This is way underrated, this is hands down the best kerbal space program video I've ever seen. This is the first time I've ever seen that honeycomb-like docking port on the lander. Do you have any information on that?
First, thanks for the compliment. Second, it was called the Kontak System. You can read more here: www.astronautix.com/s/soyuzkontakt.html www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/RvDRadar/KOntakt.html It was essentially the most simple design that ensures greatest chance for success and demanded no access tunnel between the lander and the LOK.
Argon I doubt that you have seen all the "700,000" kerbal space program videos on the internet so don't judge And the grammar "most dumb should be" dumbest
There was the Group of the Moon crews and A.Leonov was the member of this society.The Soviet Moon programm wasnt lucky because there wasnt the right politic of the tech-competition butween the greatest Soviet space teams..And in the end of the 60es the Soviet Union continue SST (Tu-144) and started the Soviet STS programm.
I think the U.S. attitude was the more the merrier; but, the Soviets had given up by that point. Lunar surface rendezvous had been first demonstrated by Apollo 12/Surveyor 3. Would have been nice if we cooperated on missions 15,16 and 17(the Science-heavy missions). Also, maybe have 1 or 2 Soviet LK missions to the Lunar poles (After risk assessment, of course).
I did laugh a little at the capsule landing (must have been rough inside tumbling around with the parachute deployment and landing) and the Kerbal on the moon forgetting to put this visor down, but yes an excellent production.
Oh yes, I love daydreaming and imagining alternate history scenarios like this. This has to be the best breakdown of a potential Soviet Moon mission on youtube. Awesome work, I hope you keep making videos as good as this one!
Thanks! I did notice a fair amount of other N1L3 videos, even from KSP, but none appears to use the real Earth and Moon in favor of Kerbin and the Mun. Using RSS with Realism Overhaul (meaning real rocket engines, real fuel, need to ullage and so on) make it a much different - albeit more rewarding - experience. I suppose I could have added more information, but I wanted it to be a bit more story-like.
Technically it was hot staging but the effects don't appear until a tiny bit after ignition so while there is propulsion which is helping separate the stages, you don't necessarily see the plume right away. But good eye, could have been a bit more obvious. Noted for next time!
@@chemsilestrat280 four times. On the blok a stage. There is a non-zero probability that the rest of the rocket was capable of doing the whole mission, but that's just my guesswork.
This is a pretty good overview of the mission, but here are a few nit-picks. Some of these might be the way the game is set up, thus beyond the control of the player, but for historical accuracy: 1- That launch complex is actually KSC's Complex 39. The N-1 launched from Baikonur Complex 110 which has a flat pad with buried flame trenches (three of them) as shown in the actual film footage at the start. Also, the hold-down arms shown are from the Saturn V (just twice as many of them). The N-1 didn't use arms, it had a hold-down ring on the base in between the inner and outer rings of engines. The ring had 24 blocks attaching it to the rocket, and each block had two explosive bolts. The 48 bolts all had to fire at once to release the rocket to flight. 2- Neither "Blok-A" (first stage) nor "Blok-B" (second stage) shut down completely before jettison. They kept running (at reduced thrust) while the stage above it came up to full thrust before firing the explosive bolts to separate the stages. This was done to keep the propellants in the upper stage from sloshing forward, away from the pump inlets. That's the reason it has the open trusswork between Blok-A and Blok-B, and between Blok-B and Blok-V (to let the exhaust gasses escape). 3- The fairing around the LK did not split and jettison from Blok-D as shown, exposing the LK. It (the fairing) was a load-bearing member that conducted the thrust from Blok-D up to the base of the Soyuz during the TLI and LOI burns. Otherwise the force would have had to been transmitted through the LK, squashing it in the middle. When the landing Cosmonaut transferred to the LK (as shown, correctly, by EVA) he had to open a hatch in the fairing to expose the hatch in the LK. Once inside he backed the LK/Blok-D combination "out of the garage" prior to the first descent burn. 4- The Block-D stage did not neutralize all the forward velocity prior to jettison. There was still a little to be done by the LK. BTW, this separation happens at only 4,000 meters above the surface! 5- The L3 mission profile specifies that there should be both a Lunokhod rover and a backup LK already on the moon at the landing site prior to this LK arriving. 6- After getting back into orbit and transferring all the samples back into the Soyuz, the LK ascent stage can't be jettisoned as shown. The "Kontakt" docking coupler is one-way, one-time. Once docked it can't be separated, so the Soyuz Orbital Module (the round part at the front) has to be jettisoned along with the LK. On a regular orbital Soyuz flight this is not done until just before reentry, but here they have to get rid of the OM before the TEI burn and ride all the way home in the Reentry Module (cramped!). This did have the advantage of reducing the mass that had to be boosted back to Earth by about 20%. This is all from "N-1, A Reference Guide to the Soviet Superbooster" from ARA Press.
@8:46 Is that music the recording from the Hunt for Red October? One of my favorite pieces of music and that is my favorite version of it. Though I’m personally thrilled at the outcome of the space race, it’s truly a damned shame the Soviets never got one of those to work. Would have been every bit as impressive as Apollo/Saturn.
Check this out O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
What a proud people the Soviets were. Their music and their rocket and their plan to go into space was awesome. My utmost respect for the scientist who devoted their time to this project that never finished.
The russian engineers were kerbals in disguise. How you may ask ? well, when the russians saw that the n1 couldn't get pff the ground, they just added in more boosters.
That's more like the American approach just look at the Saturn V its basically just a tube with 5 of the biggest engines they could find and strapped them onto the rocket. That's why I love the Saturn V
well, "find", it was a huge project to research and produce those engines, while the russians just took engines they already had instead of R&D'ing a new huge one.
My one and only criticism, is that Yuri Gagarin would never have been able to partake in a Soviet Moon Landing during or after 1969. Gagarin was killed in a plane crash while performing a routine flight exercise in a MiG in March of 1968. However, I will say that Valentina Tereshkova would make a fine replacement to remain in the Soyuz command ship, due to her famed status as the first woman in space 👍
george nolte That's not true. Korolev died during surgery. Without him the whole soviet Moon program was pretty much over. He was in charge of almost everything space related in Russia back then, true genius.
