Hi Simon and script writers! You should make a video about the potential Yellowstone super-volcano geothermal power plant that could have supplied energy to the whole of USA for thousands of years. www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/08/news-yellowstone-supervolcano-geothermal-energy-debate-iceland-hawaii/
Ok I have to write here a small follow up, because the story wasnt completed. Also it would be great if you could do more research on this topic and do small follow up video. Soviets actually planed from the start, 12 N-1 rockets for the USSR moon mission. Out of those twelve, only last two (so no. 11&12), was meant to actually go to the moon and out of those two, no.11 was just meant to do crewed moon orbit and no.12 was meant to be actual landing. They had No.5 rocket actually about 90% built and No.6 about 40%. Their scientific tactics was building-while-honing, which meant they've calculated that by rocket number 5, they will get (by trile and error) all the errors fixed, since funding wasnt the issue back then. When no4 exploded, they've found the cause (which was in no1 initially to connect all those engines correctly so everything can work as singular thrust) and incorporated fixes into no5. All subsequent launches were meant to be unmaned except last two, in which they will test various aspects of the vehicle and mission. But after no.4 government pulled the plug by unknown reasons (even that no5 was almost finished and scheduled for launch) and all of the remaining rockets were dismantled. Please check all this that Ive wrote and dig a little deeper. Btw, lovely videos in any case, Cheers
The Soviets were like me in Kerbal Space Program: "I haven't researched 2.5m or 3m engines yet, let me just slap 30 of these smaller engines on there". "Oh it blew up, add a few more struts and relaunch"
The smaller rocket nozzles have a smaller internal pressure than larger ones, making them more reliable and safer. The flip-side is of course you need more of them which means more chances for something to go wrong. The soviets made some really nice big engines too.
Minor clarification for those who don't know: the pogo Simon mentioned that showed up during Apollo 13 happened in the center engine of the second stage. It had nothing to do with the famous accident.
That's what I was thinking, too. I considered clarifying that myself, but I saw your comment. If only that could've been the only glitch for the Apollo 13 mission.
For those who still don't know, the famous malfunction of Apollo 13 was a stray spark from a stirrer in an oxygen tank. Sparks in pure oxygen are very bad.
Apollo 6 (AS-502) suffered severe pogo oscillations, but the rocket survived - barely. Pogo remained a problem on the Saturn V at least thru Apollo 17, although each incident produced improvements that lessened the severity. The final Saturn V (Skylab I) had severe vibrations that damaged the payload, but I'm not sure if those were caused by pogo or aerodynamic forces.
Destin from smarter every day did a tour of a rocket assembly plant a couple months ago. I can't remember which company but I think it was somewhere in Alabama. Super interesting shit.
Compare the NASA's VAB with SpaceX's High Bay. Construction times, size, cost, capability, number of rockets produced per year (these will need to wait a few months, but should be interesting)
Having a background in studying airspace back in USSR I have heard from the guys related to the industry that N1, perhaps, could be working if Korolev would live longer, not only because he was smarter, but he seemed to have some power to be convincing and knew how to insist on things the way he wanted them and he exercised this skill not only with inferiors but superiors as well. N1 was meant to be a vehicle not only for the moon but also as a lorry to transport parts (I guess like 5 pcs) for assembling a rocket for Mars on the orbit. But after he had passed, things were not going exactly in a beneficial way, mostly due to some "political" things in the industry. Well... there are "but's" as it was mentioned in the video.
the moscow Nazis KILLED UKRAINIAN Korolev in 1966, and moscow katsap Mishin took his place. Which the !!! 8 !!! years he destroy space industry built by UKRAINIAN Korolev. And only in 1974 Mishin was dismissed with shame and the UKRAINIAN Glushko came to rake all the shit after the katsap.
The amazing thing is America thought they were in a space race with the whole USSR when in fact the politburo couldn't have cared less they treated Korolev with derision until they saw the headlines from the wester press after Gagarin's flight into space. Korolev achieved everything he did by shear force of personality and essentially blagged the soviet space program. I have no doubt had he survived the N1 would have made it to lunar orbit at the least. Towards the end of his life he did finally start to get some recognition though always behind closed doors he is the only person who was sent to the gulags who received the Order of Lenin and last time I checked he was one of only two people to receive it twice. The only time he publicly received any acknowledgment he received a state funeral with Leonid Brezhnev (General secretary of the USSR) as one of his pallbearers he is interred in Red Square mausoleum next to Uri Gagarin and Vladimir Komarov.
At least his name is still around today. Every time they launch a Soyuz we see the beautiful Korolev Cross. So while the N1 wasn't successful, his name lives in in nearly 2000 launches.
I would be interested in their workflow, as Simon is definitely not writing / preparing those episodes by himself (you can see him remarking some parts in the script in one episode, so we has not written it himself). :)
Surplus NK-33 engines actually survived the cold war in a warehouse somewhere. When they where rediscovered the american engineers wouldn't believe their performance specs, they just sounded too good to be true. Turned out that the sovjet engines where far ahead of the american kerolox engines because the Russians had solved the problem of metal corrosion in oxygen rich environments with their superior metallurgy. The ancient engines where subsequently bought by an american rocket company, fitted with modern electronics and flew again on american rockets. One of the most interesting trivia stories ever I think.
The first stage had 28 rockets motors initially. The third launch failed because the engines all put a slight swirl in the exhaust. One was insignificant but 28 put an unexpected torque on the rocket, causing it to spin. To fix this, 2 more rockets were added and angled to produce a counter torque. This worked on the fourth test, but other problems caused it to fail. A fifth test might have been successful, but we will never know.
Fun fact relating to this: The Americans were scared that due to the Soviet Union collapse, that their rocket parts would be sold and their rocket scientists would be poached by rival countries to the US like Iran. So the US employed a shit ton of soviet scientists and went to buy up a bunch of their engines once we saw their specs. The US built the RD-180 engine based off of the RD-170 the Russians designed. We took their engine and applied a bit more modern reverse engineering in 2000, and now the Atlas launch vehicle from ULA uses it.
You mentioned N-1 was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions. Two others I know of were the USS Mt Hood AE-11 and the Halifax explosion December 6, 1917 (which author Laura McDonald listed as the largest non-nuclear explosion in her book “Curse of the Narrows”). (I served on a sister shop of the Mt Hood in 1965-66, and found some references to that explosion in old files in the ship’s office where I worked.) A video on the subject of largest non-nuclear explosions would be interesting.
Check out the footage of the S.S. John Burke in the Pacific! The Mt. Hood incidentally was named during a period in the U.S. Navy when they had a good sense of good gallows humor by naming all their ammo ships after volcanoes!
There is a great postscript to the N-1 saga. The surplus engines that were supposed to be destroyed were saved by engineers who hid them for decades. The irony is that being built by the USSR during the cold war for the space race, they ended up being further developed into the engines that propelled the American Atlas III space launcher. The Atlas III was a direct desendant of the Atlas ICBM thats main purpose was to deliver nuclear weapons to the USSR. The upgraded engines are still used in the Atlas V. The Atlas V is basically new and replaces the earlier ATLAS ICBM derived series boosters.
If I may, here are some factual errors I'd like to correct on the short portion about the N-1 description: 6:38 - The N-1 had 5 stages (6 including the LK), not 4. The 4th stage did not make it to the Moon. 6:41 - The Bloc G which performed the TLI was not the last stage. It was Bloc D. 6:50 - The Bloc D was in charge of the Moon orbit insertion. 7:15 - The center 6 engines did not participate to the control of the rocket. It was the outer 24 engines which did. 8:27 - The 3rd stage is not called Bloc 5, it's Bloc V. The cyrillic letter V, not the roman number 5 like in "Saturn V". All the N-1 stages have the first letters of the cyrillic alphabet: A, B, V, G, D and E. And as akready said, Bloc V was not the last. 8:53 - Bloc G and an NK-21 engine, not an NK-19. 9:00 - It was the Bloc D which made the manoeuvers around the Moon, and it did not have the same engine. It was an RD-58.
Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut, made a great video on the history of Soviet rockets and rocket engines and also the stories on each rocket family. From the early V-2-like rockets to rockets like the N-1, Energia and even diverting to non-Soviet rockets like Antares and Atlas. I highly recommend him.
Excellent video! Just to make sure nobody’s confused, the “pogo” oscillations on Apollo 13 were not a huge deal, and were not what required its lunar mission to be aborted. That abort was caused by a crack in wiring insulation inside a liquid oxygen tank. However, Apollo 6, which was the second (unmanned) “all-up” test of a Saturn V, did suffer *severe* pogo oscillations that very nearly aborted the entire mission. It then suffered two failures in its second stage, but did finally achieve most of its mission objectives.
Now, I know a ton about these rockets - having lived through that era and followed every scrap of information - I just HAD to watch this video because you put things so succinctly. Well done as always.
There are 4 different fuels that fall under the hydrazine title, I'm actually really curious which one was going to be used. N2H2, MMH, DMH or UDMH. I'm sure it course the Soviets wouldn't be using Rocketdyne's proprietary Aerozine 50.
