This video makes it look like the V2 was a crude system yet it was 15 years ahead of anything else at the time, and the guiding system contained the first integrated analog computer of history. At equal weight it produced fifty times more thrust than the best Russian and American "rockets" if you can call them that. It was also the first space flight of history by a man made object. Guiding a rocket that size with the technology of the day was a true technological genius, they had to invent everything they used including the engine technology, guiding computer and graphite rudders, also allow it to survive re-entry which took Von Braun more than a year. It was the ancestor of the whole Apollo program, and to this day no amateur rocketter could even come close to building one himself.
Most dictatorships of recent years and today have struggled trying to replicate this and we're 70-80 years later. The North Koreans, Iranians, Pakistani have only really surpassed the performance of the V2 in the last 20 years or so.
Adrien Perié Actually, now-adays many, many rocket hobbyists CAN. And do. They build scale models, and the deisgns for most WWII era stuff is easily scale-able. And that's ignoring the careerists - the ones who are actually rocket scientists for a living instead of for fun. Now, they also put in more advanced control systems today - because they can. But using the old methods would still be easy most-likely, and doable certainly. The availability of high-quality components and machine shops provides a remarkable advantage over people in the 40's. Your mistaking the lack of quality parts and experience at the time for complexity of understanding and implementing the design itself.
Xylos144 Show me one guy able to make a reasonable copy of the V2 at any scale, using an alcohol liquid oxygen engine, graphite rudders, and eventually a fully analogical flight computer. These people couldn't build a V2 in their dreams if they tried. You don't have the faintest idea of the technical difficulties on such a project if you really think a single hobbyist on this planet could even slightly reproduce a V2. The V2 was the very first space flight by an artificial object, and when it was designed, its guidance system contained the most advanced electronic logic system ever made. Today, the equivalent functions could easily be performed by a Raspberry PI, making reproducing a V2 today much easier than it was at the time. Even today, the best "amateur" rocketry experts on earth, the people who work on the Copenhagen suborbitals project, are using for their future launcher a modified copy of the V2 rocket engine. Now these guys on the video are not remotely good enough for that, that's just a fact. The model you see in this video is using a very crude solid fuel engine and aerodynamic controls, not nearly as advanced, and completely unable to reach actual space, let alone surviving re-entry, a problem which took Von Braun a year to solve. The very brightest minds of WWII worked on the V2 project, if you weren't aware Von Braun later on built America's first ballistic missile, many of the rockets which were used throughout the 20th century and the Saturn IV which remains the only rocket to ever send a man on the moon. The people who worked on the V2 are the reason both America and Russia were able to build ICBM's so fast, in fact in both countries the first people to design a working ballistic missile were Germans having worked at Penemunde. These people were actual geniuses, the people you see in this video and those who built this scale model are good hobbyists at best. Americans like to think the V2 was this crude weapon they could easily have reproduced without any German help while their greatest space exploration achievement was orchestrated by Von Braun himself, who had to fight to get his ideas on space exploration financed.
Adrien Perié Well, the Nazis did throw 3 billion American at von Braun and it helps that Goddard wasn't taken seriously in the US(a shame really) and the Soviets threw Korolev in the gulag(which ended up killing him and allow the US to take the lead in the space race.)
Advances made by the Von Braun Team: 1 - rapid, reliable fuel delivery by turbo centrifugal pumps 2 - multi-burner (18) combustion chamber 3 - thrust chamber cooling jacket & internal film cooling via fuel diversion 4 - gyro controlled steering vanes (nozzle vectoring used today) 5 - anti-agitation fuel tanks There were many more advances, but these 5 made it possible to get the job done and would be copied by everyone thereafter.
yes sir u r right .. its a old technology but still all of the countries using same technology as basic .. maybe when start comparing speed of rocket with sound i think this technology need to improvise a lot .. we need to create more torque and efficiency then only can maintain the speed 10 time or 20 times more than sound
6) Randomly killing civilians indiscriminately at long range. Truly the first "terrorist weapon of mass destruction" , well, unless you class the lower tech V1 as one... also Von Braun's creation. 7) Exploiting (and working to death) slave labourers to build rockets and associated infrastructure. 8) Getting away with murder while being invited to gain a US passport.
@@tasmedic a) Automobile - used as means to deliver suicide bombers to civilian marketplace plus the Oklahoma bomb in USA b) kitchen knife - murderous weapon of choice used by many c) bedroom pillow - used to smother countless people throughout time d) household stairway - convenient way to kill people in many instances e) airliner - mass murder device (9/11, German Wings Airlines etc.) f) arms, hands, legs & feet - mass killing instruments owned by everyone And of course - insecticides, broken liquor bottles, table fork, elevator shaft, etc., etc. Despite this people welcome these items into their lives every day and they don't even need a passport. .
@@DataWaveTaGo Just not for mention the bombing of civilian city of Dresden with phosphorous incendiary bombs, accurately, indiscriminately, conscious and by hand by the royal coward aerial force of england.-
@@tasmedic Re. 6 - If we define "weapons of mass destruction" as "randomly targetted weapon that kills random people", the first instance of use of their use would be the WW1 air attacks by Gotha bombers and by Zepplins. Then there were the air attacks on civilians during the Spanish Civil War - think "Guernica". By the time the Germans used rocket attacks on cities in WW2, aerial bombardment by both the Axis and Allies had been used for years. So, by 1944, "weapons of mass destruction" had been used for some 30 years. However, in defence of Germany, England and US, the primitive targetting systems often meant that anywhere in a city was the best they could get. Even today, we "accept" "collateral damage" when a drone strike is made against a "terrorist". Or a car bomber blows up a military post and kills some civilians, too.
Simple, nicely explained and mostly wrong. The guidance was done with gyroscopes as well as a gyro-compass. The fuel didn't just run out to determine range a pendulous integrating gyroscopic accelerometer determined velocity and cut off the fuel, before apogee not at apogee. And the graphite vanes in the rocket efflux were directly coupled to the aerodynamic guidance vanes on the fins so were one system not two. So despite the title very little was actually explained about the V2 guidance system
indeed, the V2 was an inertial guided missile, not a ballistic missile. ICBMs's trajectory is determined in the first and second stages. third stages/payload vehicles have a little correction system for accuracy now.
Hey when are YOU gonna build a V2 replica and fly it more than 100 miles to test how accurate YOUR rocket will land based on how you have set the guidance??? Don't just tell us Don....PROVE IT fucker....
Really only two gyros - roll and a "tilt" gyro. Required accurate azimuth bearing at launch site. The first guidance system used - Pg 7, this document: apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/419538.pdf Description of Analog computer - Pg 16 shows cam mechanism, the crude "program" coupled into the servomechanism: www.cdvandt.org/Hoelzer%20V4.pdf
@@uploadJ The accelerometer used to shut of peroxide to the turbopump once a preset velocity was reached was a pendular integrating gyroscopic accelerometer (PIGA), so technically there was another gyro on board. Also, if you watch the gyro repair video in th-cam.com/video/52oCwSMJdKE/w-d-xo.html , you'll note that when demonstrating the vertical gyro near the end, he mentions he needs to check if his meter is connected to the pitch or yaw potentiometer, so it seems the vertical gyro was instrumented in 2 axies.