@george nolte Might help to read on the subject. One N-1 did indeed lift off about its own height, half its engines shut down (due to the KORD control system being damaged by a fire in the thrust structure under the first stage, which controlled the rocket by throttling opposing pairs of engines to 'steer' the rocket, rather than using gimbaling engines as the US rockets did, or even gimballing vernier engines like the USSR's other rockets (like R-7) did. Hence, when one engine on the first stage suffered a problem and the KORD system detected it, it had to shut down TWO engines-- the one effected, and the one 180 degrees OPPOSITE it. Hence when when an engine exploded and caught fire, damaging several other engines adjacent to it, the KORD system shut down a similar number of engines on the other side of the rocket, which was about half the engines, thus the rocket ended up crashing back down onto the pad and exploding, severely damaging the pad and killing a number of technicians working in the underground part of the structure below. The designer was NOT killed (Sergei Korolev, he died of a botched surgery when they discovered he had colon cancer in January of 1966). You're probably thinking of the "Nedelin disaster" where a test firing of a new ballistic missile was botched and the upper stage fired inadvertantly on the launch pad while the missile was being worked on, overseen by the head of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces, Marshal Nedelin, who was present at the test to "motivate the troops" so to speak. Over 100 people were killed, including the Marshal himself. Later! OL J R :)
I notice that the TLI burn does not even try to align the inclination with the Moon's orbit. Maybe it is due to that the launch pod of Soviet is too north.
initially russians planned be the first to go around the moon withou landing with the launch vehicle UR500, now known to you as the Proton the ISS lorry.. To land, they wanted to have even a reserve vehicle and an operable lunokhod to get to it in cas there is something wrong with the first one. Later, it was planned to install a moon station Zvezda, using inflatable folded metal structures 4 meters in diameter. The problem with the N1 (unoficcialy Nauka 1 or Nositel 1(translated as science or carrier) was the rivalry between Glushkov, whom you might not have heard of, but he was the second most respected person in soviet cosmonautics after Korolyov, and Korolyov. Korolyov wanted non toxic engines be installed, while Glushkov pushed for more powerful but also deadly toxic engines made by his bureau. Like real deadly, more toxic then warfare gases. So when Glushkov said he could do the safer kerosene engines because he didnt know how to, they asked another factory to design engines for the N1 and they designed the NK33 (putrid, as commented on by Glushkov). It is now sometimes used to fly stuff in space on commercial basis, and it still explodes while doing so sometimes. the reason it does is because soviet moon program was thought of late and they rushed without exhaustive testing, using the normal kerbal procedure of "launch first, repair what broke later", instead of costly simulating on the ground. But while it worked with small scale rockets with reliable hardware, it was too many systems working together on the N1. It has been always the failure of the first stage, with so many engines working and usually caused by something you cannot estimate until you launch alltogether, like the fuel in the fuel lines entering resonance and vibration making stuff disconnect and or short circuit. The soviets still tested the Ur500 non lander, to orbit the moon with some live tortoises, which experienced 20G on the shallow entry back home, and were the first living beings to orbit the moon and come back, before Appolo 8. Mind you, other soviet cosmonauts also experienced 20g on some routine flights and were fine with that later. But it still was considered unsafe. The requirement for the soviet moon mission was "3 absolutely reliable test launches, then goes the manned mission". Unfortunately, all four n1 launches resulted in a failure of some system, some causing the destruction of the cosmodrome and the necessity to repair it for a long time. Soviet cosmonauts for the moon mission trained to orient the ship manually using the stars and were training in Somalia with the souther hemisphere. . The polar orbit was chosen so that the orbiter enters over soviet territory. Despite having to traverse to the lander in space, the ship had some advantages over Appolo, like fully automated sequences of landing and redocking, with cosmonaut overseeing, as well asbeing smaller and lightweight. It still allowed less then a kilo of lunar soil to be taken back tho. 2 weeks before the Appolo launch, the soviet cosmonauts wrote a letter to Politburo asking to be allowed on the test flight and travelled to the cosmodrome awaiting positive response, training hardly. It was denied, and the test flight went unmanned, with the rocket exploding and the test ship evacuated by the rocket ejection mechanism
Proton uses dangerous propellants and would never have been used for human transport. If anything, the ship would have been launched empty and the crew separately on a Soyouz rocket to rendez vous in orbit.
KSP developers are mistaken about Soviet space program, UR500 is 3-block of Proton. N-1 did not imply the landing of the descent vehicle on the lunar surface. With the help of N-1, it was supposed to bring the Salyut-1 stations to the orbit of the Moon, where they were to be combined into a lunar station (like ISS or MIR), which should have docked many moon landing vehicles sent by Proton rockets.
There is a film from A&E's "Time Machine" series that shows a cosmonaut descending the ladder of the LK during a training session. There is also a photo of a helmeted cosmonaut inside the LK. Are there any other videoes or photos showing lunar cosmonauts in training?
The Soviet technology has an austere look to it, just like their music. I prefer the Saturn rocket with it's massive first stage engine. I think the Americans were capable of solving more problems. The Soviet spacecraft had no docking passage between the command and lunar modules.
It was a beautiful rocket. Shame that it never had a successful launch. I think the Soviets would have been able to work out the kinks had they continued to fund its development.
@@MrAzazel666 Strong economies fund vigorous successful space programs. JFK knew this, hence his work on both the space vision and a strong American economy. He cut taxes; the only Democrat president in modern history to do so.