@@Boof_dQw4w9WgXcQ yeah the rival rocket was supposed to be part of the same "Universal Rocket" system as the Proton, and would have used the same fuels.
Legend has it when renovating a building they found the android Simon plugged into a corner. Discovering that Simon could work without sleep and didn't need to be shutdown when charging, the team immediately put Simon to work making videos.
A failure is only a failure if you do not learn from it. -someone, somewhere, probably. Besides, that isn't an explosion, that's just a Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
in US USA .. 11 Starship attempts but ZERO sucess :D .. so ok .. this is video about begining .. However, to the US attempts from the beginning, it is necessary to add all the failures and explosions in Germany from World War II .. because Von. Branun engine has been used from the V2 for decades
@@jedutam You are catastrophically stupid.. It doesn't matter how many Starships blow up, it matters how fast the improvements are implemented and what NASA/Roscosmos takes 10 years, SpaceX does in 3.
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom. The Plutonium Q-38 explosive space modulator! That creature has stolen the space modulator!!! Delays, delays...
Speaking of giant rockets... I know it was never actually built, but a video on the immense US "Sea Dragon" rocket would be a GREAT story just because of the technical specifications!
@@vast634 Everything can be burned with flourine. Especially if you mix it with some chlorine into chlorine triflouride! Then you get a wonderful fuel that is hypergolic with everything, especially test engineers.
@@benn454 yeah? My 2014 Ford Focus is significantly larger than a Ducati Panigale, but the Ducati still makes over 70 more horsepower than my car despite the Ducati's engine displacement being almost 900 cc _smaller_ than the engine in my Focus. Size and power are two different things.
Simon, you should do a Megaprojects on SpaceX Starship!! Also perhaps the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.. But The Starship is just massive and by far the most powerful rocket ever built and launched!
N1 is not a lunar rocket, this rocket is for flights to Mars. besides everything, it was brought to perfection, the problem of accidents was the engine, but it was replaced with another one and the rocket was fully ready for a successful launch, but there was an order to close the project and destroy the rocket and documentation.
My thoughts exactly. 30 first stage engines + fire extinguisher next to each one + all the plumbing + KORD engine control system that was supposed to keep the engines in balance - the complexity is just insane.
N1 program was severely underfunded, while America put all the chips on Apollo. Quite frankly, fate of (self proclaimed by Kennedy) “race to the moon” was predetermined.
@@Inversed Except the first stage did fly successfully almost to burnout, the engine shut down was however too violent and sheared a fuel line causing an explosion. It was an all up testing approach. Failures where expected, the problems would be ironed out after every flight. It sort of worked out like that. The flight planned for 1974 had a high chance of success, but by 1974 it was too late.
Apollo 13 may have had POGO occur; but the definitive cause of the O2 tank explosion in the Service Module was damage to the tank and contained systems when a heater was left on, thus electrical damage. When the stirring was activated, the short created by the damage that happened prior to the tank being installed to the SM was what caused the detonation. Thankfully, great work by the crew and mission control was able to get the craft and crew home and get pictures that helped in the postmortem of the SM.
You do realize that both the engines of Saturn V and those of N-1 are descendants of the V-2 - right? Which itself was developed by a series of trial and error, not pure scientific calculation. So, German engineering lead to the success of Saturn V, the failure of N-1, and the enduring success of Progress (the Russian work-horse of a rocket). While German science merrily went on to calculate particle scattering on neutron stars. But what does Erich von Stroheim have to do with any of this?
@@KonradTheWizzard While this is true to some extent, the Saturn V was the result of the work of more than 400,000 people in the US. The F1 motor was several generations separated from the V2 (didn't even use the same fuels for example), and only certain parts of the Saturn V had any German engineering heritage at all. The Command capsule, moon lander, computer systems, etc. had no German legacy at all. People who claim that the Saturn V or N1 were the result of German engineering are missing the vast majority of the work done, and IMHO, missing the point nearly entirely.
@@KonradTheWizzard it's called a shitpost, based on the common (and hyper-simplified) trope that the reason NASA got to the moon first was because of Von Braun and the Nazi rocket scientists captured/recruited after WWII. IE, German Science.
I'd love to see one on the Space Shuttle. It was arguably a flawed concept from the beginning, and it didn't come close to reaching its goal of providing cheap, safe access to space. That being said, it was extremely ambitious and the end result was still a technological marvel despite its issues.
well said, the shuttle wasn't to blame for the 2 disasters - it was what was strapped to it that caused the disasters - but people don't see that or the other 133 successful missions
@@rikvermar7583 The shuttle was a SYSTEM... as it turned out, a flawed, brittle system that had outlived its usefulness for what it cost. Later! OL J R :)
Simon didn't mention it, but the engine of the N1, the NK33, was used on the American Antares 100 series, and is still used on the Russian Soyuz 2.1v. The USSR was convinced the N1 would work, so they built stockpiles of prebuilt engines for on demand availability. Spoiler alert: the N1 failed, but the engines on their own were engineered beautifully, so much so, some were bought by the US, and were used in smaller configurations on future rockets, like the Antares 110, 120 and 130 (which last flew in 2014), and in Russia on the current Soyuz 2.1v. The US used them up, and Russia is running on empty. The Antares 200 series is powered by an RD-181, and the future Soyuz 2.1v will be powered by RD-193, both coming from a family of engines engineered from the NK-33.
Simon, - love your Megaprojects videos and make a point of watching the Squarespace content to provide support. Thought the N1 program was a bit unfair on the Soviets in general and Mishin in particular. Whilst its true that none of †he (early) launches made it to space, the miracle is that the thing flew at all. Please bear in mind †hat the Saturn 5 program had †he benefit of †he US's enormous engineering infrastructure behind it, and could test components like engines etc on the ground before letting them loose on a real rocket. The Soviet's didn't have anything like that support and so had to "Iron out the kinks" in the machine "on the fly" as it were. That is why its worth mentioning that the four flights which were attempted were the first of a program of something like 12 - 14 before they even attempted a manned flight. Had the program not been cancelled (By Breshnev?), there was every chance it could have gone into service as a working vehicle after the bugs had been eliminated, - who knows? To my mind its something of a miracle that the thing flew at all, let alone working perfectly at an early stage in its development, after all staying aloft for 90 seconds (and travelling how far?) was a much better record than many of the early American rockets of considerably less power. Had Korolev lived there was every chance it would have succeeded. Best regards Martin Langley
And how the shuttle nearly killed it, along with the Galileo probe to Jupiter, AND nearly cost us the Voyager "Grand Tour" of the outer solar system... Later! OL J R:)
That is a good suggestion. I remembered when the B-1 was pretty controversial, and even got cancelled by Carter (who would instead authorize the Advanced Technology Bomber and push cruise missiles), to be resurrected by Reagan in the early 1980s.
Michael Dunne I believe the B1-A was cancelled as it was a high attitude bomber but was susceptible to missiles. Reincarnation as B1-B as a low level bomber and in many ways a quite different plane. Also controversial since it's limited in use cases given limited stealth and limited fuselage life given stresses of low level flight. But still impressive. I've heard one take off at an air show. Wow!! My ears are still ringing! Id sure like to see the comparison with the White Swan
@@longboardfella5306 I was stationed at a B1 Base (hence the screen name). Trust me when you are doing an engine running crew change and you can see the windows of your bus vibrating you come to appreciate the volume of the engines. At night you could hear the engine test stands from seven miles away. The B1 was sidelined for the first half of its career. It is now as much a workhorse as the B52. Honestly it's checkered past is one of the biggest problems. Because of the stops and starts in production led to the loss of parts suppliers so parts shortages are a constant problem. It is a great airframe, and it is about the most intimidating aircraft that I can think of on the battlefield. Well maybe the Warthog beats it, but it is a close second.
That's two very different aircraft though, the Soviet contemporary to the B-1 Lancer is the Tu-22M Backfire (Not to be confused with the Tu-22 Blinder, a completely different aircraft with a very similar name). The Tu-160 is a much larger aircraft that exists in a class all it's own (just as the B-2 does).
This isn't as simple though. The first 10 flights of N-1 were EXPECTED to be failures by the ENGINEERS THEMSELVES. But the Soviet authorities canceled the project by the 4th flight. The budget of that project was 1/10 that of Saturn rocket flight. If not less.
@@altergreenhorn He at least took on several of their ideas early on. He did try buying a Soviet rocket, too. I think some legacy of this is still there, but SpaceX has certainly shot past everyone else of late.
"This is actually what happened to Apollo 13." This is a very confusing statement. The pogo oscillation on Apollo 13 was responsible for the second stage's center J2 engine shutting down prematurely. If you watch the movie this is depicted during the launch scene. However, that oscillation was not responsible for more famous later explosion of the oxygen tank. That was due to an unrelated incident much earlier where work was being done on the tanks that damaged wiring inside the tank, combined with discovering the normally inflamable Teflon insulation actually became flammable enough in a pure oxygen environment. For the record, subsequent flights removed the fan for stirring the oxygen - it was found to not be needed - and hence most of the wiring.