Fascinating. To anyone else interested in the V2, I recommend the channel Astronomy and Nature TV. In it they pull apart the gyroscopes and show how the turbo pumps work in a very detailed way.
V2 guidance systems combined two gyroscopes and a lateral accelerometer with a simple analog computer to adjust the azimuth for the rocket in flight. Analog computer signals were used to drive four graphite rudders in the rocket exhaust for flight control. The deflector vanes were more useful at low velocities than the fin vanes. The burn cutoff was accomplished by a Pendulous Integrating Gyroscopic Accelerometer (PIGA) which was surprisingly accurate.
To add...the PIGA would integrate acceleration and report velocity. The engines would cut off when a specified velocity was reached. Source: Wikipedia.
Dan Dolata I almost LOLed watching the video. If someone is an enthusiast to the degree of spending hundreds of hours building accurate scale models, how can they get such basic details so wrong? This guy apparently thinks that the A4 was awesome because it went BOOM, not because it was probably the most advanced (and possibly most expensive) R&D project in the world at the time. The A4 was orders of magnitude more complex than he made it sound: first liquid propelled high performance rocket engine, first high performance turbo pumps (without which such engines are impossible), first use of regenerative cooling of the exhaust nozzle, first use of alcohol injection to create an isolating boundary layer that prevents melting of the steel nozzle from the exhaust temperature, first hypersonic wind tunnels to model the advanced aerodynamics required for flight stability and reentry, first integrated electronic three-axis feedback flight control computer (which was used in the US for another decade after the end of the war), first computer controlled thrust vectoring system, etc etc. The saddest thing about the A4--apart from the damage it did and the lives it cost on both sides, of course--was just how much cutting edge technology and bleeding edge science and engineering was being employed to propel less than 1,000 kg of chemical explosive 300 km. The A4 was the metaphorical equivalent of using battleship main guns to shoot mosquitos, and the scientists working on it were fully aware of that.
@@blade-OT I found the explanation of the guidance system unsatisfying, until I read the comments and found them misleading. I changed my like for a dislike, He doesn't seem qualified to make this video. Is there a better V2 guidance explanation you can recommend? Did the turbo pumps use a pre-burner? What is the difference between Isolating boundary layer and regenerative cooling? Nice analogy of Battleship mosquito guns lol. So why was the effort made? Was it more of a "shock & awe" attempt like the nuclear bomb would be?
I would believe that the trust vectoring system had significant importance on the launching - at liftoff the missile of course had too little airspeed for the ailerons to function .. Mike explains that the amount of fuel loaded would descide engine cut-off - the engine cut off was determined by an accelerometer system - PIGA. And the compass explanation should be elaborated: The launch site posision was known such that the distance and azimuth to the target could be set before launch of the missile.
I believe that most of the basic technology ie, turbo pumps, gyroscope stabilization, graphite exhaust vanes and regenerative cooling was pioneered by American Robert Goddard
Well done. The nozzle might look like a venturi but it's a laval nozzle. Below Mach 1 a convergent nozzle increase the speed of the gases and above Mach 1 it's the other way around, to increase the speed the nozzle must be divergent.
Wow. I did not know it until I watched this video that Den Haag was the launch site for the V-2 rockets shot toward London. The first rocket I ever flew was launched beside a canal in Den Haag. Strange world.
The V-2's killed surprisingly few people, considering how absurdly expensive the whole project was: it was bigger and costlier than the Manhattan project! Spending so many resources on something that is so imprecise and carries so little a wardhead makes no sense. Didn't make any sense back then, either. Make it a little bigger and add a nuclear bomb, then you have something...
PPS. There is quite interesting to read tips like "The engine burns the Russian equivalent of RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer ..." in wiki articles about RD-170 since the beginning :-))))
"I send rockets up, but where they come down, that's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. --Professor Tom Lehrer When technical expertise is commanded by a leadership guilty of unethical foreign policy this is what happens; i. e.: war against innocents..
The graphite rudders in the exhaust flow were needed because once the rocket is out of the (dense) atmosphere the tail fins are useless. Some of the test-rockets reached 100+ km altitudes (space), although operational altitude was around 80-90 km range.
But this kind of rocket runs out of fuel long before reaching even the thin parts of the atmosphere. So why the hell would you need graphite rudders in "space" when you have no exhaust?
Not true. The opposite in fact. After engine start - BEFORE the rocket is moving at all, and thus BEFORE the aerodynamic fins can control it - the vanes inside the rocket exhaust are able to control the V-2 (and the US Redstone, Jupiter, etc.) attitude and yaw. As it speeds up, the vanes erode away and so become less effective; but as it speeds up in flight, the outside aerodynamic fins become effective and can control the rocket's heading and pitch and yaw. At Huntsville's NASA museum, you can put your hands on the control vanes inside the engine exhaust. They are controlled by the same pivot arm and bearings as the external aerodynamic fins. There is only one control system needed - which saves weight. Once high up, the rocket can "coast" through the very thin atmosphere, and so neither the aero nor the exhaust vane controls are needed. Re-entry same way: No extra drag, control movements, nor control system is used. For a terror weapon, hitting anywhere is "good enough".
Nobody mentions that the target area is Grandma's dining room table. One must not forget that the talent of the designers is overridden by the evil of their motives.
Yes gyros and nozzle vectoring, along with actuators and turbo pumps to increase power was the beginning of longer distance and accuracy. Now with a computer on board all variables are computed, timed to the millisecond and quickly managed to bring the rocket to the point of orbit insertion and retrieval. A lot of trial and error happened along the way.
The designers of the V-2 were forced to do the designing for the Nazis, Wherner von Braun and his team surrendered as soon as they could to the Americans, fearing the Nazis would shoot them dead and rather having life in America than in the USSR or being dead. Wherner von Braun was just a rocket enthusiast who was forced to do something he would never think of making- a killing machine
This ist a poor and simple description of this german high tech object, which was developed under such difficult circumstances. All other countries were at least 15 years behind. And neither the US, nor the Soviets would have sent rockets to the skies so soon, without Wernher von Braun and all the other genius german experts!
"which was developed under such difficult circumstances." - you mean having to use and kill slave laborers? Yeah, that's a real hardship. Boo-fucking-hoo.
// Gemini used Titan-2, a hypergolic modified version of criogenic Titan-1. Latter one used RP-1 (kerosene with counter-detonation additives) and LOX. RP-1 is Soviet. // "Ruskies" had Lunar Gemini alike approach but LM was pressurized. No prolonged EVA. Lunar Gemini was also about to launch separately. They were docking with unmanned RM-81_Agena (trans-lunar) booster with open Lunar Sleds. They were open so docking EVA operations on orbit were much different to Apollo. Do not stink next time.
Stationed at Holloman AFB in 1983, I took a MW&R office ski tour to Cloudcroft. After, unbeknownst to most, was a stop at a nearby USAF telemetry site off NM244. A man there told a story about a V-2 launch from WSMR he helped track. Normally they didn't go under cover although protocol required it. Moments after the launch, it was apparent that it was tracking directly towards them. They took cover, impact was near Thunder Rd in Alamogordo a few miles away from the station. Thunder road neighborhood exists because of the recovery access road cut into the hill. Remnants of the rocket are in the garden of the Museum of Space History within eyesight of the impact.
