it could bare about 5=7 passengers and landing at any airport and than now they have the Soyuz based new american rocket will take off this year which called the
DREAM CHASER and will have a mission for to further investigate the black hole
Private enterprise is doing one better there is no need, Elon Musk is building better rockets than the Russians and Americans combined at a 10th of the cost and he can reuse them
@@erzsebetnilsson580 ??? Do you know what DreamChaser is ( DreamChaser is Not a Rocket!!!!)??? Can you make a difference between Nasa Americans and Clv?
And what the Hell is a horizontal landing soyuz??? Please inform yourself before you write in Here This lies
The dude talking should have said, Thank You for choosing the Russian space agency. Have a good flight
roscosmos
Makar Lock Well, NASA and CSA launch from there too. It's an international effort.
no, nasa and csa Astronauts are launched BY the russian space angency. So, it's even more true. Just like on a plane they tell you thanks for choosing XXXXXXXXX airline. That doesn't mean all the passengers work for the airline
Gamingwithsean lmao no the Russian space agency is called Roscosmos
In soviet Russia you thank him for not being disintegrated
Very informative and rigorous content. Thank you ESA!
My huge Respect to the Russian Space Rocket Ingineer!
they were good with the cargo plane as well which could fit in and transport ship and aeroplane as well inside in it and that engine is design up to date is good.... it was the world larges cargo plane ...but that was showing for the public about the mid or late 70s
the Americans adapted on of the horizontal landing space shuttle for or to their own designer and will now send a long mission with that for get more knowledge of the black hole this year . but the ship is created after the Soyuz (i believe the horizontal landing rocket with can land in any normal airport .... amusing staff of the Russians Soyuz
the america version based on the Soyuz is called DREAM CHASER.......
Soviet ingineer
0 accidents, 100% uptime. This is awesome.
And essentially 1954 technology.
The vast majority, if not all, is burnt up in the atmosphere. Any small remnant that does survive the reentry mostly falls in the ocean, other parts might fall on land and are not recovered.
спасибо ESA!
спасибо ЕКА!
*_Honestly I'm not a person who watch this documentary /education experiment...but this mission really make me into to space matter.. It's make me feel when I was in schools again...tq for the awesome video & knowledge that I get more about this magnificent world_* ♥♥♥
congratulation and thanks a lot for every body at ESA... the videos that you show us is fantastic!!!
It's interesting how without much fanfare the Soviets/Russians managed to developed a simple yet reliable program. Almost like the AK46 it was made to last
+CamiloSanchez1979 АК 46? :D
+Cnupoc Ha! ...I messed up, 47
Well they had no fanfare because they kept it all secret. And of course, most of their accidents were hushed up too.
The feeling you get when you realize that the time you finish this video is about the time for the Soyuz rocket reaches orbit
Fun fact: the 4 strap-on boosters and the white fairing fall back to Earth, about 350 kilometers downrange from Baikonur launchsite, where these are recovered for the metal. Swiss watch-company Werenbach even produces wristwatch dials from the scrap metal of these flown Soyuz launchvehicles... After 2 minutes, the 4 boosters fall back from an altitude of 50 kilometers !
I’m getting the Soyuz owners manual and guide this weekend! Excited for a good, informative read!
That's by far the best and most accurate video explaining the launch
This is absolutely fascinating!!!
the song/music at 6:35 is "Space Continuum 1763/6" " Terry Devine-King (PRS)"
The launch escape worked again.
3:43 In case you are wondering those 4 "paddles" are used for steering. (fins on rockets are usually not used for steering only for stability and controlling roll)
Sergi korolov had made the safest rocket 50 years ago
We could have been on mares today because of him
Russian drink vodka and dig there own Graves.
Hats off to the Scientists, Engineers & Technicians who made this spacecraft !!!
respect for the ESA, from across the pond.
Respect for Russia
pparker768 yes.
Ion propulsion is used - e.g. Artemis, SMART-1, GOCE. Search our website for more information esa[dot]int
Saluting the Soyuz today
if you're curious the animations they used came from a simulator called orbiter which you can download for free.
ESAU makes great videos. This one is most excellent
Thought the news wouldve used these animations for what happened today. Glad they're safe and the escape system worked successfully
Sublime. Thanks ESA.
Thanks for watching!
The best 15 min an human can have at our times.
Orbiter 2010 with the R-7 addon.
4:13 correction: today Soyuz MS-10 has failed and now has made three times crew used an escape system to get out of a failure (don't worry they lived). 7:29 they escaped and the failure happened around there. It also makes all three abilities used. One with the tower, one with the fairings, and one with just the capsule.
The escape tower wasn't used on MS-10. It got jettisoned just prior to booster separation and the abort was done with the payload fairing motors.
Thanks edited it just right now
Hi ESA, I want to contribute a Vietnamese subtitle and introduced this serie to my fellow but it seems that you don't allow community's subtitle. How can I contribute, does using Amara possible? Thanks.