Jason Wilde It’s cool you were able to watch it. I received multiple notifications at once that several videos were uploaded from different Simon channels, so I saved them all to a playlist and started with Toptenz. By the time it was over, the Mig video was deleted! Hopefully, the Megaprojects double post was a mistake and it’ll be reposted in a few days.
As someone who (a long time ago in the 1980's) has worked as an engineer on developing various aerospace equipment, including one with implications for the space shuttle rocketry, I found this video both fascinating, and in one small but important way slightly frustrating, when it implies that the N1 was a design Turkey! In reality, as I think some of the other commenters have suggested, the principle of using an array of smaller engines was in fact sound, and far superior to Von-Braun's rather crude "just hit it with a bigger hammer" approach of using a very few absolutely massive engines. The latter only won out because in an era of often rather unreliable technology, having something with fewer components meant there was less to go wrong, and hence a better chance of it all working for just long enough to achieve the goal. Anyone who wants a non aerospace illustration only has to think of a typical 1960's or 1970's British car, for an example of just how sketchy the reliability of typical mechanical components could be back then. Since that time we have got far better at building things which are consistent and dependable, but back then the Soviet Union, and indeed a lot of other places, didn't really understand how to do quality control properly. The problem is that theoretically elegant solutions like using an array of engines, require that a large number of components work together, and can be coordinated properly. This we can now achieve, but back then not so much... So it isn't an accident that in the present day Elon Musk uses precisely the N1 style multi-small-engine array approach with great success. The problem was mainly that in the 1960's without modern digital control systems, and well engineered reliable valves and fuel lines, it just wasn't possible to achieve a dependable automatic thrust balancing and control system. The N1 was, conceptually, just too far ahead of it's time. Had the soviets had better quality control, more robust components, and better control systems it seems highly likely to me, from what I know of the engineering involved, that the N1 would have been far more successful, and whilst Russia would have still lost the moon, they might, by now have been walking on Mars.
Please please please do a podcast. I love you videos but I can't watch them while driving. Your excitement and enthusiasm would make a excellent podcast that am sure most of your viewers would always listen to. How may thumbs up and we get
Mr. Whistler, great episode. Have you heard of the Sea Dragon? It didn't get built, but a lot of important tech came out of this U.S. Navy project involving underwater launches, and it would have been the first to have reusable parts. The first stage was supposed to be recovered and it had more payload than the Saturn V. Heck the Saturn would have fit inside this monster that never happened. Check it out it might be a megaproject worthy of an episode.
Suggested Topic: The relocation of Abu Simbel and 21 other ancient Egyptian temples and archeological sites to higher ground during the construction of the Aswan High dam back in the mid-1960's.
As a kid, I was, and still am, a huge space nerd, but at the time there was an extreme paucity of information on the N1. I learned about Project Orion from the 50's and 60's before I found out about the N1.
The Soviets denied the existence of N-1 in the open press, though of course the CIA and those "with need to know" knew it existed and had the photographs from spysats and stuff way back in the 60's... it didn't really come out "in the open" with actual Soviet documentation until after the fall of the Soviet Union... Later1 OL J R :)
Do you think you could do a video on the Nevada-Class Battleships as both ships had interesting careers. One of which USS Nevada tried to escape Pearl Harbor, fought at D-Day , Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and survived 2 atomic bombs. I would say that's a mega ship.
You should look into the Sea Dragon rocket. It was a proposed successor to the Saturn V, and had it been built it would have been so large that the 2nd stage of the Saturn V could fit into its engine and nozzle.
Gotta say, your channel is absolutely brilliant, very well written and also, quite fun to watch!! Thanks for the extra education whilst Lockdown has been on. Keep this up! Fantastic stuff!
8:26: Small correction: The third stage of the N1 was Block V, as the stages were named after the order of the first letters in the russian cyrilic alphabet, which is A, B, V, G, D.
That rocket in the thumbnail is a Kerbal Space Program stock replica of the N1 (you can tell by e.g. the exhaust plumes being identical to KS-25 "Vector" engine plumes). Also, the rocket was called N1, not N-1
Leika was not the first animal in space, she was not even the first dog in space, she was the first animal in orbit. Various animals had crossed the boundary of space before her, but those were ballistic flights.
"we wanna hear about the Soviet version that blew up loads of times" "badly rushed and faced a catalog of issues" If not for the title of the video, I'd have to ask which Soviet machine you were referring to XD
It's worth mentioning that Kennedy's "We choose to go to the moon..." speech came in 1962, a full year after NASA had successfully launched their first Saturn I heavy lift booster capable of putting a 14 metric ton payload into space with its H1 Rocketdyne Engines. The USSR may have been first in space, but the US was ahead in heavy-lift rocket development by 1962, which is why confidence was so high in reaching the moon.
Could you do a video on Göta canal? Huge project that involved digging a channel from Kattegatt (Sweden's west coast) to the baltic in the east, was made inferior by its completion due to the introduction of the railway
Hey Simon, I would love to see an episode on Brasilia, the Capital of Brazil (duh) or Ankara. The Idea of Building an Entire City in one swoop could make for an interesting video. Love the Content, Keep it up. Thank You
The navy shirt twinned up with the navy jacket,.................what a terrific match,................"Allegedly",.................🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Can you please make a video about Brasília, the capital of Brazil! It's a planned city built in 1000 days, would be really cool to se a video about it. (1st time)
Excuse me, Simon, but "pogoing" in a US rocket engine (12:04) was not the cause of the Apollo 13 problems. Inside an oxygen tank in the Service Module (SM) was a stirring mechanism. The electrical wiring to the mechanism had undetected defective insulation. Most of the time, the liquid oxygen did not require stirring, so the mechanism was turned off. But, when the switch located in the Command Module (CM) was turned on for the last time, a small electrical spark was generated, causing an explosion of the oxygen, rupturing the tank and blowing off a section of the surface panels of the SM. We know this much because the crew inside the CM saw oxygen 'snow' in the space outside the window. Moreover, instruments in the CM showed a precipitous drop in oxygen pressure, followed by a declining output of electricity from the fuel-cells in the SM There may have been further, unknown damage to the SM. From then on until much later, the crew was forced to evacuate the CM and take refuge inside the Lunar Module. There is no telling how long that oxygen tank, with the defective wiring hidden inside, sat on a shelf in some warehouse.
All that power, first stage more powerful than that of the Saturn V. And yet the plan was for only two to fly the mission, and one to reach the surface of the moon for a very brief time.
Oh man a Ukrainian guy at work had his name transliterated to that when he first started. Felt so bad for him. Eventually he had the spelling changed to be more phonetic, but still. Nice guy, smart too from what I recall. Of course he didn't stay more than 2-3 years at my work lmao
A bit of a nitpick: Nitrogen tetroxide (or more formally, dinitrogen tetroxide) is actually an oxidizer rather than a fuel. The other half of this equation is something from the hydrazine family, like straight-up hydrazine, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), monomethylhydrazine (MMH) or something equivalent to Aerozine 50, a 50-50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH, which is the actual fuel. Apart from both sides being highly toxic, when DNTO and one of those hydrazine fuels mix, they'd spontaneously combust in a "hypergolic" reaction. Because of this, while it did power launch vehicles such as Russia's Proton-K and Proton-M, as well as most of USA's Titan rockets, hypergols are used in applications where it simply "must work", like reaction control systems (maneuvering thrusters), as well as the Space Shuttle orbiter's OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System), and modern spacecraft escape systems, such as SpaceX's SuperDraco thrusters in its crewed Dragon 2 spacecraft.
I have a vostok europe watch themed on the N1. It's a huge, expensive solid bronze beast. Always thought it was weird to theme a watch on such a catastrophic failure, but i still like it
Please do a video on the Mil V-12, the biggest helicopter ever made. It was literally the size of a C-130 cargo plane, but it was a helicopter (and yes it was russian because of course it was)
Just some ideas. 1. Great Wall of China 2. Mil Mi-12, the largest helicopter ever built. 3. Stalin's skyscrapers 4. The Syracusia, designed by Archimedes 5. The Eiffel Tower
Common mistake made when using stock footage: "Oh, it's a vaguely round-in-cross-section white rocket with black stripes and red 'USA' lettering - must be a Saturn V." ;-)
@@stuartyoung4182 My best guess is whoever was editing it searched "Saturn V" in whatever stock footage service they use and probably just picked one that fit the time window for the subtitle card.
Please, if there is anyone out there that wants to help a single dad who has fallen on some hard times and really losing all hope and extremely desperate ,please do. gf.me/u/ytfn95. Sorry to post this here but, it I know him and he deserves it for sure. 🙏
So I know this is an odd suggestion, but I work for USPS and seriously, the US postal network is probably the most incredible and largest logistics networks in the country. It still blows my mind that we were able to develop the machines and methods and plans to move so many things so fast and reliably. I would strongly suggest doing an episode to show the amazing network of machines and people that drives the United States Post Office
Well there was the Gemini program, which put Americans in a better place when it came to getting down the fundamentals of spaceflight. That program, which involved manned and unmanned flights from 1964 through 1966, is often described as "when NASA learned to fly."