It is misleading to call the gyro/engine vanes - guidance - it is stabilization. The V2 was a ballistic missile; it had no "guidance" Guidance is directing a missile to a target. The only Guidance the V2 had was the lunch platform that gave it a general direction. If it was accidentally launched toward the northsea there was nothing in the V2 which would direct it to redirect it's course towards London or Amsterdam; let alone a ship at sea. Because the V2 had no "guidance" it was very inaccurate, much like a big artillery shell. The Germans did deveope some missiles with Guidance but the V2 isn't one of them.
Von Braun was a serious chain smoker as we're probably most rocket scientists at the time. . Looking at the amount of smoking in control rooms of Apollo it makes you wonder if it was some kind of performance enhancing qualities to cigarettes
No, they had both the V-1 (pulse jet) and the V-2 (ballistic rocket). They also had interesting ground to air missiles but Hitler had (fortunately) halted their development and only resumed it when it was too late.
Super informative! I wonder if the carbon vanes in the exhaust were added for increased control at high-altitude where fins and rudders would be ineffective, and is the system an early form of thrust-vector control? Simply fascinating.
gyros keep orientation of their own axis constant. inertial accelerometer guidance now are much more common, snowden had not told me that. did it blew up half of the boston too?
The navigation was a bit more complicated than just a compass. The V2 (Aggregat 4) used two gyroscopes and and a computer like steering device (Steuergerät SG-66). The SG-66 could be programmed with target coordinates.
They may not have been "accurate", but who had a similar weapon on the field at that time? This was a intercontinental balistic weapon, and it was 1944, when did the Allies build their first ibm, let alone the first cruise missile? The engineering in the A4 was way ahead of anything the Allies had ever seen. Germans also did use other methods rather than a slide rule, they used computers, the Z3 and Z4 computer from Zuse, these were available since 1941, so not quite right there neither, slide rules????
everything was normal with Gemini except originally they miscalculated mission profile (it was originally Direct_Ascent too) and didn't realize next on time danger of long EVA with open landing sleds. Nevertheless they could made it! It was just to risky with lethal probability of more than 20% of failure. Steady progress of Apollo is raising of funds, brainfucking of the public and nothing else. There could be remote controlled Apollo-0 with full mission profile and Apollo-1 next.Not Apollo-11.
Moon has no atmosphere. Consider mission to it like mission to big asteroid having sufficient gravitational well. No aerobracking is at landing on the Moon - LM doesn't have to be pressurized technically. It should be pressurized ergonomically. And that was Gemini didn't fit. Nor LM (open sleds) nor truly Gemini CM (Gemini itself). It has side doors, no axial hatch. And place for the hatch is busy. Therefore completely new modules were made as Apollo. And single launcher for them instead of two.
Right before that speech decision was made by world masonry (US is masonic - even temples are more abundant that churches) Moon shot would be american. Do you know what for he was killed on their order? And Hover had his seat "democratically" lifelong as monarch for silence? Rocket was weak. It doesn't have even escape SRB. Spacecraft made in a rush had insufficient life support capabilities. They decided to ground soviet Moon program for world balance of prestige and let make Apollo w/o a ruch.
PS. point is even conventional V-1/2 steadily killed more in UK than Blitz and at the much cheaper price. no pilots, strategic matherials and gasolene were lost. V-2 used ethanol as a propellant. they didn't have enough kerosene for Me-262, 300 of 1500 were flown for home defence only. it is cheaper than crewed He-111 bomber. torpedoe has 3 times less sophisticated internal guidance and construction. V-2 were simplyfied in US and SU then, so now cruise missiles are more complex than ballistic.
Uh... Let me explain what I mean.. During WW2 thousands of tank designs surpassed one another. Just Germany alone had Panzer Kampfwagen 1,2,3,4,5(panther),6(tiger) and 7(tiger2) and most had like 7 or 8 variants. That's merely the panzers, not the artillery stug, sturmtiger, hummel. The antitanks jagdpanzers, jagdtiger, jagdpanther. and all the other hundred of variants of AA-tanks like wirbelwind, ostwind, etc. How many tank designs have the usa got in the last 30 years?? 1???
The only reason that the US beat the USSR to the moon (or indeed that there was a race to the moon to begin with) was that the US got hold of von Braun and others like him before the Russians did. Funnily enough, if it wasn't for Stalin, the Russians would have gone supersonic in the 1920s or 30s, one of their engineers had accidentally drawn up the perfect design, which was later abandoned due to Stalin's crude methods.
Interestingly enough, the V-2, Werner von Braun's brainchild, was designed as a civilian project to reach the Karman line (official border of space) and potentially carry instrumentation there and back, but once the nazis took hold of the project, they mounted warheads on it, which was the condition upon which they would fund von Braun's project. After the war, von Braun went to the US and became one of the founders of NASA.
my mother and grad mother had to move out of the house every time the Germans set one of from west land Den Hage Holland . one day they where that sick of collecting there belongings they even left the clothing on the line , when the V2 tumbled and they lost there house .. they had nothing left bet there clothing on there back .
Tully if you go back in history, alwayas has been the same,,,,,the advances in technology since the erliest times of the human race has been developed from wars....and at the angiest times was for food using a pole of wood...
Ironic isn't it? Robert Goddard takes the liquid fueled rocket idea to the DoD and they say nah. Can't see a use for it! Same thing with the Brits. The jet engine was pretty well perfected there but the Germans wound up using it.
Well the U.S. and Brits were correct. The V2 was an impractical weapon at the time, and the Nazis spent much more on developing and firing V2s than they caused damage and countermeasure costs among the allied forces.
Soviet LM now is at US museum. Soviet CM's are taxiing astronauts to ISS, just translunar heat-shield was reduced to LEO shield and weight saved was spent for adding one more of crew.
No, it wasn't. The Soviet/Russian Scud missiles used by Iran/Iraq/Korea are basically modern V-2's. The Redstone was basically an upgraded V-2, built by the original design team.
The turbopump was spun by catalyzed decomposition of85% H2O2 into steam and oxygen. This oxygen was different from the LOX. The turbopump exhaust was dumped overboard via two small vents near the rear of the rocket, so the oxygen steam mixture driving the turbopump never entered the combustion chamber. Source: th-cam.com/video/52oCwSMJdKE/w-d-xo.html . In most V2 launch videos, you can see a small stream of steam near they rocket exhaust, but it's moving much more slowly than the rocket exhaust and thus much more affected by crosswinds. See the linked video series for details.
I didn’t know a lot about the V2 rocket and watching this video hasn’t changed that fact! Love it when they don’t explain fuck all even tho the title of the video suggests they mite
_Mite_ :a minute arachnid which has four pairs of legs when adult, related to the ticks. _Might_ :used tentatively to ask permission or to express a polite request.
50-100km sounds way off. The distance from Amsterdam to London is only about 350km, so I think in general they where more accurate than 50km. Of the V2's lanched from The Hague to Antwerp, a distance of about 120km, an estimated 65% hit the target, which would have the accuracy be about 2km on 120km, which would maybe make it 6-10km at 350km? That seems to be about right given the numbers of about 1 in 5 fired at London hitting the target.