N-1 was a different approach, that's for sure. Firstly, the Soviets didn't have the technology to make large hydrogen-powered upper stages at that point in time, since their technology was driven (and slave to) military requirements, and hydrogen propellants are highly undesirable for military missiles. In fact, their development at the time was focused on room-temperature storable hypergolic propellants, which are of course, ideal for ballistic missiles in silos on alert, but which are highly toxic and ignite on contact, and have relatively low specific impulse. In fact, chief Soviet engine designer Valentin Glushko and chief rocket designer Sergei Korolev got into a heated dispute over the design of N-1; Glushko insisted on developing large hypergolic propellant engines for the vehicle, forcing it to be designed around hypergolic propellants, and Korolev insisted, with good reasons, that large kerosene-based engines be developed and the rocket designed around kerosene/oxygen propellants (he surmised correctly that if a rocket as massive as N-1 would have to be was fueled by hypergolic propellants and it crashed, it would create not only an enormous fire but the unburned propellants that didn't come into direct contact with each other would create an absolutely ENORMOUS cloud of poisonous gases that would be lethal to everything for miles around, and would poison huge areas near the crash site.) When Glushko refused, Korolev didn't relent; he recruited Kuznetsov, a noted designer of Soviet jet engines, but who had never developed a rocket engine before, to design and build the NK-33 high-pressure advanced closed-cycle kerosene engines for the N-1. The Soviets, in addition to their almost complete lack of hydrogen rocket technology, also didn't have the technology to build rocket engines as large and powerful as the US F-1. They also didn't have the technology to design and build enormous cylindrical pressurized fuel tanks with ellipsoidal top and bottom domes, on the scale of the Saturn V. SO, they decided to design and build spherical propellant tanks for the N-1; simpler and easier to design and build, but MUCH less efficient structurally and weight-wise. This caused the N-1 design to be a series of conical stages, as the larger spherical oxygen tank was topped by a very long inter-tank structure creating a stage "hull" with the smaller kerosene tank above it, topped by a large open trusswork inter-stage structure, with the thrust structure, heat shielding, and engines at the bottom. The lack of hydrogen upper stages meant that the rocket was much less efficient (since LOX/kerosene has a significantly lower specific impulse, as does hypergolic storable propellants in the L-3 spacecraft stack, but in fairness, the Apollo service module and Lunar Module were powered by hypergolic propellants as well, so the principle difference was the Saturn V's much more efficient hydrogen propellant second and third stages, where N-1's upper stages were kerosene/LOX powered). This basically drove the design from the 'top down' and meant the lower stages had to be truly enormous to provide the required payload capability. The Soviets DID develop much more highly advanced kerosene engines in the NK-33's powering the N-1; they used advanced closed-cycle combustion, versus the more simplictic but MUCH larger open-cycle combustion on the US F-1 engines. That's the main differences and why the N-1 looks SO much different than the US Saturn V. Later! OL J R :)
Just one of the problems with this: while being set in the 1960s, it features the 1977 lyrics of the USSR anthem. (In the period between destalinization and 1977, there were no lyrics.)
I opened the video and I saw a 24 minutes video about KSP mission... too long... that will be boring with long minutes of real boredom! And I began to watch it... and I didn't see the time passing. A real great KSP video with a great sense of filmmaking and of the detail. The images and the music were well chosen. Thank you for this little piece of art and alternate history, tovaritch! :)
Can I just point out how on point the song choices are: the soviet anthem to begin with, "Let's Go!" as the launch sequence, and Hymn to Red October for the TLI burn...which begins with "Farewell to the Motherland!" ("Das Vidanya, Rodina!") just to start.
Wonderful video. That re-entry sequence was absolutely stunning, I'd forgotten how good KSP looks nowadays. Looks like I need to update my mods and get back into it...
@@Inedit3 It was the Apollo Applications program, which looked into using Apollo hardware for other things. They looked at lunar bases, space stations and the Venus fly-by. In the end only Skylab was funded. Unlike Skylab they wouldn't just have converted the empty tank but it would have actually had the living quarters submerged in the hydrogen tank with stuff that couldn't be submerged in the interstage.
Wonderful visualization, thanks! Exploding N1s aside, I can't imagine that the Soviets were very far along in perfecting their hardware and that enormously complex mission profile when the program was cancelled.
I agree with previous comments: BEST overall KSP video I've watched yet, with a great blend of real Soviet footage, realistic backgrounds and spacecraft, and music! VERY well done!
Just wanted to add that this is also the most detailed depiction I have EVER seen of the total N1 lunar crewed landing profile - even including the "double dip" reentry and spin stabilization of the reentry module. Better than any documentaries I have seen - and using KSP! Only thing it missed was the retro-rockets right before the touchdown on the steppes - I assume due to KSP's LOK mod lacking them.
Да очень жаль, что Королев умер так и не довел до конца создание Н-1.. Уверен что если бы прожил лет 5 еще довел бы все до логического конца и мы бы вторыми побывали бы на Луне.. И Н-1 летала бы до сих пор, на надо было бы трехкратно расходовать деньги на создание Энергии, а теперь мол мощного РН.. Было всего 4 пуска Н-1 без всякой имитации, это лишь половина испытательного цикла.. Так что следующий бы 5 запуск был бы удачный на все 90 процентов.. Очень жаль что Королев ушел из жизни так рано.. Такие люди раз в 100 лет рождаются...
@@altor5438 - тебя надо бы в лагерь... чтоб дисциплину познал. А то бездельничаешь тут и , вместо того чтоб ударно трудиться.. Глядишь и из тебя бы вышел какой толк.. А то пустозвонишь только.
The USA rocket, Command/service module and lander were much more attractive. An obvious observation, the Americans knew how to dock modules with passage. The Russians must have developed that technology with the Apollo/Soyutz test project.
I can't help wonder if the Soviet lunar lander had sufficient cross ranging control to avoid a boulder filled crater like the one Apollo 11 was heading into until Neil Armstrong took manual control.
It's the Soviet Spacecraft mod found here - forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133579-13-soviet-spacecraft-soyuzvostokvoskhodloklk-v17-6-19-17/
A combo of the Soviet Rockets (forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/79433-13-soviet-probes-soviet-rockets-r7soyuzprotonzenit-6-19-17/) and Soviet Spacecraft (forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133579-13-soviet-spacecraft-soyuzvostokvoskhodloklk-v17-6-19-17/) with Tantares LV (github.com/Tantares/TantaresLV/releases) for the N1
Thomas Wijgerse look at the shadows in the pictures taken on the Moon. They are parallel, that can't be recreated in a studio. It's because the light source (the sun) is millions of miles away. The shadows alone say it was real. People that think the moon landings where fake are just as dumb as flat earthers. They have no scientific knowledge and half the time don't even have real proof and only make accusations. If you want people to belive that the moon landing was fake, give some concrete evidence and stop just making accusations.