Send us an email please at connectwithus@esa.int
3 years later , no subtitles 😢
Any plans for Spanish subs? That would be great for my son. I can contribute as well.
This is the kind of stuff I would happily pay for.
This was super interesting, thanks!
Thank you for watching it and following along
When the escape system was introduced, I thought about those lattice thingies on the side:
Repeat after me, tovarisch, this device of use for craft stabilizing, not for making of the space waffles
+filipinordabest The waffles are also used on air-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles.
I'm totally thriving on aerospace knowledge and it's history, love it! Never seen how Soyuz works before this ever! Is this rocket the same basic one Russia has been using forever? Like since the Sputnik days? If so, wow, what a workhorse! And I'd always wondered how that tailend worked - didn't know those were boosters that separated. Didn't know any of it! Interesting stuff. I'm hooked.
Same basic design principles, but not the same as the first Soyuz of course. Been upgraded several times as technologies advanced. That booster separation is called the Korolev cross. :)
Thanks for info Miki because always curious on that. Just whenever I see Soyuz Russian launch the rocket used never seems to change design-look. I figured it had to AT-LEAST been upgraded since those days!! Always liked it's look. Do those "boosters" all separate at same time? I think I read the fuel is pure "kerosene" is that true? (!?)
Angara , Proton-M !)
Not the same rocket, but from the same rocket family, R-7.
I seen the Sputnik in the reality. VERY PROUD OF IT but I was scared to acknowledge how small space the astronaut had to sit in
nearly the only source to explain soyuz's launch escape system
Am I the only one that thinks that they were about half an hour late with activating the escape rocket at 4:30? I mean, the whole platform was already on fire.
Ruud Claessen It was not made of paper so, luckily, it would not collapse too quickly, they did need some time to react to the situation.
Huy Vũ Quang that is true. However to me it seemed pretty clear that it was going to go downhill. Anyway, happy that the guys survived!
Would love more of these, so Interest in Space Exploration would rise.
Thanks for sharing, especially the reentry part has been awaited since I was a kid and wasn't able to imagine the head built up via air traction in my daydreams beeing an Astronaut...
Greetz Frank
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
The Russians really prioritize safety.
+TheRenaissanceman65 Actually, they really did. With the exception of the political fuckup of Soyuz 1, almost everything they did with their Cosmonauts was designed for safety. The same cannot be said for some parts of their ICBM development, however (a comment which also applied to the US, particularly their Titan programme).
They did, as John Brown notes - but not just for rockets. Soviet subs were designed to be far more survivable in combat than US subs - they could dive deeper, had far more watertight compartments, and most included one or more escape capsules for the crew. US subs carried much more sophisticated electronics and were generally quieter, but the Soviets really built theirs to survive battle damage and keep their crews alive. Unfortunately, rushed design in other areas (K-19's reactor cooling system, for example) and poor quality control let down what were otherwise excellent designs. Poor QC was also what helped doom the N-1 program.
Ironically, to return to subs, the Thresher and Scorpion disasters (coupled with Rickover's... "influence") led to the US being overly cautious, spending more time training crews in nuclear engineering than actually fighting their boats. I've heard US submariners who go on exchange into the RN get quite a shock when they find the situation reversed.
In a sense even supposed "death traps" like Soviet tanks were designed with as much effort put into crew survivability as possible. They get an unfair reputation fuelled by exaggeration and fantasy about "human waves".
Ultimately, the pattern seems to be that the Soviets dreamt big but were hampered by the realities of their industrial and economic capacity, while the US was far better off in both of those areas but in many cases took a much more conservative design approach.
It's a strange duality of methodology.
The Russians were not able to fully test much of their equipment on the ground as the US did. A lot of their final development happened in test flights.
However, despite being forced to test components in flight, and having a much lower budget, they still managed to maintain high safety standards.
Russia and the US had 2 major spacecraft losses each, but the US lost more people in testing.
Private X Safety Is The Number One Priority Taras Kul Said
Private X только люди простые живут хуево
There was a small detail missing in the other version to do with the credits.
soyuz ❤❤❤
Great narrative and graphics.
Glad you like them!
Excellent, much more detail than NASA videos, that always seem a bit general - Any more detail on parachute stowage and how it gets from inside beside the astronauts to outside? And a better quality of informed comments below as well!
Fantastic educational video, well done to everyone who made it.
The Soyuz class starship in Star Trek was probably named after the Soyuz rockets 🚀.
You are right and Chekov was put on the crew because the Russians were offended that there wasn't a Russian in the original pilot show
With no doubt Soyuz is like the Toyota of the spacecrafts machines. Reliable and delivering....
Now it is 2 time the LES has been used.
Yes, Soyuz Ms-10, that you.
One small error in the narration:
"Fortunately, it was quickly realized that the crew was endangered and the ground controllers activated the escape system."