50-100 km (31-60 miles) seems ok, London was about 10 miles across so worse case scenario 1 in 6 would hit London so that ties up with your figure of 1 in 5.
RogerWilco The reason so much missed london was that brits had double agents.. that told slowly guided the rockets to hit outside of the city. By the end the missiles went way off :D
They tried to use guided anti-ship missiles like Hs 293 (which showed great performance on biscay bay and mediterranean sea theatres) but D-Day was simply too overhelming to contain with available forces .
Walter Thiel(1895/1943)was The Chemical Engineer that developed&designed the Propulsion🚀Sys. of The A4(V2); His wife&kids, including himself ALONG with 750+engineers, scientists, &technicians were killed by The🇬🇧RAF on 17Aug’43 at>🌌🕚to🌌🕐am(Peenumunde Research
I don't believe that slide rule was used for the A4 (V2). It's Thrust, Height, Range & Velocity scales are well below the capabilities of the A4 even during testing e.g. Thrust 2,000 kg/m^2 v 25,000 kg/m^2, Range 10 km v 300 km, Altitude 5 km v 80km, 300 m/s v 1,600 m/s. Scaling up by a factor of 10 doesn't work either e.g. 2,500 kg/m^2 * 10 Thrust -> 10 km * 10 Range reads as 450 m/s or 4,500 m/s neither of which match the A4s flight characteristics. I believe it was used for a smaller Rocket possibly the A5, which was a scaled down version of the A4.
The Brits stopped most of the V1 rockets as they would approach slowly and be easily shot down. But they stopped Zero V2 rockets, they were not so accurate but very effective with no defense whatsoever against them.
I work in a loony bin, part time. That's the single point you were close. He didn't used. They were ready 3 weeks late. HEAT were invented by germans and first time used against Belgian forts in 1940. Jet engine burns kerosene in ambient air. A rocket one burns it in LOX where it w/o additives detonates destroying it. Those small rockets (Me-163) used kerosene had nitric acid or even peroxide as an oxidiser. Even Jupiter-C (Juno I) had alcahol-based fuel with LOX, putting 10 less payload on LEO
PS. if you stay on Mozhaisky flight was "a failed attempt" compare its official distance with Wright brothers first flight. having btw gazolene engine, catapult and head wind. Zulu scaled up predecessors (Type XXI U-boats, also known as "Elektroboote") called "Lafferenz" had Nazies targeting East Coast, simply their nuclear program was 3 weeks behind the schedule. First operational sub had Russian Empire too. Next one of the team (a frenchman) defected with drawings to France and made replica.
Fins on a plane require air and pressure and that's how they can control the direction. So I don't understand how rockets or spacecrafts are maneuvered in space where it's a vacuum? I would think that the forces inside the combustion chamber would easily send the rocket into a spin.
Gemini had Lunar Sleds! Those lightweight and folded later were attached to Apollo LM as a backup for ascent in EVA suites in case of LM malfunction. Fuel and oxidiser shoud be taken from LM main tanks. RTFM on astronautix-DOT-com. Were you working on that project? Ask them...
Just to avoid confusion: Cave doesn't mean a hollow - it is latin and stands for 'beware'. Velocities in still dense atmosphere when lower better not get too high, else something gets smashed due to aerodynamic drag. That is the reason for them announcing: reaching Max Q - and then: go with trottle up
On March 16, 1926, Robert Goddard successfully launched the first liquid-fueled rocket in Auburn, Mass. The first-of-its-kind rocket reached an altitude of 41 feet, lasted 2 seconds and averaged about 60 miles per hour. This was his original design scaled up
V2 might have not been very accurate but one landed 300 meters from the Remagan bridge (launched from the Netherlands)during the battle when the Germans were trying to destroy it .
sure whittle invented jet engine first krauts and everybody else copied. usa was first with stealth fighter and bomber. now yoiull say the russians were first! Only with the formula witch you didnt do anything with till usa built the first plane in 1977
by the way the saturn 5 used kerosene in the first stage, that atlas used it and the titan 2 used flourine and hydrazine like the lem did on the moon! they did take that from the ME 164.
The launch plane for the Hs 293 had to loiter over the target as the operator steered it in. It did not take long to figure out that shooting down or at least forcing the delivery bomber to take evasive action screwed up the operator's aim. Nor did it take long to figure out the radio-control guidance frequency and jam it. I'm afraid that the Hs 293's operational career was a short one.
Many did on themselves. Ohain's (german, more advanced) and Whittle's entered production. There was no stealth figther. It's attacker in fact. First stealthy was "Gotha 229" First faceted was "Facetmobile", it flew w/o computer well.
That encyclopedia is good enough aside of Kamanov diaries. Those were in fact KGB psy-op. Better than average. I took participation in Aerospace myself.
Like the V-2, I also run on oxygen and alcohol.
Bruh.
how COULD you miss the Dr Feelgood reference? how COULD YOU?
th-cam.com/video/bTbzyqr0TRo/w-d-xo.html
Ah, I see people are still here...
I resemble this statement, but also like the V2, my guidance falls well short of stellar and people say "Oh hell" and try and avoid me,,,,, 😬😉
I think that's wrong. They didn't run on alcohol, they used beer and oxygen.
This video makes it look like the V2 was a crude system yet it was 15 years ahead of anything else at the time, and the guiding system contained the first integrated analog computer of history. At equal weight it produced fifty times more thrust than the best Russian and American "rockets" if you can call them that. It was also the first space flight of history by a man made object. Guiding a rocket that size with the technology of the day was a true technological genius, they had to invent everything they used including the engine technology, guiding computer and graphite rudders, also allow it to survive re-entry which took Von Braun more than a year. It was the ancestor of the whole Apollo program, and to this day no amateur rocketter could even come close to building one himself.
Most dictatorships of recent years and today have struggled trying to replicate this and we're 70-80 years later.
The North Koreans, Iranians, Pakistani have only really surpassed the performance of the V2 in the last 20 years or so.
RogerWilco That's correct, I really don't like the pretentious attitude these guys take, as if they could build one even if they had the funds...
Adrien Perié Actually, now-adays many, many rocket hobbyists CAN. And do. They build scale models, and the deisgns for most WWII era stuff is easily scale-able. And that's ignoring the careerists - the ones who are actually rocket scientists for a living instead of for fun.
Now, they also put in more advanced control systems today - because they can. But using the old methods would still be easy most-likely, and doable certainly. The availability of high-quality components and machine shops provides a remarkable advantage over people in the 40's.
Your mistaking the lack of quality parts and experience at the time for complexity of understanding and implementing the design itself.
Xylos144 Show me one guy able to make a reasonable copy of the V2 at any scale, using an alcohol liquid oxygen engine, graphite rudders, and eventually a fully analogical flight computer.
These people couldn't build a V2 in their dreams if they tried. You don't have the faintest idea of the technical difficulties on such a project if you really think a single hobbyist on this planet could even slightly reproduce a V2. The V2 was the very first space flight by an artificial object, and when it was designed, its guidance system contained the most advanced electronic logic system ever made. Today, the equivalent functions could easily be performed by a Raspberry PI, making reproducing a V2 today much easier than it was at the time.