The Soviets would've never broadcast a lunar landing live... It would either be after a successful landing or more likely after the mission. At best, it would be a delayed transmission. Perhaps an hour?
Very nice... launch pad is all wrong in the launch simulation; the N-1 pads weren't raised like the US pads at Kennedy Space Center launch complex 39 A and B were. The N-1 pads used a 'flame bucket' and three "blast tunnels" to divert the rocket exhaust and vent it away from the rocket, spaced 120 degrees apart like a triangle. Also, the Soviets favored what we called "fire in the hole" staging (which was used on Titan II, for instance) where the second stage engines ignite and come up to rated thrust BEFORE the stage below it shuts down... this is why the Soviets always had those large open-trusswork interstages, rather than panel-constructed interstage rings like the US rockets did (such as Saturn V) or "blow out panels" and openings in the interstage (like Titan 2)... So the second stage would fire up its engines moments before the first stage engines shut down; this does away with complicated "ullage motor" arrangements required to "seat" the propellants against the bottoms of the tanks and ensure the propellant lines going to the upper stage engines are full of propellants (and not pressurization gases) at engine startup, which simplifies the event timing and staging of the vehicle. Once the upper stage engines are ignited, the interstage connectors holding the stages together are released and the lower stage engines are commanded to shut down simultaneously, freeing the upper stages. Also, when the LK lander touches down, the four upward-facing rocket motors on the top of the landing legs would fire off to "plant" the LK solidly down onto the surface, to ensure it didn't "bounce" back up off the surface in the low gravity and possibly tip over, which was a concern the Soviet engineers had. Nice skip reentry, too. The Soviets pioneered the skip reentry technique to minimize heating and enable spacecraft on those trajectories to land back on Soviet territory. The spacecraft *could* survive a direct entry, but the g-loads were SO high that it was thought the astronauts would be injured or killed, and direct entries ended up landing in the Indian Ocean because of the trajectories... Some of their Zonds ended up landing in the Indian Ocean, as well as some other tests. Very good effort, comrade. Of course, had they succeeded, there'd be a lot of guys drunk on vodka claiming it was all faked in a secret facility in Siberia, and the Motherland never actually sent men to the Moon... Later! OL J R :)
The real program got halted for financial reasons. On the other hand, this first ascend stage would have driven a crewman's capability on holding acceleration (g-) forces to a quite high limit. Image this tremendous amounts of rockets attached to it, burning a lot of fuel already in the very first seconds of flight, so the rocket's weight is reducing quickly, while acceleration increases.
Holy moly, three stages to get into Earth orbit, then another two to get the 'thing' down on the Moon. Far too much to go wrong, it often did. This is a great Kerbal vid though. As for the N1: the world's biggest firework which Glushko emulated with the Nedelin disaster.
Да самый опасный и трудный участок полета посадка на Луну.. Одни человек в посадочном модуле... И всего одна минута на посадку, время работы двигателя лунного модуля после отделения ступени, которая выводит на орбиту систему и дает импульс на посадку... В течении одной минуты надо все решить и успеть.. У американцев куа больше времени было на посадку и запас топлива в посадочной ступени, взлетная ступень отдельно....
Well, they got close, maybe if the design bureaus hadn't bickered among themselves, they'd had a bit more money and support from the USSR's leadership, and in general they'd gotten their shit together, they might've done it. In any case, great video Comrade! An interesting look at what might've been. What mods did you use?
It's funny - a lot of people claim capitalism drives innovation when Soviet OKBs were churning out ideas nobody in the West would even touch, but the moment they were required to STOP competing with each other and work together on common goals, then it became a problem!
Robert O'Neill No actually a flag will still wave in a vaccum since it has mass and therefore possesses inertia. They will also tend to wave for longer since there is no air to dampen the motion of the flag
Am I wrong, ow wasn't the N1 supposed to be a direct ascent vehicle (no docking in lunar orbit; the whole vehicle lands and the whole vehicle takes off from the moon again)?
Good video, really good. But i had to say that N-1 was crap. Sergey Korolyov was a genius, but his confrontation with Vyalentin Glushko buried the Soviet dream of the Moonю Glushko's rocket, UR-700 was much more advanced and it had much more chances to get o the moon, and Korolev used all his authority from the party leadership to prevent it from being produced in favor on his own N-1.
Also, the USSR didn't do the extensive testing on the N-1 like NASA and von Braun did with the Saturn V. The biggest problem the Soviet Union had was "go fever," all in the name of Communist propaganda. And even if the N-1 was properly tested, it was still less powerful than the Saturn V; the Energia rocket designed by Glushko outmatched the Saturn V and had two perfect flights. Now the Russian Federation is developing the Anagra rocket, but even that will only match the Proton booster (another Glushko rocket) and the Falcon 9 Heavy, but not the Saturn V, Energia, or the Block II SLS.
Nosty GamerLV By usual definition, the Saturn V is still more "powerful" than the N1-L3. The N1-L3's Block A first stage may have produced more thrust at liftoff (10 200 000 pounds) than the Saturn V's S-IC booster stage (7 500 000 pounds), but it burned significantly shorter at 125 seconds vs the S-IC's 168 seconds. All further stages compare similarly, resulting in a payload capacity to LEO of 95 000 kg for the N1-L3 as opposed to the Saturn V's significantly higher 140 000 kg. On a side note, the space shuttle (STS for you nitpickers) produces 7 800 000 pounds of thrust at liftoff, slightly more than the Saturn V, but only has an LEO payload capability of 27 500 kg. No one would argue that the Space Shuttle is more "powerful" than the Saturn V just because its thrust at liftoff is higher, just as no one would (or should) argue that the N1-L3 outmatches the Saturn V, because the definition of the " power" a rocket has is its payload capacity.