It's true that they recognized the danger and attempted to activate the escape system, but not before the fire had destroyed the wires that would have carried the command. What actually triggered the abort was the tanks of the second stage rupturing, which triggered an automatic abort mode.
wikipedia says escape was launched by radio control by two ground control centers within 5 s, so it took 20 s to coordinate themselves. it wasn't automatic abort, because you cannot construct an automatic system for such an unpredictable situation
Russian engineering at its best...
Might not pretty but reliable! ^^
Business As Usual. Russian tech rocks!
Its Soviet, many of this rocket original engineers were Jewish and now reside in United States or Israel.
you just made that up Indy.. I could say the same about NASA engineers that's from all over the world. NASA is only good for recruiting smart people doesn't matter their nationality
Hello Europeans, Americans and all earthlings! Russia loves you!
min 4:10: second occation for the use of the escape system in 2018 with S/N 10 if not mistaking.
Russian dont give a damn about aesthetics, they just want to make a perfect working machineries
Since it doesn't get any reboost it falls down to earth sooner or later. If you want super realistic space travel than I suggest you use the software in the video description, it is free.
thank you Russia for continuing international space cooperation
Thanks!
Looks like it's time for me to loose sleep and play Kerbal Space Program..
Was already loading it before reading that comment.
And I happen to have the ISS and Soyuz TMA pack for it as well :P
I wish my computer could run KSP
Just finished a session KSP... 😉
How about explaining the startup sequence for the engines and the lighting using what is really some giant matches? The startup seems to take forever, there is smoke and some fire, then more fire, then even more fire and then it really lights up and gets going.
Yay, Orbiter 2010!
El cohete más bello, eficaz y duradero de la historia. Y lo seguirá siendo durante mucho tiempo. Mis respetos a los ingenieros que crearon esta obra de arte.
Soyuz most safety space 🚀 in the world 🌎
True, but it also has the most failures of any rocket.
+Colton Byrd Proof? Counting the failures of the rocket only, not the booster stage / satellite load?
Maybe even *out* the world!!!
Sorry about that!
ESA uses Orbiter. It is a great simulater.
спасибо вам!
What happens to the third stage?
17 G's g-force for 5 seconds during the escape ? Damn !! Imagine that ! With the space suit you must weight at least 100 kgs. So 17 G's would make you feel like you weigh 1.7 tons !! Like a rhino sitting on you for 5 seconds.
Not like a rhino sitting on you its like you are a rhino just without the extra strength
0.85 tons ;) there is 2000 pounds in a ton so at 1700 pounds it just under.
@@dimayev4 he is talking about kilograms, a 1000 kg is 1 ton, in this case 1700 kg would translate to 3500 pounds I think
@@gerritkaasjager2319 you're right! I saw tons and switched to thinking American
"The launch escape system has only been once in the history of the Soyuz"
This aged like fine wine
whats the name of the music at 08:36 ?
thanks in advance
Maybe Stephane Ghiste can help with that question?
European Space Agency, ESA or maybe not?
+Krahfty Mystic Crock by Maribo
+MessinAbout80 That's close, but is it the same track? They're very similar...
darude sandstorm
This is why i like the ESA channel. At least they use the Metric system, metric value's i can actually understand.
So what happens to that last "booster" that's already in orbit when jettisoned?
*****
Thank you, however, I would have liked that information to be in the video.
Great video though!
Soyuz is amazing. Wow I did not know much about it
What is the music at the beginning of the video? Its cool.
LithiumMC I'm waiting for that answer too :(
Cabas 1153/6
Terry Devine-King (PRS)
Oh I can't wait the Part 2! Awesome!
Hey ESA, ever heard of anti-aliasing? This thing can make your vids like this less shittier in the Orbiter simulation part. I never played orbiter, but if it doesn't have AA settings, you can force the AA thru the videocard driver.
Lenin Охуенен love the profile pic mate.
Wow that’s pretty impressive how far we have come
'Baikonur Cosmodrome' is WAY cooler sounding than 'Cape Canaveral' or the even worse 'Cape Kennedy'. But, being an American Capitalist Tool, I have to go with 'Wallops Island' as the coolest sounding Launch Complex. Anyway, I don't care who or where, I am for all Peaceful Rocket Launchings.
I mean, Kennedy deserves his fair share of recognition.
I can't understand a single thing. Falcon Heavy is the first reusable rocket we all know that but Soyuz has been used for all those years but all the times it launches it looks so new. Just like a reusable rocket. Are they building a new Soyuz for every launch? Or they are using the parts which are came back to earth?
Soyuz is an expendable booster, it's so cheap that they don't need to recover it, and the production lines are well established as they've been running for 60 years
Soyuz is still by far the safest and most reliable spacecraft there is. I'd choose to ride on a Soyuz over a Falcon any day.
Still? That's 3 manned Soyuz failures. And dozens of unmanned failures BTW