Even today, the best "amateur" rocketry experts on earth, the people who work on the Copenhagen suborbitals project, are using for their future launcher a modified copy of the V2 rocket engine. Now these guys on the video are not remotely good enough for that, that's just a fact. The model you see in this video is using a very crude solid fuel engine and aerodynamic controls, not nearly as advanced, and completely unable to reach actual space, let alone surviving re-entry, a problem which took Von Braun a year to solve. The very brightest minds of WWII worked on the V2 project, if you weren't aware Von Braun later on built America's first ballistic missile, many of the rockets which were used throughout the 20th century and the Saturn IV which remains the only rocket to ever send a man on the moon. The people who worked on the V2 are the reason both America and Russia were able to build ICBM's so fast, in fact in both countries the first people to design a working ballistic missile were Germans having worked at Penemunde. These people were actual geniuses, the people you see in this video and those who built this scale model are good hobbyists at best. Americans like to think the V2 was this crude weapon they could easily have reproduced without any German help while their greatest space exploration achievement was orchestrated by Von Braun himself, who had to fight to get his ideas on space exploration financed.
Adrien Perié Well, the Nazis did throw 3 billion American at von Braun and it helps that Goddard wasn't taken seriously in the US(a shame really) and the Soviets threw Korolev in the gulag(which ended up killing him and allow the US to take the lead in the space race.)
Advances made by the Von Braun Team:
1 - rapid, reliable fuel delivery by turbo centrifugal pumps
2 - multi-burner (18) combustion chamber
3 - thrust chamber cooling jacket & internal film cooling via fuel diversion
4 - gyro controlled steering vanes (nozzle vectoring used today)
5 - anti-agitation fuel tanks
There were many more advances, but these 5 made it possible to get the job done and would be copied by everyone thereafter.
yes sir u r right .. its a old technology but still all of the countries using same technology as basic .. maybe when start comparing speed of rocket with sound i think this technology need to improvise a lot .. we need to create more torque and efficiency then only can maintain the speed 10 time or 20 times more than sound
6) Randomly killing civilians indiscriminately at long range. Truly the first "terrorist weapon of mass destruction" , well, unless you class the lower tech V1 as one... also Von Braun's creation.
7) Exploiting (and working to death) slave labourers to build rockets and associated infrastructure.
8) Getting away with murder while being invited to gain a US passport.
@@tasmedic a) Automobile - used as means to deliver suicide bombers to civilian marketplace plus the Oklahoma bomb in USA
b) kitchen knife - murderous weapon of choice used by many
c) bedroom pillow - used to smother countless people throughout time
d) household stairway - convenient way to kill people in many instances
e) airliner - mass murder device (9/11, German Wings Airlines etc.)
f) arms, hands, legs & feet - mass killing instruments owned by everyone
And of course - insecticides, broken liquor bottles, table fork, elevator shaft, etc., etc.
Despite this people welcome these items into their lives every day and they don't even need a passport.
.
@@DataWaveTaGo Just not for mention the bombing of civilian city of Dresden with phosphorous incendiary bombs, accurately, indiscriminately, conscious and by hand by the royal coward aerial force of england.-
@@tasmedic Re. 6 - If we define "weapons of mass destruction" as "randomly targetted weapon that kills random people", the first instance of use of their use would be the WW1 air attacks by Gotha bombers and by Zepplins. Then there were the air attacks on civilians during the Spanish Civil War - think "Guernica". By the time the Germans used rocket attacks on cities in WW2, aerial bombardment by both the Axis and Allies had been used for years. So, by 1944, "weapons of mass destruction" had been used for some 30 years. However, in defence of Germany, England and US, the primitive targetting systems often meant that anywhere in a city was the best they could get. Even today, we "accept" "collateral damage" when a drone strike is made against a "terrorist". Or a car bomber blows up a military post and kills some civilians, too.
Simple, nicely explained and mostly wrong. The guidance was done with gyroscopes as well as a gyro-compass. The fuel didn't just run out to determine range a pendulous integrating gyroscopic accelerometer determined velocity and cut off the fuel, before apogee not at apogee. And the graphite vanes in the rocket efflux were directly coupled to the aerodynamic guidance vanes on the fins so were one system not two.
So despite the title very little was actually explained about the V2 guidance system
indeed, the V2 was an inertial guided missile, not a ballistic missile. ICBMs's trajectory is determined in the first and second stages. third stages/payload vehicles have a little correction system for accuracy now.
Great Donald - when shall we expect to see your V2 guidance system video ?
Hey when are YOU gonna build a V2 replica and fly it more than 100 miles to test how accurate YOUR rocket will land based on how you have set the guidance??? Don't just tell us Don....PROVE IT fucker....
Really only two gyros - roll and a "tilt" gyro. Required accurate azimuth bearing at launch site.
The first guidance system used - Pg 7, this document:
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/419538.pdf
Description of Analog computer - Pg 16 shows cam mechanism, the crude "program" coupled into the servomechanism:
www.cdvandt.org/Hoelzer%20V4.pdf
@@uploadJ The accelerometer used to shut of peroxide to the turbopump once a preset velocity was reached was a pendular integrating gyroscopic accelerometer (PIGA), so technically there was another gyro on board. Also, if you watch the gyro repair video in th-cam.com/video/52oCwSMJdKE/w-d-xo.html , you'll note that when demonstrating the vertical gyro near the end, he mentions he needs to check if his meter is connected to the pitch or yaw potentiometer, so it seems the vertical gyro was instrumented in 2 axies.
Fascinating. To anyone else interested in the V2, I recommend the channel Astronomy and Nature TV. In it they pull apart the gyroscopes and show how the turbo pumps work in a very detailed way.
i loved the little slide rule, always loved the V2, if it wasn't for that the USA would have never landed on the moon first
Landed on the moon first, hahaha U.S.A not landed on the moon it's fake!
Hahaha you sure showed him! If only you had actual arguments, right?
yeah heres an argument for you, the Apollo 17 cost under 10 billion yet you've never been back despite 100% safety record with that tech. GAME OVER
The old joke why America was first to reach the moon was that our German rocket scientists were better than the Soviet's German rocket scientists
Better motivated, too.
V2 guidance systems combined two gyroscopes and a lateral accelerometer with a simple analog computer to adjust the azimuth for the rocket in flight. Analog computer signals were used to drive four graphite rudders in the rocket exhaust for flight control. The deflector vanes were more useful at low velocities than the fin vanes. The burn cutoff was accomplished by a Pendulous Integrating Gyroscopic Accelerometer (PIGA) which was surprisingly accurate.
To add...the PIGA would integrate acceleration and report velocity. The engines would cut off when a specified velocity was reached. Source: Wikipedia.
I really like it when the comments of a video are more accurate than the video itself.
Dan Dolata I almost LOLed watching the video. If someone is an enthusiast to the degree of spending hundreds of hours building accurate scale models, how can they get such basic details so wrong? This guy apparently thinks that the A4 was awesome because it went BOOM, not because it was probably the most advanced (and possibly most expensive) R&D project in the world at the time. The A4 was orders of magnitude more complex than he made it sound: first liquid propelled high performance rocket engine, first high performance turbo pumps (without which such engines are impossible), first use of regenerative cooling of the exhaust nozzle, first use of alcohol injection to create an isolating boundary layer that prevents melting of the steel nozzle from the exhaust temperature, first hypersonic wind tunnels to model the advanced aerodynamics required for flight stability and reentry, first integrated electronic three-axis feedback flight control computer (which was used in the US for another decade after the end of the war), first computer controlled thrust vectoring system, etc etc.