It is fun to imagine this, but in realty it never could have happened. Even if the soviets' had managed to success launch the N-1, there where many other challenges. The soviets had no experience in docking space crafts, while the American spent the entire Gemmi project doing just that. Also the American and a world wide tracking and navigation system. They could accurately see where Apollo was as any time, with in 30 feet. And Apollo had the most advanced computer systems of the day, the first use of integrated circuits, that could run for over four days with out failure. Something that was unheard of in the 1960"s.Had the soviets actually launched a moon mission, I believe it would have only resulted in dead cosmonauts.
Shame the N1 project did not succeed. But it is amazing what esoteric stuff one can find on TH-cam. Superb video. Superb animation. Well chosen background music.
@@РандомныйКомментатор-л4н supply issues of Soviet era hardware limited designing engines to a certain size. Even so, production flaws in the NK-15 doomed the first 3 attempts (plus the KORD computer) and even the N-33 engines were later found to have many of the same metallurgical flaws in the turbos that the NK-15 had. of the 5 N-33 bench tested, 2 exploded. The rest were disassembled and the flaws discovered. Makes you wonder who was building the turbo pumps.... But design wise, brillant! Still not a fan of "hot fire" separation of a rocket.... I think NASA had the better approach using strap on booster rockets to maintain fuel feed.
Irony. N1 was a wreck train with 30 engines. Nowadays with better computers and building, Falcon Heavy has 3 time 9 so 27 engines. Superheavy will have more than 30. Elon Musk will probably succeeed where Korolev failed. But as said, it was the quality of the work that was bad, the design itself was brilliant on many things. Super Heavy and Starship is what the N1 should have been. In that it is more of an offspring to the N1 than to the Saturn V.
The polar approach of the Soviets would have let the Soyuz LOK orbit across the poles providing the chance to detect ice in the permanently shadowed craters. This most likely would have increased the priority for manned Lunar exploration beyond Apollo and Soyuz. Did not the N1 pad have three flame trenches designed to redirect the exhaust outward in three directions? You can kind of see that in your original footage at the beginning. Thank you very much for this informative and enjoyable video. Go, Roscosmos.
The story is more complex. Years before the first flight the soviet chief designer died and with him not only crucial engineering knowledge, but also the decent relationship with the soviet leadership (which never really saw much benefit in this rocket), so funding became even more of an issue. With the time pressure by the Americans and severely limited resources, the majority of engines where never even tested before installation, let alone the entire stack combined. Not to mention, that Americans eventually landed on the moon, so it became just a resource eating project for a feat, they already got beaten on and got scraped. Note that the Falcon Heavy will fire 27 engines in the first stage, which should be flown in the coming months (also keep in mind the ITS with a whopping 42 engines should it ever be build). There are advantages to adding a lot of engines instead of building massive ones (for example easier combustion stability, more thrust to weight ratio, and of course more redundancy in case engines fail, unless of course the rocked decides to shut down most of the engines like the N1 enjoyed doing). But once again the story is also more complex than this...
The design was fundamentaly flawed and bound to fail. Time and funding weren't as much of the issue soviet scientist like to pretend to justify their failures.
It's more complex than that. N1 had 30 engines. Falcon heavy has 27. So is 30 too many and 27 just fine? Antares only had two engines in it's first stage but they were NK33s...
The "Your grace, Lady Luck" song would be fitting for the start, since it's from the soundtrack from the "White sun of the desert" movie, that is being screened to cosmonauts before every start (as a lucky charm tradition)
admit it. we all love the Soviet anthem. After Stalin and a few other leaders, Reagan and Gorbachev were good friends I heard. If we had Gorbachev leading the USSR it would be way better. I'm a Soviet history geek, please note I love my country and the freedoms I have.
Unfortunately Gorby was a bit naively optimistic. He meant well but I don't think he realised at all the impact that his actions would have on the country, which was already suffering from the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev years. I feel pretty sorry for the guy since he cops it from both sides.
rossmum No Comrade, Gorbachev did not "Mean well". He simply tried to implement trade and economic reforms, combined with a slightly less belligerent foreign policy to a highly corrupt third-world dictatorship which had bankrupted itself trying to maintain a massive,bloated military complex. He was first and foremost a true Communist, and simply offered up far too little, and far too late to a long-suffering people who were deprived of nearly everything by their government. They were closer to the West culturally, spiritually, and geographically than Asia and envied the very obvious success of free and democratic nations to the Marxist misery of theirs. Please, Fellow Travelers of the Democratic Party, STOP TRYING TO FUCK UP AMERICA, AND GO TO CUBA, CHINA, OR VENEZUELA!☭🏚💩🖕
12:20 Secret radio transmission intercepted from Luna: "Abort mission, abort mission! Cosmonaut Leonov's head has swelled to massive size relative to his body! And he's turned GREEN!"
Good job, good video, i subbed. But next time, please, do not insert into the video songs, the meaning of which you do not know. I mean this is a good songs, but it is all military marches, and i think there is no place for militaries in space. We, have several good soviet/russian songs about space exploration, wich should be in this video instead of these marches
Santiago B. "Трава у дома" th-cam.com/video/2seJEwKPx7s/w-d-xo.html "К дальним планетам!" th-cam.com/video/Ys8I5OiRhho/w-d-xo.html "И на Марсе будут яблони цвести" th-cam.com/video/zUxm2kJ5Jbo/w-d-xo.html "Я верю, друзья" th-cam.com/video/wzPZZjSksoY/w-d-xo.html
Not quite all of them. The theme from Hunt for Red October (~7:56) is often attributed to the Red Army Choir but is definitely not (and they don't sound exactly like native Russian speakers, either). It was written by Basil Poledouris who also did the soundtrack for Starship Troopers. The Soviet Anthem here is also sung by the Bolshoi Theatre choir, the Red Army Choir version is more commonly used but is male vocals only.