The big reason the USSR led the early space race was because America's atomic bomb technology was more advanced. All early rockets used to launch things into orbit were repurposed ICBMs. Korolev built the R7 rocket (aka Soyuz) based on launching a really big, really heavy atomic bomb, so it was big enough that it could pretty easily put a small satellite into orbit and be modified to put humans into orbit. American ICBMs were smaller, and so couldn't put things into orbit.
@@jamiecottrell2347 Well, the Americans also dawdled with ICBM development. Stuff that got kind of ignored, of placed in a lower priority category: Karel Bossart made a proposal in the fall of 1945; Wernher von Braun and his team were out in Texas doing tests, but on a pretty conservative scale/cadence; there was work on shorter range missiles like Corporal but not the same (and that one took a long time - same with the Navy and Viking?). Maybe the Air Force was too focused on bombers? That SAC focus had been cited at times. Regardless, the Americans woke up around 1955 and then accelerated the program for Atlas, and had Titan as the back up for the Air Force's landbased ICBMs. For submarines, thought the Navy was relatively early on keen about solid fueled rockets (regardless of work around Viking/Vanguard)?
You’re exactly right. The Americans were slower to develop ICBMs because they had an edge in strategic bombers and that was their preferred delivery system for nuclear weapons. Not only that, but the first-generation ballistic missiles all used cryogenic propellants like LOX which made them more useful as space exploration vehicles than as weapons because they couldn’t be kept in a ready-to-launch condition for more than a few hours.
One technical point - nitrogen tetroxide isn't a fuel, it's an oxidiser. The N-1 used liquid oxygen as its oxidiser to burn the kerosene fuel (which was probably more like RP-1 than the kerosene that you might buy to fuel a camping stove). Many modern rockets use nitrogen tetroxide oxidiser in combination with a fuel such as UDMH (unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine), because this mixture is hypergolic : the two components react upon contact, so no ignition system is required. Both components are toxic, though, and the NO4 is pretty corrosive, too. UDMH / NO4 powered the ascent stages of the Apollo lunar modules, because the designers wanted to make that engine as unlikely to fail as humanly possible. (For the same reason, the Apollo LM ascent engine had no turbopumps, instead using helium pressurisation to drive fuel from the tanks into the engine.)
An interview by Luke Talley who worked on the instrumentation ring noted that the Saturn V fins nearly struck the tower in the first test launch (requiring a hard gimbal update to the control program to make sure the fins had more clearance). Although the solution made for one hell of a swimmy ride for the astronauts on top - it prevented the rocket from striking the tower and causing a 1500 foot fireball that would have consumed everything including the launch platform.
another important point was that the soviet moon program was woefully underfunded. The USSR allocated something between 4 and 10 billion dollars for the entire moon program (yes all the parts and the 2 rival proposals). Nasa on the other hand spent over 25 billion dollars on the apollo program. The soviets were short on both time and money.
I think something got lost in translation. The third stage was probably Block V, because that's the 3rd letter of the Russian alphabet. It's not a Roman numeral.
no one, I belive, because we already new the history, when R-1 legacy of V-2 crashed and smashed several times... Stalin was not stuped, but very smart managing director of very huge corporation (USSR)
@@MacTac141 I am not so sure that Stalin personally digged that channel through the desert. I think there are a lot of engineers who proposed that solution and diggers who made it. Why - for that time solution was to make more good earth for agriculture or have salt lake...
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
Hi Simon and script writers! You should make a video about the potential Yellowstone super-volcano geothermal power plant that could have supplied energy to the whole of USA for thousands of years. www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/08/news-yellowstone-supervolcano-geothermal-energy-debate-iceland-hawaii/
Squarespace...the company that will kill your website if they disagree with your opinion.
Hey if you keep doing 2 vida at a time, I will enjoy that. Bonjour Weewee
Ok I have to write here a small follow up, because the story wasnt completed. Also it would be great if you could do more research on this topic and do small follow up video.
Soviets actually planed from the start, 12 N-1 rockets for the USSR moon mission. Out of those twelve, only last two (so no. 11&12), was meant to actually go to the moon and out of those two, no.11 was just meant to do crewed moon orbit and no.12 was meant to be actual landing.
They had No.5 rocket actually about 90% built and No.6 about 40%. Their scientific tactics was building-while-honing, which meant they've calculated that by rocket number 5, they will get (by trile and error) all the errors fixed, since funding wasnt the issue back then. When no4 exploded, they've found the cause (which was in no1 initially to connect all those engines correctly so everything can work as singular thrust) and incorporated fixes into no5. All subsequent launches were meant to be unmaned except last two, in which they will test various aspects of the vehicle and mission.
But after no.4 government pulled the plug by unknown reasons (even that no5 was almost finished and scheduled for launch) and all of the remaining rockets were dismantled.
Please check all this that Ive wrote and dig a little deeper.
Btw, lovely videos in any case,
Cheers
Simon I saw a #mig video.... I just want that video and you know it. Algedly.
The Soviets were like me in Kerbal Space Program:
"I haven't researched 2.5m or 3m engines yet, let me just slap 30 of these smaller engines on there".
"Oh it blew up, add a few more struts and relaunch"
The smaller rocket nozzles have a smaller internal pressure than larger ones, making them more reliable and safer. The flip-side is of course you need more of them which means more chances for something to go wrong. The soviets made some really nice big engines too.
it always needs more struts
SpaceX: Hold my beer
new spacex rocket will have even more engines on the first stage, 31 I think?
It's broke? Hmmm... more struts, more power, more danger... MORE BOOM BOOM!!
Minor clarification for those who don't know: the pogo Simon mentioned that showed up during Apollo 13 happened in the center engine of the second stage. It had nothing to do with the famous accident.
That's what I was thinking, too. I considered clarifying that myself, but I saw your comment. If only that could've been the only glitch for the Apollo 13 mission.
For those who still don't know, the famous malfunction of Apollo 13 was a stray spark from a stirrer in an oxygen tank. Sparks in pure oxygen are very bad.
I knew what he meant but i never heard that early cutoff being connected with Pogo.
Glad someone cleared this up.
Apollo 6 (AS-502) suffered severe pogo oscillations, but the rocket survived - barely. Pogo remained a problem on the Saturn V at least thru Apollo 17, although each incident produced improvements that lessened the severity. The final Saturn V (Skylab I) had severe vibrations that damaged the payload, but I'm not sure if those were caused by pogo or aerodynamic forces.
I would LOVE to see one on the VAB [vehicle assembly building] That NASA uses!!!
Same!
Big facts
Destin from smarter every day did a tour of a rocket assembly plant a couple months ago. I can't remember which company but I think it was somewhere in Alabama. Super interesting shit.
vertical assembly building*
Compare the NASA's VAB with SpaceX's High Bay. Construction times, size, cost, capability, number of rockets produced per year (these will need to wait a few months, but should be interesting)
Having a background in studying airspace back in USSR I have heard from the guys related to the industry that N1, perhaps, could be working if Korolev would live longer, not only because he was smarter, but he seemed to have some power to be convincing and knew how to insist on things the way he wanted them and he exercised this skill not only with inferiors but superiors as well. N1 was meant to be a vehicle not only for the moon but also as a lorry to transport parts (I guess like 5 pcs) for assembling a rocket for Mars on the orbit. But after he had passed, things were not going exactly in a beneficial way, mostly due to some "political" things in the industry. Well... there are "but's" as it was mentioned in the video.
the moscow Nazis KILLED UKRAINIAN Korolev in 1966, and moscow katsap Mishin took his place.
Which the !!! 8 !!! years he destroy space industry built by UKRAINIAN Korolev.
And only in 1974 Mishin was dismissed with shame and the UKRAINIAN Glushko came to rake all the shit after the katsap.
The amazing thing is America thought they were in a space race with the whole USSR when in fact the politburo couldn't have cared less they treated Korolev with derision until they saw the headlines from the wester press after Gagarin's flight into space. Korolev achieved everything he did by shear force of personality and essentially blagged the soviet space program. I have no doubt had he survived the N1 would have made it to lunar orbit at the least. Towards the end of his life he did finally start to get some recognition though always behind closed doors he is the only person who was sent to the gulags who received the Order of Lenin and last time I checked he was one of only two people to receive it twice. The only time he publicly received any acknowledgment he received a state funeral with Leonid Brezhnev (General secretary of the USSR) as one of his pallbearers he is interred in Red Square mausoleum next to Uri Gagarin and Vladimir Komarov.
At least his name is still around today. Every time they launch a Soyuz we see the beautiful Korolev Cross.
So while the N1 wasn't successful, his name lives in in nearly 2000 launches.
Korolev was the mastermind. Definitely his death played a big part in its failure.
Next on megaprojects: Simon Whistler's TH-cam channels empire
And his magnificent face rug that even Brian Blessed fears!
You forgot to add "Megaempire" to it :D
"allegedly" 😉
@@danhaworth6967 aLEGENDly? Lol
I would be interested in their workflow, as Simon is definitely not writing / preparing those episodes by himself (you can see him remarking some parts in the script in one episode, so we has not written it himself). :)
Surplus NK-33 engines actually survived the cold war in a warehouse somewhere. When they where rediscovered the american engineers wouldn't believe their performance specs, they just sounded too good to be true. Turned out that the sovjet engines where far ahead of the american kerolox engines because the Russians had solved the problem of metal corrosion in oxygen rich environments with their superior metallurgy. The ancient engines where subsequently bought by an american rocket company, fitted with modern electronics and flew again on american rockets. One of the most interesting trivia stories ever I think.