The saddest thing about the A4--apart from the damage it did and the lives it cost on both sides, of course--was just how much cutting edge technology and bleeding edge science and engineering was being employed to propel less than 1,000 kg of chemical explosive 300 km. The A4 was the metaphorical equivalent of using battleship main guns to shoot mosquitos, and the scientists working on it were fully aware of that.
thanks
@@blade-OT I found the explanation of the guidance system unsatisfying, until I read the comments and found them misleading.
I changed my like for a dislike, He doesn't seem qualified to make this video.
Is there a better V2 guidance explanation you can recommend?
Did the turbo pumps use a pre-burner?
What is the difference between Isolating boundary layer and regenerative cooling?
Nice analogy of Battleship mosquito guns lol.
So why was the effort made?
Was it more of a "shock & awe" attempt like the nuclear bomb would be?
I would believe that the trust vectoring system had significant importance on the launching - at liftoff the missile of course had too little airspeed for the ailerons to function ..
Mike explains that the amount of fuel loaded would descide engine cut-off -
the engine cut off was determined by an accelerometer system - PIGA.
And the compass explanation should be elaborated:
The launch site posision was known such that the distance and azimuth to the target could be set before launch of the missile.
spot on, on both accounts
I believe that most of the basic technology ie, turbo pumps, gyroscope stabilization, graphite exhaust vanes and regenerative cooling was pioneered by American Robert Goddard
Even a small 100km/h couple seconds after launch would be way more than enough airspeed for control surfaces to work
Terrific clip! Thanks for posting.
Beautifully realized V2 model too. Would love to see it fly.
Well done. The nozzle might look like a venturi but it's a laval nozzle. Below Mach 1 a convergent nozzle increase the speed of the gases and above Mach 1 it's the other way around, to increase the speed the nozzle must be divergent.
Wow. I did not know it until I watched this video that Den Haag was the launch site for the V-2 rockets shot toward London. The first rocket I ever flew was launched beside a canal in Den Haag. Strange world.
The next flights you will have to aim for London.
The V-2's killed surprisingly few people, considering how absurdly expensive the whole project was: it was bigger and costlier than the Manhattan project!
Spending so many resources on something that is so imprecise and carries so little a wardhead makes no sense. Didn't make any sense back then, either.
Make it a little bigger and add a nuclear bomb, then you have something...
Good demonstration, thanks for posting!
Love the. V2. May favorite rocket when I was a kid. ( esties rocket kits )
PPS. There is quite interesting to read tips like "The engine burns the Russian equivalent of RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer ..." in wiki articles about RD-170 since the beginning :-))))
my family lived through this period in London. There was was destruction, no panic.
"I send rockets up, but where they come down, that's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. --Professor Tom Lehrer When technical expertise is commanded by a leadership guilty of unethical foreign policy this is what happens; i. e.: war against innocents..
The graphite rudders in the exhaust flow were needed because once the rocket is out of the (dense) atmosphere the tail fins are useless. Some of the test-rockets reached 100+ km altitudes (space), although operational altitude was around 80-90 km range.
But this kind of rocket runs out of fuel long before reaching even the thin parts of the atmosphere. So why the hell would you need graphite rudders in "space" when you have no exhaust?
Not true. The opposite in fact. After engine start - BEFORE the rocket is moving at all, and thus BEFORE the aerodynamic fins can control it - the vanes inside the rocket exhaust are able to control the V-2 (and the US Redstone, Jupiter, etc.) attitude and yaw. As it speeds up, the vanes erode away and so become less effective; but as it speeds up in flight, the outside aerodynamic fins become effective and can control the rocket's heading and pitch and yaw. At Huntsville's NASA museum, you can put your hands on the control vanes inside the engine exhaust. They are controlled by the same pivot arm and bearings as the external aerodynamic fins. There is only one control system needed - which saves weight. Once high up, the rocket can "coast" through the very thin atmosphere, and so neither the aero nor the exhaust vane controls are needed. Re-entry same way: No extra drag, control movements, nor control system is used. For a terror weapon, hitting anywhere is "good enough".
RACookPE1978
Gut erklärt
Good explain.
I have one on my El Camino.
I love it.
Nobody mentions that the target area is Grandma's dining room table. One must not forget that the talent of the designers is overridden by the evil of their motives.
Yes gyros and nozzle vectoring, along with actuators and turbo pumps to increase power was the beginning of longer distance and accuracy. Now with a computer on board all variables are computed, timed to the millisecond and quickly managed to bring the rocket to the point of orbit insertion and retrieval. A lot of trial and error happened along the way.
The designers of the V-2 were forced to do the designing for the Nazis, Wherner von Braun and his team surrendered as soon as they could to the Americans, fearing the Nazis would shoot them dead and rather having life in America than in the USSR or being dead. Wherner von Braun was just a rocket enthusiast who was forced to do something he would never think of making- a killing machine
This ist a poor and simple description of this german high tech object, which was developed under such difficult circumstances. All other countries were at least 15 years behind. And neither the US, nor the Soviets would have sent rockets to the skies so soon, without Wernher von Braun and all the other genius german experts!
"which was developed under such difficult circumstances." - you mean having to use and kill slave laborers? Yeah, that's a real hardship. Boo-fucking-hoo.
// Gemini used Titan-2, a hypergolic modified version of criogenic Titan-1. Latter one used RP-1 (kerosene with counter-detonation additives) and LOX.
RP-1 is Soviet.
// "Ruskies" had Lunar Gemini alike approach but LM was pressurized. No prolonged EVA.
Lunar Gemini was also about to launch separately. They were docking with unmanned RM-81_Agena (trans-lunar) booster with open Lunar Sleds. They were open so docking EVA operations on orbit were much different to Apollo.
Do not stink next time.
I always thought the V2 was an incredibly beautiful design of a rocket. Very pleasing to the eye.
Su-27 could not. It is aerodinamically unstable.
Well thanks that answered my question.
Stationed at Holloman AFB in 1983, I took a MW&R office ski tour to Cloudcroft. After, unbeknownst to most, was a stop at a nearby USAF telemetry site off NM244. A man there told a story about a V-2 launch from WSMR he helped track. Normally they didn't go under cover although protocol required it. Moments after the launch, it was apparent that it was tracking directly towards them. They took cover, impact was near Thunder Rd in Alamogordo a few miles away from the station. Thunder road neighborhood exists because of the recovery access road cut into the hill. Remnants of the rocket are in the garden of the Museum of Space History within eyesight of the impact.
I live in Boulder. I would love to learn more...
It is misleading to call the gyro/engine vanes - guidance - it is stabilization. The V2 was a ballistic missile; it had no "guidance" Guidance is directing a missile to a target. The only Guidance the V2 had was the lunch platform that gave it a general direction. If it was accidentally launched toward the northsea there was nothing in the V2 which would direct it to redirect it's course towards London or Amsterdam; let alone a ship at sea. Because the V2 had no "guidance" it was very inaccurate, much like a big artillery shell. The Germans did deveope some missiles with Guidance but the V2 isn't one of them.