00:20 Anthem of the Soviet Union - Choir & orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre 03:45 V Put' (usually translated as Let's Go/On the March) - Red Army Choir. Not the version from the film it was originally written for, this is from a live concert. Not sure where. 07:07 Kalinka - Red Army Choir (only the beginning) 07:29 Utyos (The Cliff) - Red Army Choir, soloist Leonid Kharitonov (only the beginning, which is a shame because it's an incredibly powerful piece) 07:40 Hunt for Red October theme, written by Basil Poledouris, I have no idea who the choir is but it's not the RAC 12:43 Farewell of Slavianka - Red Army Choir 15:28 The Partisans' Song - Red Army Choir 18:30 I don't know the title of this one though I recognise the tune. It's used on military parades. 20:52 Svyaschennaya Voina (The Sacred War) - Red Army Choir
Ouviram do ipiranga as margens plácidas De um povo heróico o brado retumbante, e o sol da liberdade, em raios fúlgidos, Brilhou no céu da pátria nesse instante. Se o penhor dessa igualdade conseguimos conquistar com braço forte, Em teu seio, ó liberdade, Desafia o nosso peito a própria morte! Ó pátria amada, idolatrada, Salve! Salve! Brasil, um sonho intenso, um raio vívido De amor e de esperança à terra desce, Se em teu formoso céu, risonho e límpido, A imagem do cruzeiro resplandece. Gigante pela própria natureza, És belo, es forte, impávido colosso, E o teu futuro espalha essa grandeza. Terra dourada, Entre outras mil, És tu, Brasil, Ó pátria amada! Dos filhos deste solo és mãe gentil, Pátria amada, Brasil!
This is way underrated, this is hands down the best kerbal space program video I've ever seen. This is the first time I've ever seen that honeycomb-like docking port on the lander. Do you have any information on that?
First, thanks for the compliment. Second, it was called the Kontak System. You can read more here:
www.astronautix.com/s/soyuzkontakt.html
www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/RvDRadar/KOntakt.html
It was essentially the most simple design that ensures greatest chance for success and demanded no access tunnel between the lander and the LOK.
Quote: "I've ever seen." No, I think your comment is the dumbest.
@Argon
You are a disgusting human being.
Argon I would call you a poopoo head but we are in a more civilised time so I shall call you a faeces cranium.
Argon I doubt that you have seen all the "700,000" kerbal space program videos on the internet so don't judge
And the grammar "most dumb should be" dumbest
I don't remember Leonov being that short.
Or green.
There was the Group of the Moon crews and A.Leonov was the member of this society.The Soviet Moon programm wasnt lucky because there wasnt the right politic of the tech-competition butween the greatest Soviet space teams..And in the end of the 60es the Soviet Union continue SST (Tu-144) and started the Soviet STS programm.
It was pink!
Robert Novady he stole me Lucky Charms.
He’s not green in the video lmao
It's what russian moon landing does to comrade
Alternate history idea: Apollo-Soyuz meeting BUT ON THE MOON
Oh my god... That would be great
If they apollo-soyuz meeting on moon. They will make moon base on moon
@@Mrcaton.. A new idea to my "lack of ideas Moon Space Station"
Note: I didn't play ksp, another app, sorry
I think the U.S. attitude was the more the merrier; but, the Soviets had given up by that point. Lunar surface rendezvous had been first demonstrated by Apollo 12/Surveyor 3. Would have been nice if we cooperated on missions 15,16 and 17(the Science-heavy missions). Also, maybe have 1 or 2 Soviet LK missions to the Lunar poles (After risk assessment, of course).
@Elyas Dezendorf Cheeseburger WITH Vodka? lol...
Good thing they had Gagarin as a pilot, he was already used to spinning out of control upon reentry
He ded by then
This guy deserves a lot more subs! I know how hard it is to make videos like this!
Thank you, kind sir!
His heart also broken💔 like me on soviet failure😢, that's why he fulfilling his unsatisfied desire by making such vedio & iam by viewing😊
10/10 for production value
I did laugh a little at the capsule landing (must have been rough inside tumbling around with the parachute deployment and landing) and the Kerbal on the moon forgetting to put this visor down, but yes an excellent production.
Oh yes, I love daydreaming and imagining alternate history scenarios like this. This has to be the best breakdown of a potential Soviet Moon mission on youtube. Awesome work, I hope you keep making videos as good as this one!
Thanks! I did notice a fair amount of other N1L3 videos, even from KSP, but none appears to use the real Earth and Moon in favor of Kerbin and the Mun. Using RSS with Realism Overhaul (meaning real rocket engines, real fuel, need to ullage and so on) make it a much different - albeit more rewarding - experience. I suppose I could have added more information, but I wanted it to be a bit more story-like.
Speaking of ullage, why didn't you do hot staging? Did I just miss seeing the engines due to the FX not being perfect?
Technically it was hot staging but the effects don't appear until a tiny bit after ignition so while there is propulsion which is helping separate the stages, you don't necessarily see the plume right away.
But good eye, could have been a bit more obvious. Noted for next time!
First 4 minutes: Am I watching a KSP video or a Soviet propaganda film?
Great job.
this is not a Soviet film but an educational program. if you look closely you can see the Roscosmos logo in the upper left corner
Sova 34
That's the windows logo lmao
2:14
X-Fun no its not you dont know how looks roscosmos logo
Тебе ли знать как выглядит лого российской корпорации
The Block A was the most powerful rocket stage ever ignited.
Too bad the N-1 failed
@@chemsilestrat280 four times. On the blok a stage. There is a non-zero probability that the rest of the rocket was capable of doing the whole mission, but that's just my guesswork.
SpaceX Starship: Hold my rocket fuel
@@ianeons9278 Yeah? Fifty years or so later?
Isen't the energia more powerful?
This is a pretty good overview of the mission, but here are a few nit-picks. Some of these might be the way the game is set up, thus beyond the control of the player, but for historical accuracy:
1- That launch complex is actually KSC's Complex 39. The N-1 launched from Baikonur Complex 110 which has a flat pad with buried flame trenches (three of them) as shown in the actual film footage at the start. Also, the hold-down arms shown are from the Saturn V (just twice as many of them). The N-1 didn't use arms, it had a hold-down ring on the base in between the inner and outer rings of engines. The ring had 24 blocks attaching it to the rocket, and each block had two explosive bolts. The 48 bolts all had to fire at once to release the rocket to flight.