The Soviets got the propulsion Nazis; we got the guidance ones. They could always put up bigger payloads; but, our guidance was always better.
The first stage had 28 rockets motors initially. The third launch failed because the engines all put a slight swirl in the exhaust. One was insignificant but 28 put an unexpected torque on the rocket, causing it to spin. To fix this, 2 more rockets were added and angled to produce a counter torque. This worked on the fourth test, but other problems caused it to fail. A fifth test might have been successful, but we will never know.
Orbital ATK (before Northrop Grumman bought them) used those rocket engines for their stage rockets for resupplying missions for the ISS.
@Adi Adiani you can't spell let alone make sense. This, is the truth.
Fun fact relating to this: The Americans were scared that due to the Soviet Union collapse, that their rocket parts would be sold and their rocket scientists would be poached by rival countries to the US like Iran. So the US employed a shit ton of soviet scientists and went to buy up a bunch of their engines once we saw their specs. The US built the RD-180 engine based off of the RD-170 the Russians designed. We took their engine and applied a bit more modern reverse engineering in 2000, and now the Atlas launch vehicle from ULA uses it.
You mentioned N-1 was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions. Two others I know of were the USS Mt Hood AE-11 and the Halifax explosion December 6, 1917 (which author Laura McDonald listed as the largest non-nuclear explosion in her book “Curse of the Narrows”). (I served on a sister shop of the Mt Hood in 1965-66, and found some references to that explosion in old files in the ship’s office where I worked.) A video on the subject of largest non-nuclear explosions would be interesting.
Check out the footage of the S.S. John Burke in the Pacific!
The Mt. Hood incidentally was named during a period in the U.S. Navy when they had a good sense of good gallows humor by naming all their ammo ships after volcanoes!
There is a great postscript to the N-1 saga. The surplus engines that were supposed to be destroyed were saved by engineers who hid them for decades. The irony is that being built by the USSR during the cold war for the space race, they ended up being further developed into the engines that propelled the American Atlas III space launcher. The Atlas III was a direct desendant of the Atlas ICBM thats main purpose was to deliver nuclear weapons to the USSR. The upgraded engines are still used in the Atlas V. The Atlas V is basically new and replaces the earlier ATLAS ICBM derived series boosters.
If I may, here are some factual errors I'd like to correct on the short portion about the N-1 description:
6:38 - The N-1 had 5 stages (6 including the LK), not 4. The 4th stage did not make it to the Moon.
6:41 - The Bloc G which performed the TLI was not the last stage. It was Bloc D.
6:50 - The Bloc D was in charge of the Moon orbit insertion.
7:15 - The center 6 engines did not participate to the control of the rocket. It was the outer 24 engines which did.
8:27 - The 3rd stage is not called Bloc 5, it's Bloc V. The cyrillic letter V, not the roman number 5 like in "Saturn V". All the N-1 stages have the first letters of the cyrillic alphabet: A, B, V, G, D and E. And as akready said, Bloc V was not the last.
8:53 - Bloc G and an NK-21 engine, not an NK-19.
9:00 - It was the Bloc D which made the manoeuvers around the Moon, and it did not have the same engine. It was an RD-58.
Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut, made a great video on the history of Soviet rockets and rocket engines and also the stories on each rocket family. From the early V-2-like rockets to rockets like the N-1, Energia and even diverting to non-Soviet rockets like Antares and Atlas. I highly recommend him.
Excellent video!
Just to make sure nobody’s confused, the “pogo” oscillations on Apollo 13 were not a huge deal, and were not what required its lunar mission to be aborted. That abort was caused by a crack in wiring insulation inside a liquid oxygen tank.
However, Apollo 6, which was the second (unmanned) “all-up” test of a Saturn V, did suffer *severe* pogo oscillations that very nearly aborted the entire mission. It then suffered two failures in its second stage, but did finally achieve most of its mission objectives.
Now, I know a ton about these rockets - having lived through that era and followed every scrap of information - I just HAD to watch this video because you put things so succinctly.
Well done as always.
NTO is actually the oxidiser. The corresponding fuel is hydrazine. Which is just as nasty.
There are 4 different fuels that fall under the hydrazine title, I'm actually really curious which one was going to be used. N2H2, MMH, DMH or UDMH. I'm sure it course the Soviets wouldn't be using Rocketdyne's proprietary Aerozine 50.
@@Boof_dQw4w9WgXcQ awesome, thank you.
@@Boof_dQw4w9WgXcQ yeah the rival rocket was supposed to be part of the same "Universal Rocket" system as the Proton, and would have used the same fuels.
Legend has it when renovating a building they found the android Simon plugged into a corner. Discovering that Simon could work without sleep and didn't need to be shutdown when charging, the team immediately put Simon to work making videos.
Powered by cocaine.
Allegedly.
Next time on megaprojects...
"Success is nice, but explosions are nicer" - Michael Bay... Maybe
Allegedly
@@jrfish007 but also really
A failure is only a failure if you do not learn from it. -someone, somewhere, probably.
Besides, that isn't an explosion, that's just a Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
BIGGEST FIREWORKS EVER SEEN!!!!
@@richardmillhousenixon Did Elon Musk say that before or after his rocket blew up landing on that ocean platform
In Soviet Russia, it's 5th time's the charm, though you only get 4 attempts.
in US USA .. 11 Starship attempts but ZERO sucess :D .. so ok .. this is video about begining .. However, to the US attempts from the beginning, it is necessary to add all the failures and explosions in Germany from World War II .. because Von. Branun engine has been used from the V2 for decades
@@jedutam You are catastrophically stupid.. It doesn't matter how many Starships blow up, it matters how fast the improvements are implemented and what NASA/Roscosmos takes 10 years, SpaceX does in 3.
@@jedutam Hah, offended Russian. Typical.
@@jedutam Dumbass....what about starhopper, SN5, SN6, and SN8-SN11 were all successfully flown until the landing part....
Falcon 9 successfully landed on a drone ship with its fifth attempt. The announcer even said "The 5th time's the charm."
13:21 Missed a chance to quote Marvin the Martian and say "Earth shattering kaboom".
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom. The Plutonium Q-38 explosive space modulator! That creature has stolen the space modulator!!!
Delays, delays...
@@skyden24195 Eludium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator... Eludium is next to Unobtanium on the Periodic Table... OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalker ah.. thanks. It's been a while since I've seen the cartoon.
Speaking of giant rockets... I know it was never actually built, but a video on the immense US "Sea Dragon" rocket would be a GREAT story just because of the technical specifications!
Agreed
Minor nitpick, nitrogen tetroxide is an oxidiser, not a fuel.. other than that, awesome video 👌😊
Beat me to it!
yep, the Fuel part would probably have been UDMH (Unsymetric Dimethyl Hydrazine)
Even nitrogen tetroxide can be burned as fuel ... with fluorine
@@vast634 Everything can be burned with flourine. Especially if you mix it with some chlorine into chlorine triflouride! Then you get a wonderful fuel that is hypergolic with everything, especially test engineers.
@@efulmer8675 Yeah SAND is even a fuel with that stuff... LOL:) OL J R :)
So, Sergei and Valentin were basically Farnsworth & Wernstrom. (Futurama)
And another soviet rocket scientist Mikhail Yangel was basically G-man from Half-Life. Just search his photos.
- That show was s lame. Cant belive it was created by the Simpsons team.
WERNSTROM!!!!!!!!!!!
@@mydogbrian4814 That's like... your opinion, man. It was awesome. Better than Simpsons, actually.
@@sirius4k at its best it was profane poetry. it just didn't reach that level as often as i'd have liked.
Simon: “... the N1 had more thrust than the Saturn V.”
Korolev’s ghost: “Ba-da-boom-boom-disshhhh!”
Saturn V was bigger. It's a size of the tool vs. motion of the ocean situation.
@@benn454 yeah? My 2014 Ford Focus is significantly larger than a Ducati Panigale, but the Ducati still makes over 70 more horsepower than my car despite the Ducati's engine displacement being almost 900 cc _smaller_ than the engine in my Focus. Size and power are two different things.
@@richardmillhousenixon Way to take a dumb dick joke way too seriously. Good job.
At least the Saturn V lasted more than 90 seconds lol.
Yes it did have more thrust, but it did not work, so that point is mute.
"We need to put something in space, Laika! Wanna become a hero of the soviet union?"
Laika: "Blyat..."
Laika was a Moscow stray dog IIRC... Think it was Moscow. Laika means "Barker" in Russian LOL:) OL J R :)
Simon, you should do a Megaprojects on SpaceX Starship!! Also perhaps the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.. But The Starship is just massive and by far the most powerful rocket ever built and launched!