Thank you for the video
Von Braun was a serious chain smoker as we're probably most rocket scientists at the time. . Looking at the amount of smoking in control rooms of Apollo it makes you wonder if it was some kind of performance enhancing qualities to cigarettes
No, they had both the V-1 (pulse jet) and the V-2 (ballistic rocket).
They also had interesting ground to air missiles but Hitler had (fortunately) halted their development and only resumed it when it was too late.
Super informative! I wonder if the carbon vanes in the exhaust were added for increased control at high-altitude where fins and rudders would be ineffective, and is the system an early form of thrust-vector control? Simply fascinating.
I hate math
FYI, accuracy of V2 was +/- 5-10 km . This variance was mostly due to drift/coasting after the rocket motor cut out at a apogee .
why didn't the engineers have a clue about second stage energy all the way to River Rouge in Detroit where it would do some value?
gyros keep orientation of their own axis constant.
inertial accelerometer guidance now are much more common,
snowden had not told me that. did it blew up half of the boston too?
The A4 / V2 also used a pendular integrating gyroscopic accelerometer (PIGA) in its inertial guidance system.
Wasn’t it black and white
The navigation was a bit more complicated than just a compass. The V2 (Aggregat 4) used two gyroscopes and and a computer like steering device (Steuergerät SG-66). The SG-66 could be programmed with target coordinates.
i think the nozzle vanes kept it stabilized during liftoff. yes?
Thank you for this! How did the compass actually adjust the rudders, though?
They may not have been "accurate", but who had a similar weapon on the field at that time? This was a intercontinental balistic weapon, and it was 1944, when did the Allies build their first ibm, let alone the first cruise missile? The engineering in the A4 was way ahead of anything the Allies had ever seen. Germans also did use other methods rather than a slide rule, they used computers, the Z3 and Z4 computer from Zuse, these were available since 1941, so not quite right there neither, slide rules????
everything was normal with Gemini except originally they miscalculated mission profile (it was originally Direct_Ascent too) and didn't realize next on time danger of long EVA with open landing sleds. Nevertheless they could made it! It was just to risky with lethal probability of more than 20% of failure.
Steady progress of Apollo is raising of funds, brainfucking of the public and nothing else. There could be remote controlled Apollo-0 with full mission profile and Apollo-1 next.Not Apollo-11.
Moon has no atmosphere. Consider mission to it like mission to big asteroid having sufficient gravitational well. No aerobracking is at landing on the Moon - LM doesn't have to be pressurized technically. It should be pressurized ergonomically. And that was Gemini didn't fit. Nor LM (open sleds) nor truly Gemini CM (Gemini itself). It has side doors, no axial hatch. And place for the hatch is busy. Therefore completely new modules were made as Apollo. And single launcher for them instead of two.
Right before that speech decision was made by world masonry (US is masonic - even temples are more abundant that churches) Moon shot would be american.
Do you know what for he was killed on their order? And Hover had his seat "democratically" lifelong as monarch for silence?
Rocket was weak. It doesn't have even escape SRB. Spacecraft made in a rush had insufficient life support capabilities.
They decided to ground soviet Moon program for world balance of prestige and let make Apollo w/o a ruch.
PS. point is even conventional V-1/2 steadily killed more in UK than Blitz and at the much cheaper price.
no pilots, strategic matherials and gasolene were lost. V-2 used ethanol as a propellant. they didn't have enough kerosene for Me-262, 300 of 1500 were flown for home defence only.
it is cheaper than crewed He-111 bomber. torpedoe has 3 times less sophisticated internal guidance and construction.
V-2 were simplyfied in US and SU then, so now cruise missiles are more complex than ballistic.
Uh... Let me explain what I mean.. During WW2 thousands of tank designs surpassed one another. Just Germany alone had Panzer Kampfwagen 1,2,3,4,5(panther),6(tiger) and 7(tiger2) and most had like 7 or 8 variants. That's merely the panzers, not the artillery stug, sturmtiger, hummel. The antitanks jagdpanzers, jagdtiger, jagdpanther. and all the other hundred of variants of AA-tanks like wirbelwind, ostwind, etc.
How many tank designs have the usa got in the last 30 years?? 1???
The only reason that the US beat the USSR to the moon (or indeed that there was a race to the moon to begin with) was that the US got hold of von Braun and others like him before the Russians did. Funnily enough, if it wasn't for Stalin, the Russians would have gone supersonic in the 1920s or 30s, one of their engineers had accidentally drawn up the perfect design, which was later abandoned due to Stalin's crude methods.
Interestingly enough, the V-2, Werner von Braun's brainchild, was designed as a civilian project to reach the Karman line (official border of space) and potentially carry instrumentation there and back, but once the nazis took hold of the project, they mounted warheads on it, which was the condition upon which they would fund von Braun's project.
After the war, von Braun went to the US and became one of the founders of NASA.
my mother and grad mother had to move out of the house every time the Germans set one of from west land Den Hage Holland . one day they where that sick of collecting there belongings they even left the clothing on the line , when the V2 tumbled and they lost there house .. they had nothing left bet there clothing on there back .
The folks on the ground did not hear it coming. After the blast the sound wave finally caught up and could be heard .
Tully if you go back in history, alwayas has been the same,,,,,the advances in technology since the erliest times of the human race has been developed from wars....and at the angiest times was for food using a pole of wood...
Hey thank you very much dude i needed to make a precentation about WWII and you helped me a lot im am from Holland and thats kind a fun
Ironic isn't it? Robert Goddard takes the liquid fueled rocket idea to the DoD and they say nah. Can't see a use for it! Same thing with the Brits. The jet engine was pretty well perfected there but the Germans wound up using it.
Well the U.S. and Brits were correct. The V2 was an impractical weapon at the time, and the Nazis spent much more on developing and firing V2s than they caused damage and countermeasure costs among the allied forces.
Soviet LM now is at US museum. Soviet CM's are taxiing astronauts to ISS, just translunar heat-shield was reduced to LEO shield and weight saved was spent for adding one more of crew.
No, it wasn't. The Soviet/Russian Scud missiles used by Iran/Iraq/Korea are basically modern V-2's.
The Redstone was basically an upgraded V-2, built by the original design team.
Von Braun and Rudolf were worth their weight in cold pressed latinum. #NotAllNazis
Von Braun was a Nazi and and SS officer. Stop deluding yourself.
the oxygen ran thru a turbine that spun a compressor that pressurized the ethanol.the two then entered the combustion chamber through separate lines .
The turbopump was spun by catalyzed decomposition of85% H2O2 into steam and oxygen. This oxygen was different from the LOX. The turbopump exhaust was dumped overboard via two small vents near the rear of the rocket, so the oxygen steam mixture driving the turbopump never entered the combustion chamber. Source: th-cam.com/video/52oCwSMJdKE/w-d-xo.html . In most V2 launch videos, you can see a small stream of steam near they rocket exhaust, but it's moving much more slowly than the rocket exhaust and thus much more affected by crosswinds. See the linked video series for details.