2- Neither "Blok-A" (first stage) nor "Blok-B" (second stage) shut down completely before jettison. They kept running (at reduced thrust) while the stage above it came up to full thrust before firing the explosive bolts to separate the stages. This was done to keep the propellants in the upper stage from sloshing forward, away from the pump inlets. That's the reason it has the open trusswork between Blok-A and Blok-B, and between Blok-B and Blok-V (to let the exhaust gasses escape).
3- The fairing around the LK did not split and jettison from Blok-D as shown, exposing the LK. It (the fairing) was a load-bearing member that conducted the thrust from Blok-D up to the base of the Soyuz during the TLI and LOI burns. Otherwise the force would have had to been transmitted through the LK, squashing it in the middle. When the landing Cosmonaut transferred to the LK (as shown, correctly, by EVA) he had to open a hatch in the fairing to expose the hatch in the LK. Once inside he backed the LK/Blok-D combination "out of the garage" prior to the first descent burn.
4- The Block-D stage did not neutralize all the forward velocity prior to jettison. There was still a little to be done by the LK. BTW, this separation happens at only 4,000 meters above the surface!
5- The L3 mission profile specifies that there should be both a Lunokhod rover and a backup LK already on the moon at the landing site prior to this LK arriving.
6- After getting back into orbit and transferring all the samples back into the Soyuz, the LK ascent stage can't be jettisoned as shown. The "Kontakt" docking coupler is one-way, one-time. Once docked it can't be separated, so the Soyuz Orbital Module (the round part at the front) has to be jettisoned along with the LK. On a regular orbital Soyuz flight this is not done until just before reentry, but here they have to get rid of the OM before the TEI burn and ride all the way home in the Reentry Module (cramped!). This did have the advantage of reducing the mass that had to be boosted back to Earth by about 20%.
This is all from "N-1, A Reference Guide to the Soviet Superbooster" from ARA Press.
Thanks!
@@kevincgustafson You're welcome. Thank you for not seeing this as an attack (like so many of the comments below seem to).
Excellent idea, editing and KSP! Good to see Gagarin on board and loved that Leonov walked on the moon! Fantastic.
You should do an Apollo Applications Program Mars mission that takes place after the Soviets land on the Moon.
Something like...imgur.com/a/muipN ?
Yes! By the way, your videos are fantastic!
Thanks!
how acurrate, even down to the two phases of re-entry - amazingly done
@8:46 Is that music the recording from the Hunt for Red October? One of my favorite pieces of music and that is my favorite version of it.
Though I’m personally thrilled at the outcome of the space race, it’s truly a damned shame the Soviets never got one of those to work. Would have been every bit as impressive as Apollo/Saturn.
23:39 I think the crew just threw up
The party does not recognize your presupposition.
The N1 rockets biggest problem was that it had to use 30 engines in the first stage. Trying to sync all those engines had to be a fucking nightmare.
nice music choice comrade
Check this out
O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Yeah im American
begone kapitolist. your filthy music does not kompare to the glorious Red Army Choir!
Koviet Union
Comrads*
What a proud people the Soviets were. Their music and their rocket and their plan to go into space was awesome. My utmost respect for the scientist who devoted their time to this project that never finished.
How on earth did you get that CCCP and red star logo? It looks awesome!
The russian engineers were kerbals in disguise. How you may ask ? well, when the russians saw that the n1 couldn't get pff the ground, they just added in more boosters.
John F. Kennedy no, that was just the Russian response to EVERYTHING!
(Including their politics)
JFK Kennedy you do realise your name is john F. Kennedy Kennedy.
Uranus, no no no, jfk kennedy stands for John FranKlin Kennedy.
That's more like the American approach just look at the Saturn V its basically just a tube with 5 of the biggest engines they could find and strapped them onto the rocket. That's why I love the Saturn V
well, "find", it was a huge project to research and produce those engines, while the russians just took engines they already had instead of R&D'ing a new huge one.
My one and only criticism, is that Yuri Gagarin would never have been able to partake in a Soviet Moon Landing during or after 1969. Gagarin was killed in a plane crash while performing a routine flight exercise in a MiG in March of 1968. However, I will say that Valentina Tereshkova would make a fine replacement to remain in the Soyuz command ship, due to her famed status as the first woman in space 👍
Your videos are great! I'm seriously considering installing these mods sooner or later.
When in doubt add more engines
John Stevens its called "the kerbal way".
What we need is moar boosterz!
george nolte That's not true. Korolev died during surgery. Without him the whole soviet Moon program was pretty much over. He was in charge of almost everything space related in Russia back then, true genius.
george nolte dude wtf man...
@george nolte Might help to read on the subject. One N-1 did indeed lift off about its own height, half its engines shut down (due to the KORD control system being damaged by a fire in the thrust structure under the first stage, which controlled the rocket by throttling opposing pairs of engines to 'steer' the rocket, rather than using gimbaling engines as the US rockets did, or even gimballing vernier engines like the USSR's other rockets (like R-7) did. Hence, when one engine on the first stage suffered a problem and the KORD system detected it, it had to shut down TWO engines-- the one effected, and the one 180 degrees OPPOSITE it. Hence when when an engine exploded and caught fire, damaging several other engines adjacent to it, the KORD system shut down a similar number of engines on the other side of the rocket, which was about half the engines, thus the rocket ended up crashing back down onto the pad and exploding, severely damaging the pad and killing a number of technicians working in the underground part of the structure below. The designer was NOT killed (Sergei Korolev, he died of a botched surgery when they discovered he had colon cancer in January of 1966). You're probably thinking of the "Nedelin disaster" where a test firing of a new ballistic missile was botched and the upper stage fired inadvertantly on the launch pad while the missile was being worked on, overseen by the head of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces, Marshal Nedelin, who was present at the test to "motivate the troops" so to speak. Over 100 people were killed, including the Marshal himself.