The N1 was more complicated than the Saturn V. More things that can go wrong.
then ...they went wrong LOL
N1 is not a lunar rocket, this rocket is for flights to Mars. besides everything, it was brought to perfection, the problem of accidents was the engine, but it was replaced with another one and the rocket was fully ready for a successful launch, but there was an order to close the project and destroy the rocket and documentation.
My thoughts exactly. 30 first stage engines + fire extinguisher next to each one + all the plumbing + KORD engine control system that was supposed to keep the engines in balance - the complexity is just insane.
N1 program was severely underfunded, while America put all the chips on Apollo. Quite frankly, fate of (self proclaimed by Kennedy) “race to the moon” was predetermined.
@@Inversed Except the first stage did fly successfully almost to burnout, the engine shut down was however too violent and sheared a fuel line causing an explosion. It was an all up testing approach. Failures where expected, the problems would be ironed out after every flight. It sort of worked out like that. The flight planned for 1974 had a high chance of success, but by 1974 it was too late.
Apollo 13 may have had POGO occur; but the definitive cause of the O2 tank explosion in the Service Module was damage to the tank and contained systems when a heater was left on, thus electrical damage. When the stirring was activated, the short created by the damage that happened prior to the tank being installed to the SM was what caused the detonation. Thankfully, great work by the crew and mission control was able to get the craft and crew home and get pictures that helped in the postmortem of the SM.
1:21 "One worked really well, and one didn't"
Rudol von Stroheim: "GERMAN SCIENCE IS THE WORLD'S FINEST!"
You do realize that both the engines of Saturn V and those of N-1 are descendants of the V-2 - right? Which itself was developed by a series of trial and error, not pure scientific calculation. So, German engineering lead to the success of Saturn V, the failure of N-1, and the enduring success of Progress (the Russian work-horse of a rocket). While German science merrily went on to calculate particle scattering on neutron stars.
But what does Erich von Stroheim have to do with any of this?
@@KonradTheWizzard While this is true to some extent, the Saturn V was the result of the work of more than 400,000 people in the US. The F1 motor was several generations separated from the V2 (didn't even use the same fuels for example), and only certain parts of the Saturn V had any German engineering heritage at all. The Command capsule, moon lander, computer systems, etc. had no German legacy at all. People who claim that the Saturn V or N1 were the result of German engineering are missing the vast majority of the work done, and IMHO, missing the point nearly entirely.
The VAB could hold 4 Saturn V fully built, a true Megaprojects.
@@Desrtfox71 I whole heartedly agree with you.
@@KonradTheWizzard it's called a shitpost, based on the common (and hyper-simplified) trope that the reason NASA got to the moon first was because of Von Braun and the Nazi rocket scientists captured/recruited after WWII. IE, German Science.
What makes these things is the great writing together with Simon's ever-improving presentation. It's a lot of work, done well.
I'd love to see one on the Space Shuttle. It was arguably a flawed concept from the beginning, and it didn't come close to reaching its goal of providing cheap, safe access to space. That being said, it was extremely ambitious and the end result was still a technological marvel despite its issues.
well said, the shuttle wasn't to blame for the 2 disasters - it was what was strapped to it that caused the disasters - but people don't see that or the other 133 successful missions
@@rikvermar7583 The shuttle was a SYSTEM... as it turned out, a flawed, brittle system that had outlived its usefulness for what it cost. Later! OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalker thankyou for your completely useless bit of info
@@rikvermar7583 Can't blame the boosters, since the shuttle was so badly designed that it needed it
@@lukestrawwalker soviet N1: 4 missions 4 failed
space shuttle: 135 missions 2 failed
big difference
Simon didn't mention it, but the engine of the N1, the NK33, was used on the American Antares 100 series, and is still used on the Russian Soyuz 2.1v. The USSR was convinced the N1 would work, so they built stockpiles of prebuilt engines for on demand availability. Spoiler alert: the N1 failed, but the engines on their own were engineered beautifully, so much so, some were bought by the US, and were used in smaller configurations on future rockets, like the Antares 110, 120 and 130 (which last flew in 2014), and in Russia on the current Soyuz 2.1v. The US used them up, and Russia is running on empty. The Antares 200 series is powered by an RD-181, and the future Soyuz 2.1v will be powered by RD-193, both coming from a family of engines engineered from the NK-33.
Incredible rocket that ended up making some fancy bus shelters
Not true, one made a very fancy garden shed 🙃
Never would've expected a Thomas Toy channel to be here.
Thanks Simon
Let's not forget Korolev's lasting legacy, the R7, which has had the longest service life of any rocket in history.
Simon, - love your Megaprojects videos and make a point of watching the Squarespace content to provide support. Thought the N1 program was a bit unfair on the Soviets in general and Mishin in particular. Whilst its true that none of †he (early) launches made it to space, the miracle is that the thing flew at all. Please bear in mind †hat the Saturn 5 program had †he benefit of †he US's enormous engineering infrastructure behind it, and could test components like engines etc on the ground before letting them loose on a real rocket. The Soviet's didn't have anything like that support and so had to "Iron out the kinks" in the machine "on the fly" as it were. That is why its worth mentioning that the four flights which were attempted were the first of a program of something like 12 - 14 before they even attempted a manned flight. Had the program not been cancelled (By Breshnev?), there was every chance it could have gone into service as a working vehicle after the bugs had been eliminated, - who knows? To my mind its something of a miracle that the thing flew at all, let alone working perfectly at an early stage in its development, after all staying aloft for 90 seconds (and travelling how far?) was a much better record than many of the early American rockets of considerably less power. Had Korolev lived there was every chance it would have succeeded.
Best regards
Martin Langley
A great Megaproject would be a video on The Hubble Space Telescope!
The James Webb telescope would be better
@@M3PH11 got too wait for it too launch and be proved first
You mean that limited(features?) edition Keyhole spy satellite?
And how the shuttle nearly killed it, along with the Galileo probe to Jupiter, AND nearly cost us the Voyager "Grand Tour" of the outer solar system... Later! OL J R:)
CCCP vs USA sugestion: Tupolev Tu-160 "B-1ski" vs Rockwell B-1 Lancer
That is a good suggestion. I remembered when the B-1 was pretty controversial, and even got cancelled by Carter (who would instead authorize the Advanced Technology Bomber and push cruise missiles), to be resurrected by Reagan in the early 1980s.
Michael Dunne I believe the B1-A was cancelled as it was a high attitude bomber but was susceptible to missiles. Reincarnation as B1-B as a low level bomber and in many ways a quite different plane. Also controversial since it's limited in use cases given limited stealth and limited fuselage life given stresses of low level flight. But still impressive. I've heard one take off at an air show. Wow!! My ears are still ringing! Id sure like to see the comparison with the White Swan
@@longboardfella5306 I was stationed at a B1 Base (hence the screen name). Trust me when you are doing an engine running crew change and you can see the windows of your bus vibrating you come to appreciate the volume of the engines. At night you could hear the engine test stands from seven miles away.
The B1 was sidelined for the first half of its career. It is now as much a workhorse as the B52. Honestly it's checkered past is one of the biggest problems. Because of the stops and starts in production led to the loss of parts suppliers so parts shortages are a constant problem. It is a great airframe, and it is about the most intimidating aircraft that I can think of on the battlefield. Well maybe the Warthog beats it, but it is a close second.
That's two very different aircraft though, the Soviet contemporary to the B-1 Lancer is the Tu-22M Backfire (Not to be confused with the Tu-22 Blinder, a completely different aircraft with a very similar name). The Tu-160 is a much larger aircraft that exists in a class all it's own (just as the B-2 does).
Those two planes are not really comparable, Tu-22(M) should be discussed instead.
This isn't as simple though. The first 10 flights of N-1 were EXPECTED to be failures by the ENGINEERS THEMSELVES. But the Soviet authorities canceled the project by the 4th flight.
The budget of that project was 1/10 that of Saturn rocket flight. If not less.
A point not often made, but very critical. SpaceX is using similar logic to the Russians.
Michael Putnam that’s very interesting observation
@@michaelputnam2532 Musk actually modified Soviet-Russian rocket technology
@@altergreenhorn He at least took on several of their ideas early on. He did try buying a Soviet rocket, too. I think some legacy of this is still there, but SpaceX has certainly shot past everyone else of late.
@@altergreenhorn while hiring only Americans...
Fascinating. *thinking face*
"This is actually what happened to Apollo 13."
This is a very confusing statement. The pogo oscillation on Apollo 13 was responsible for the second stage's center J2 engine shutting down prematurely. If you watch the movie this is depicted during the launch scene.
However, that oscillation was not responsible for more famous later explosion of the oxygen tank. That was due to an unrelated incident much earlier where work was being done on the tanks that damaged wiring inside the tank, combined with discovering the normally inflamable Teflon insulation actually became flammable enough in a pure oxygen environment.
For the record, subsequent flights removed the fan for stirring the oxygen - it was found to not be needed - and hence most of the wiring.
Where did the MiG-29 video go? I was watching it and super into it and then it disappeared on me. This one is good too just confused.
I just finished the video and was going to comment on it but the video has been removed.