Was your father Molotov?airplane, submarine were both American inventions. german invented gasoline internal combustion engine otto in 1881
I didn’t know a lot about the V2 rocket and watching this video hasn’t changed that fact! Love it when they don’t explain fuck all even tho the title of the video suggests they mite
_Mite_ :a minute arachnid which has four pairs of legs when adult, related to the ticks.
_Might_ :used tentatively to ask permission or to express a polite request.
Apollo had much better habitability and that was first of all cause of docked pressurized LM. Apollo-13 crew was saved by it at all.
Warhead seems quite compact.
What was the weight of the warhead?
50-100km sounds way off.
The distance from Amsterdam to London is only about 350km, so I think in general they where more accurate than 50km. Of the V2's lanched from The Hague to Antwerp, a distance of about 120km, an estimated 65% hit the target, which would have the accuracy be about 2km on 120km, which would maybe make it 6-10km at 350km?
That seems to be about right given the numbers of about 1 in 5 fired at London hitting the target.
50-100 km (31-60 miles) seems ok, London was about 10 miles across so worse case scenario 1 in 6 would hit London so that ties up with your figure of 1 in 5.
RogerWilco Id much rather reLIVE the war than refight it.
RogerWilco The reason so much missed london was that brits had double agents.. that told slowly guided the rockets to hit outside of the city. By the end the missiles went way off :D
many modern technology are based on german technology,jet planes,rockets,satelite you just need to use the internet
so your target is londo? :)
They tried to use guided anti-ship missiles like Hs 293 (which showed great performance on biscay bay and mediterranean sea theatres) but D-Day was simply too overhelming to contain with available forces .
Gyroscope. Didn't know they were launching them from The Hague. That's ironic. Didn't mention ceiling
The warhead is such a tiny portion of the rocket. Would it not be easier to just shoot it out of a cannon?
It was many times smaller, non-guided and poorly stabilized (having sinusoidal trajectory).
Who else clicked on this because of vanguard?😂
Generally they Germans were Extraordinary intelligent minds
Accurate, no - but NOBODY could stop them. There was no catching these like the V1.
Walter Thiel(1895/1943)was The Chemical Engineer that developed&designed the Propulsion🚀Sys. of The A4(V2); His wife&kids, including himself ALONG with 750+engineers, scientists, &technicians were killed by The🇬🇧RAF on 17Aug’43 at>🌌🕚to🌌🕐am(Peenumunde Research
I don't believe that slide rule was used for the A4 (V2). It's Thrust, Height, Range & Velocity scales are well below the capabilities of the A4 even during testing e.g. Thrust 2,000 kg/m^2 v 25,000 kg/m^2, Range 10 km v 300 km, Altitude 5 km v 80km, 300 m/s v 1,600 m/s. Scaling up by a factor of 10 doesn't work either e.g. 2,500 kg/m^2 * 10 Thrust -> 10 km * 10 Range reads as 450 m/s or 4,500 m/s neither of which match the A4s flight characteristics. I believe it was used for a smaller Rocket possibly the A5, which was a scaled down version of the A4.
The vanes are the only means of stabilizing the rocket until it has developed enough air speed for the fins to work
And Werner von Braun was treated as some kind of hero even in the U.S.A. simply because they needed what he had learned.
The Brits stopped most of the V1 rockets as they would approach slowly and be easily shot down. But they stopped Zero V2 rockets, they were not so accurate but very effective with no defense whatsoever against them.
they even have guided bombs- FritzX,jets ME262,me 163, stealth submarines and many more cool stuff.Plus one year and they win
were the internal fins fully graphite? if so, how were they strong enough to withstand the thrust?
I work in a loony bin, part time. That's the single point you were close.
He didn't used. They were ready 3 weeks late.
HEAT were invented by germans and first time used against Belgian forts in 1940.
Jet engine burns kerosene in ambient air. A rocket one burns it in LOX where it w/o additives detonates destroying it. Those small rockets (Me-163) used kerosene had nitric acid or even peroxide as an oxidiser.
Even Jupiter-C (Juno I) had alcahol-based fuel with LOX, putting 10 less payload on LEO
PS. if you stay on Mozhaisky flight was "a failed attempt" compare its official distance with Wright brothers first flight. having btw gazolene engine, catapult and head wind.
Zulu scaled up predecessors (Type XXI U-boats, also known as "Elektroboote") called "Lafferenz" had Nazies targeting East Coast, simply their nuclear program was 3 weeks behind the schedule.
First operational sub had Russian Empire too. Next one of the team (a frenchman) defected with drawings to France and made replica.
Fins on a plane require air and pressure and that's how they can control the direction. So I don't understand how rockets or spacecrafts are maneuvered in space where it's a vacuum? I would think that the forces inside the combustion chamber would easily send the rocket into a spin.
Gemini had Lunar Sleds! Those lightweight and folded later were attached to Apollo LM as a backup for ascent in EVA suites in case of LM malfunction. Fuel and oxidiser shoud be taken from LM main tanks.
RTFM on astronautix-DOT-com.
Were you working on that project? Ask them...
Just to avoid confusion: Cave doesn't mean a hollow - it is latin and stands for 'beware'. Velocities in still dense atmosphere when lower better not get too high, else something gets smashed due to aerodynamic drag. That is the reason for them announcing: reaching Max Q - and then: go with trottle up
Why even bother with these ersatz, and even simplest form of solid fuel rockets, they're just toys without real rocket engines?
On March 16, 1926, Robert Goddard successfully launched the first liquid-fueled rocket in Auburn, Mass. The first-of-its-kind rocket reached an altitude of 41 feet, lasted 2 seconds and averaged about 60 miles per hour. This was his original design scaled up
41 feet ?
V2 might have not been very accurate but one landed 300 meters from the Remagan bridge (launched from the Netherlands)during the battle when the Germans were trying to destroy it .
sure whittle invented jet engine first krauts and everybody else copied. usa was first with stealth fighter and bomber. now yoiull say the russians were first! Only with the formula witch you didnt do anything with till usa built the first plane in 1977
They are always saying that London got the most hits (1402 hits) when actually Antwerp got hit even more hits(1664 hits).
TH-cam :- let put 7 years old video in his recommendation
this russian is crazy hes deluded and needs a doctor.
by the way the saturn 5 used kerosene in the first stage, that atlas used it and the titan 2 used flourine and hydrazine like the lem did on the moon! they did take that from the ME 164.
The launch plane for the Hs 293 had to loiter over the target as the operator steered it in. It did not take long to figure out that shooting down or at least forcing the delivery bomber to take evasive action screwed up the operator's aim.
Nor did it take long to figure out the radio-control guidance frequency and jam it. I'm afraid that the Hs 293's operational career was a short one.
Many did on themselves. Ohain's (german, more advanced) and Whittle's entered production.
There was no stealth figther. It's attacker in fact.
First stealthy was "Gotha 229"
First faceted was "Facetmobile", it flew w/o computer well.
I thought the V2 used hypergols, not LOX and Al. I believe he's correct.
Never knew you could have a petrol engine for a rocket, especially not 2 cylinders in a v formation.
0:36 He slaute the rocket like nazis.
That encyclopedia is good enough aside of Kamanov diaries. Those were in fact KGB psy-op.
Better than average. I took participation in Aerospace myself.
during the 6 years of ww2 1200 new airplanes were developed. Hows that in the 70 years since??? 1 per 20 years?
^^