Yeah crazy. Must have been Putin ;D
Jason Wilde
It’s cool you were able to watch it. I received multiple notifications at once that several videos were uploaded from different Simon channels, so I saved them all to a playlist and started with Toptenz. By the time it was over, the Mig video was deleted! Hopefully, the Megaprojects double post was a mistake and it’ll be reposted in a few days.
@@augsdoggs yeah I was in a similar boat. I'm assuming that one will show up again in a few days or something.
maybe a copyright claim.
As someone who (a long time ago in the 1980's) has worked as an engineer on developing various aerospace equipment, including one with implications for the space shuttle rocketry, I found this video both fascinating, and in one small but important way slightly frustrating, when it implies that the N1 was a design Turkey!
In reality, as I think some of the other commenters have suggested, the principle of using an array of smaller engines was in fact sound, and far superior to Von-Braun's rather crude "just hit it with a bigger hammer" approach of using a very few absolutely massive engines. The latter only won out because in an era of often rather unreliable technology, having something with fewer components meant there was less to go wrong, and hence a better chance of it all working for just long enough to achieve the goal.
Anyone who wants a non aerospace illustration only has to think of a typical 1960's or 1970's British car, for an example of just how sketchy the reliability of typical mechanical components could be back then. Since that time we have got far better at building things which are consistent and dependable, but back then the Soviet Union, and indeed a lot of other places, didn't really understand how to do quality control properly.
The problem is that theoretically elegant solutions like using an array of engines, require that a large number of components work together, and can be coordinated properly. This we can now achieve, but back then not so much...
So it isn't an accident that in the present day Elon Musk uses precisely the N1 style multi-small-engine array approach with great success. The problem was mainly that in the 1960's without modern digital control systems, and well engineered reliable valves and fuel lines, it just wasn't possible to achieve a dependable automatic thrust balancing and control system.
The N1 was, conceptually, just too far ahead of it's time. Had the soviets had better quality control, more robust components, and better control systems it seems highly likely to me, from what I know of the engineering involved, that the N1 would have been far more successful, and whilst Russia would have still lost the moon, they might, by now have been walking on Mars.
Well articulated. Good to learn from your experience.
Simon annoys me because I'm also bald with a beard, but while he looks slick I look like a serial killer.
:-D
Still better than looking like a very young grandpa which is how I look when I haven't shaved my head in two months or so.
Chicks dig the serial killer look
Please please please do a podcast. I love you videos but I can't watch them while driving. Your excitement and enthusiasm would make a excellent podcast that am sure most of your viewers would always listen to. How may thumbs up and we get
Can I just say, it's been wonderful watching the progression of your beard. I don't even like beards on guys and yours is impressive.
Mr. Whistler, great episode. Have you heard of the Sea Dragon? It didn't get built, but a lot of important tech came out of this U.S. Navy project involving underwater launches, and it would have been the first to have reusable parts. The first stage was supposed to be recovered and it had more payload than the Saturn V. Heck the Saturn would have fit inside this monster that never happened. Check it out it might be a megaproject worthy of an episode.
Suggested Topic: The relocation of Abu Simbel and 21 other ancient Egyptian temples and archeological sites to higher ground during the construction of the Aswan High dam back in the mid-1960's.
Good show. One minor glitch-- Nitrogen Tetroxide is an oxidizer, not a rocket fuel.
As a kid, I was, and still am, a huge space nerd, but at the time there was an extreme paucity of information on the N1. I learned about Project Orion from the 50's and 60's before I found out about the N1.
The Soviets denied the existence of N-1 in the open press, though of course the CIA and those "with need to know" knew it existed and had the photographs from spysats and stuff way back in the 60's... it didn't really come out "in the open" with actual Soviet documentation until after the fall of the Soviet Union... Later1 OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalker Yep, definitely.
So happy to see a video done on this!! Not many good ones out there like this!
Do you think you could do a video on the Nevada-Class Battleships as both ships had interesting careers. One of which USS Nevada tried to escape Pearl Harbor, fought at D-Day , Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and survived 2 atomic bombs. I would say that's a mega ship.
You should look into the Sea Dragon rocket. It was a proposed successor to the Saturn V, and had it been built it would have been so large that the 2nd stage of the Saturn V could fit into its engine and nozzle.
Perhaps for your next episode you could do my kitchen renovation, started two years ago and still not finished
Get some Nazi and GULAG scientists on the case
Gotta say, your channel is absolutely brilliant, very well written and also, quite fun to watch!! Thanks for the extra education whilst Lockdown has been on. Keep this up! Fantastic stuff!
"We don't want to hear about this. We want to hear about the giant Soviet version that blew up loads of times"
I think that applies to most things
The truest comment on his entire body of work
8:26: Small correction: The third stage of the N1 was Block V, as the stages were named after the order of the first letters in the russian cyrilic alphabet, which is A, B, V, G, D.
That rocket in the thumbnail is a Kerbal Space Program stock replica of the N1 (you can tell by e.g. the exhaust plumes being identical to KS-25 "Vector" engine plumes).
Also, the rocket was called N1, not N-1
Nice eye, I've seen plenty of ksp N1s, and I didn't even notice that.
I think it's Shadowzone's replica
This is tehmattguy's fantastic stock N1 replica, found here kerbalx.com/tehmattguy/N1-L3
Leika was not the first animal in space, she was not even the first dog in space, she was the first animal in orbit.
Various animals had crossed the boundary of space before her, but those were ballistic flights.
"we wanna hear about the Soviet version that blew up loads of times"
"badly rushed and faced a catalog of issues"
If not for the title of the video, I'd have to ask which Soviet machine you were referring to XD
Proton, R-7? Many of the early American rockets?
The Machine of Communism :)
@@phobos2077_ God you're boring.
It's worth mentioning that Kennedy's "We choose to go to the moon..." speech came in 1962, a full year after NASA had successfully launched their first Saturn I heavy lift booster capable of putting a 14 metric ton payload into space with its H1 Rocketdyne Engines. The USSR may have been first in space, but the US was ahead in heavy-lift rocket development by 1962, which is why confidence was so high in reaching the moon.
When you say the US was ahead you mean the german engineers and tech were better.... perhaps??? Lol!
Soviet controller: I just lit a rocket....
Soviet handler: So?
Soviet controller: ROCKETS EXPLODE!
Dah!
This isn't flying, this is falling with style. lol.
@@skyden24195 nothing more stylish than a mushroom cloud.
@@ChrisTian-ed8ol indeed. :-D
@@skyden24195 That's not an explosion, that's just a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Need to add a 3rd video on this series... of Starship.... :)
Could you do a video on Göta canal? Huge project that involved digging a channel from Kattegatt (Sweden's west coast) to the baltic in the east, was made inferior by its completion due to the introduction of the railway
Please make a video on the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. It was, and still is, the largest military cargo aircraft ever mass produced.
N-1.....
The "N" means NYET!!!
🌘 🚀💥🔥😲
I thought it Nowledge...
I really enjoyed this...I just binged on two videos on this subject...each adding to the story...thanks!
SpaceX's Superheavy booster will have a thrust nearly 60% higher than the N1.
But since starship has to carry all of that landing gear to orbit and back it takes a hit to the payload mass it can carry to orbit
Still waiting
@@chakraborty1989 Due to the government. Superheavy is ready to go today.
At 1:15 there's a clip of a rocket launch labeled "Saturn V" but it was a Saturn I. Off to a great start, team!
Came here to say that
Hey Simon, I would love to see an episode on Brasilia, the Capital of Brazil (duh) or Ankara. The Idea of Building an Entire City in one swoop could make for an interesting video.
Love the Content, Keep it up. Thank You
The navy shirt twinned up with the navy jacket,.................what a terrific match,................"Allegedly",.................🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Can you please make a video about Brasília, the capital of Brazil! It's a planned city built in 1000 days, would be really cool to se a video about it. (1st time)
Excuse me, Simon, but "pogoing" in a US rocket engine (12:04) was not the cause of the Apollo 13 problems. Inside an oxygen tank in the Service Module (SM) was a stirring mechanism. The electrical wiring to the mechanism had undetected defective insulation. Most of the time, the liquid oxygen did not require stirring, so the mechanism was turned off. But, when the switch located in the Command Module (CM) was turned on for the last time, a small electrical spark was generated, causing an explosion of the oxygen, rupturing the tank and blowing off a section of the surface panels of the SM. We know this much because the crew inside the CM saw oxygen 'snow' in the space outside the window. Moreover, instruments in the CM showed a precipitous drop in oxygen pressure, followed by a declining output of electricity from the fuel-cells in the SM There may have been further, unknown damage to the SM. From then on until much later, the crew was forced to evacuate the CM and take refuge inside the Lunar Module. There is no telling how long that oxygen tank, with the defective wiring hidden inside, sat on a shelf in some warehouse.
Please do a mega project on the battleship Yamato!
Coming very soon :)
All that power, first stage more powerful than that of the Saturn V. And yet the plan was for only two to fly the mission, and one to reach the surface of the moon for a very brief time.
The guy's name is SEMEN?!?!?!
Yes, but you don't read it as semen in Russian. It sounds different when you read it phonetically.
My name shortens to "Cman", I get that joke sometimes... >__
DEX Wrecks Been a while since I wrote in Cyrillic, but I think the name would probably be Семён, sometimes spelled in English as “Semion”.
In certain Nordic countries Simen is a given name, try to pronounce that...
Oh man a Ukrainian guy at work had his name transliterated to that when he first started. Felt so bad for him. Eventually he had the spelling changed to be more phonetic, but still. Nice guy, smart too from what I recall. Of course he didn't stay more than 2-3 years at my work lmao
i guess you could say this video was a real blast lol the N-1 Rocket sure had an explosive personality lol
"We choose to go to the moon... in this decade and do the other things..."
"and do the other thing(s)" - my absolute favourite choice of words in any speech ever. :D
Yes Simon channel your inner business Blaze. Bring more of that flare into all the videos. That is what the people want.
2 vids in 2 seconds, how? Also, thanks
Yeh, I'm doing my best with the simultaneous watching, but that's not working too good yet.
Not to mention the TopTenz video he put up too.
That’s simple he pre uploaded them with them all set to go live at the same time
i guess someone pressed the upload button too enthusiastically
@@JohnnyMrHattersmith and the biograpics one on Atilla
A bit of a nitpick: Nitrogen tetroxide (or more formally, dinitrogen tetroxide) is actually an oxidizer rather than a fuel. The other half of this equation is something from the hydrazine family, like straight-up hydrazine, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), monomethylhydrazine (MMH) or something equivalent to Aerozine 50, a 50-50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH, which is the actual fuel. Apart from both sides being highly toxic, when DNTO and one of those hydrazine fuels mix, they'd spontaneously combust in a "hypergolic" reaction. Because of this, while it did power launch vehicles such as Russia's Proton-K and Proton-M, as well as most of USA's Titan rockets, hypergols are used in applications where it simply "must work", like reaction control systems (maneuvering thrusters), as well as the Space Shuttle orbiter's OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System), and modern spacecraft escape systems, such as SpaceX's SuperDraco thrusters in its crewed Dragon 2 spacecraft.
*Googles N1 moon rocket*
Google: Did you mean N1 bomb?
That' gold!
N1 is not a lunar rocket, this rocket is for flights to Mars.
I have a vostok europe watch themed on the N1. It's a huge, expensive solid bronze beast.
Always thought it was weird to theme a watch on such a catastrophic failure, but i still like it
Hoover damn I can’t believe that you’ve not covered this yet!!! Loving the content though
Simon has a Hoover Dam video ---- th-cam.com/video/WdOOndVDbaY/w-d-xo.html
BBCharger5spd thanks for that!!!
BBCharger5spd a mega projects specific one would be good though
Simnon: What went wrong?
The Fat Electrician: The Metric Sytem
😂😂😂
Please do a video on the Mil V-12, the biggest helicopter ever made. It was literally the size of a C-130 cargo plane, but it was a helicopter (and yes it was russian because of course it was)
And, most importantly, it's a machine many countries and companies all over the globe are happy to have and use, not a one-off vanity project.
Just some ideas.
1. Great Wall of China
2. Mil Mi-12, the largest helicopter ever built.
3. Stalin's skyscrapers
4. The Syracusia, designed by Archimedes
5. The Eiffel Tower
1:10 That's a Saturn I tho :D
Common mistake made when using stock footage: "Oh, it's a vaguely round-in-cross-section white rocket with black stripes and red 'USA' lettering - must be a Saturn V." ;-)
@@stuartyoung4182 My best guess is whoever was editing it searched "Saturn V" in whatever stock footage service they use and probably just picked one that fit the time window for the subtitle card.
Was disappointed that the MiG 29 video had been taken down.
I'm glad this video came up. I thought that You Tube was messin' with Simon.
Please, if there is anyone out there that wants to help a single dad who has fallen on some hard times and really losing all hope and extremely desperate ,please do. gf.me/u/ytfn95. Sorry to post this here but, it I know him and he deserves it for sure. 🙏
So I know this is an odd suggestion, but I work for USPS and seriously, the US postal network is probably the most incredible and largest logistics networks in the country. It still blows my mind that we were able to develop the machines and methods and plans to move so many things so fast and reliably.
I would strongly suggest doing an episode to show the amazing network of machines and people that drives the United States Post Office
Patrick that is a great idea
A Video about YAMATO Class Battleships would be great. They were the biggest Battleships ever built.
Yamato saw more action in anime than in real life, tho. Musashi was only a little bit better.
Yep, same old story: The Second mouse always gets the cheese.
Well there was the Gemini program, which put Americans in a better place when it came to getting down the fundamentals of spaceflight. That program, which involved manned and unmanned flights from 1964 through 1966, is often described as "when NASA learned to fly."
Yup, the first mouse gets the trap.
The big reason the USSR led the early space race was because America's atomic bomb technology was more advanced. All early rockets used to launch things into orbit were repurposed ICBMs. Korolev built the R7 rocket (aka Soyuz) based on launching a really big, really heavy atomic bomb, so it was big enough that it could pretty easily put a small satellite into orbit and be modified to put humans into orbit. American ICBMs were smaller, and so couldn't put things into orbit.
@@jamiecottrell2347 Well, the Americans also dawdled with ICBM development. Stuff that got kind of ignored, of placed in a lower priority category: Karel Bossart made a proposal in the fall of 1945; Wernher von Braun and his team were out in Texas doing tests, but on a pretty conservative scale/cadence; there was work on shorter range missiles like Corporal but not the same (and that one took a long time - same with the Navy and Viking?).
Maybe the Air Force was too focused on bombers? That SAC focus had been cited at times. Regardless, the Americans woke up around 1955 and then accelerated the program for Atlas, and had Titan as the back up for the Air Force's landbased ICBMs. For submarines, thought the Navy was relatively early on keen about solid fueled rockets (regardless of work around Viking/Vanguard)?
You’re exactly right. The Americans were slower to develop ICBMs because they had an edge in strategic bombers and that was their preferred delivery system for nuclear weapons. Not only that, but the first-generation ballistic missiles all used cryogenic propellants like LOX which made them more useful as space exploration vehicles than as weapons because they couldn’t be kept in a ready-to-launch condition for more than a few hours.
One technical point - nitrogen tetroxide isn't a fuel, it's an oxidiser. The N-1 used liquid oxygen as its oxidiser to burn the kerosene fuel (which was probably more like RP-1 than the kerosene that you might buy to fuel a camping stove).
Many modern rockets use nitrogen tetroxide oxidiser in combination with a fuel such as UDMH (unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine), because this mixture is hypergolic : the two components react upon contact, so no ignition system is required. Both components are toxic, though, and the NO4 is pretty corrosive, too.
UDMH / NO4 powered the ascent stages of the Apollo lunar modules, because the designers wanted to make that engine as unlikely to fail as humanly possible. (For the same reason, the Apollo LM ascent engine had no turbopumps, instead using helium pressurisation to drive fuel from the tanks into the engine.)
"It remains one of the biggest non nuclear explosions the world has ever seen"... Posted the 3rd of Aug, 2020. Timing, anyone?
Fart and piss bags in Beirut port: hold my explosion
An interview by Luke Talley who worked on the instrumentation ring noted that the Saturn V fins nearly struck the tower in the first test launch (requiring a hard gimbal update to the control program to make sure the fins had more clearance). Although the solution made for one hell of a swimmy ride for the astronauts on top - it prevented the rocket from striking the tower and causing a 1500 foot fireball that would have consumed everything including the launch platform.
The "N" designation was a Russian word meaning "Carrier."
Nositel 1
Although the Saturn V was the greatest I preferred the N1 design as it resembled most the rockets of 60s' science fiction.
Simon is the ultimate whistle blower...
Minor difference- saturn worked, N1 didn't.
Irrelevant detail.
A video on the massive Union Pacific Big Boy (4000 class) steam locomotives would be pretty cool!
Done
Hey its VSauce here, and the Soviets would never attack the moon, OR WOULD THEY?
another important point was that the soviet moon program was woefully underfunded. The USSR allocated something between 4 and 10 billion dollars for the entire moon program (yes all the parts and the 2 rival proposals). Nasa on the other hand spent over 25 billion dollars on the apollo program.
The soviets were short on both time and money.
The Soviets were also the first to send up a woman and the first spacewalk
And the first multi-person crew and the first dual flight ...
I think something got lost in translation. The third stage was probably Block V, because that's the 3rd letter of the Russian alphabet. It's not a Roman numeral.
Can you imagine how many engineers would have been shot if these launches had failed during Stalin's reign?
no one, I belive, because we already new the history, when R-1 legacy of V-2 crashed and smashed several times... Stalin was not stuped, but very smart managing director of very huge corporation (USSR)
The rocket scientists probably had more security. I mean they could disappear some cosmonauts, but the rocket scientists probably held more value.
@@MyPhobo there is russian saying those days: every man is valuable on proper place
Alexander Sorokin No Stalin was pretty terrible and did some really really stupid things. The Aral Sea is a perfect example
@@MacTac141 I am not so sure that Stalin personally digged that channel through the desert. I think there are a lot of engineers who proposed that solution and diggers who made it. Why - for that time solution was to make more good earth for agriculture or have salt lake...