Later! OL J R :)
I notice that the TLI burn does not even try to align the inclination with the Moon's orbit. Maybe it is due to that the launch pod of Soviet is too north.
That is right, too much extra dV to do that alignment so better to time it for a capture going north.
They are talking the language of the gods
@@AB9_ hahaha xD
maybe soviets didnt land on moon...but they were the firsts landing a vessel in other planet (venus)
They did the first moon landing... just not a crewed one
Amazing what German engineering can do!
No, communist engineering. Fuck off racist.
@@cosmicwakes6443 hows he a racist?
@@cosmicwakes6443 calm down LARPy boy
initially russians planned be the first to go around the moon withou landing with the launch vehicle UR500, now known to you as the Proton the ISS lorry.. To land, they wanted to have even a reserve vehicle and an operable lunokhod to get to it in cas there is something wrong with the first one. Later, it was planned to install a moon station Zvezda, using inflatable folded metal structures 4 meters in diameter. The problem with the N1 (unoficcialy Nauka 1 or Nositel 1(translated as science or carrier) was the rivalry between Glushkov, whom you might not have heard of, but he was the second most respected person in soviet cosmonautics after Korolyov, and Korolyov. Korolyov wanted non toxic engines be installed, while Glushkov pushed for more powerful but also deadly toxic engines made by his bureau. Like real deadly, more toxic then warfare gases.
So when Glushkov said he could do the safer kerosene engines because he didnt know how to, they asked another factory to design engines for the N1 and they designed the NK33 (putrid, as commented on by Glushkov). It is now sometimes used to fly stuff in space on commercial basis, and it still explodes while doing so sometimes.
the reason it does is because soviet moon program was thought of late and they rushed without exhaustive testing, using the normal kerbal procedure of "launch first, repair what broke later", instead of costly simulating on the ground. But while it worked with small scale rockets with reliable hardware, it was too many systems working together on the N1. It has been always the failure of the first stage, with so many engines working and usually caused by something you cannot estimate until you launch alltogether, like the fuel in the fuel lines entering resonance and vibration making stuff disconnect and or short circuit.
The soviets still tested the Ur500 non lander, to orbit the moon with some live tortoises, which experienced 20G on the shallow entry back home, and were the first living beings to orbit the moon and come back, before Appolo 8. Mind you, other soviet cosmonauts also experienced 20g on some routine flights and were fine with that later. But it still was considered unsafe.
The requirement for the soviet moon mission was "3 absolutely reliable test launches, then goes the manned mission". Unfortunately, all four n1 launches resulted in a failure of some system, some causing the destruction of the cosmodrome and the necessity to repair it for a long time.
Soviet cosmonauts for the moon mission trained to orient the ship manually using the stars and were training in Somalia with the souther hemisphere. .
The polar orbit was chosen so that the orbiter enters over soviet territory.
Despite having to traverse to the lander in space, the ship had some advantages over Appolo, like fully automated sequences of landing and redocking, with cosmonaut overseeing, as well asbeing smaller and lightweight. It still allowed less then a kilo of lunar soil to be taken back tho.
2 weeks before the Appolo launch, the soviet cosmonauts wrote a letter to Politburo asking to be allowed on the test flight and travelled to the cosmodrome awaiting positive response, training hardly. It was denied, and the test flight went unmanned, with the rocket exploding and the test ship evacuated by the rocket ejection mechanism
Proton uses dangerous propellants and would never have been used for human transport. If anything, the ship would have been launched empty and the crew separately on a Soyouz rocket to rendez vous in orbit.
KSP developers are mistaken about Soviet space program,
UR500 is 3-block of Proton. N-1 did not imply the landing of the descent vehicle on the lunar surface. With the help of N-1, it was supposed to bring the Salyut-1 stations to the orbit of the Moon, where they were to be combined into a lunar station (like ISS or MIR), which should have docked many moon landing vehicles sent by Proton rockets.
There is a film from A&E's "Time Machine" series that shows a cosmonaut descending the ladder of the LK during a training session. There is also a photo of a helmeted cosmonaut inside the LK. Are there any other videoes or photos showing lunar cosmonauts in training?
I'm sure some do exist, but not necessarily public.
*sees the reveal, sees the launch clamps* "OMG HE'S USING THE APOLLO LAUNCH CLAMPS WTH??!!" *continues to watch the video*
I have to admit that the N1 looks much more extraodinary than the Saturn 5
It looks like a slash up to me.
The Soviet technology has an austere look to it, just like their music.
I prefer the Saturn rocket with it's massive first stage engine.
I think the Americans were capable of solving more problems. The Soviet spacecraft had no docking passage between the command and lunar modules.
It was a beautiful rocket. Shame that it never had a successful launch. I think the Soviets would have been able to work out the kinks had they continued to fund its development.
@@MrAzazel666 Strong economies fund vigorous successful space programs. JFK knew this, hence his work on both the space vision and a strong American economy. He cut taxes; the only Democrat president in modern history to do so.
N-1 was a different approach, that's for sure. Firstly, the Soviets didn't have the technology to make large hydrogen-powered upper stages at that point in time, since their technology was driven (and slave to) military requirements, and hydrogen propellants are highly undesirable for military missiles. In fact, their development at the time was focused on room-temperature storable hypergolic propellants, which are of course, ideal for ballistic missiles in silos on alert, but which are highly toxic and ignite on contact, and have relatively low specific impulse. In fact, chief Soviet engine designer Valentin Glushko and chief rocket designer Sergei Korolev got into a heated dispute over the design of N-1; Glushko insisted on developing large hypergolic propellant engines for the vehicle, forcing it to be designed around hypergolic propellants, and Korolev insisted, with good reasons, that large kerosene-based engines be developed and the rocket designed around kerosene/oxygen propellants (he surmised correctly that if a rocket as massive as N-1 would have to be was fueled by hypergolic propellants and it crashed, it would create not only an enormous fire but the unburned propellants that didn't come into direct contact with each other would create an absolutely ENORMOUS cloud of poisonous gases that would be lethal to everything for miles around, and would poison huge areas near the crash site.) When Glushko refused, Korolev didn't relent; he recruited Kuznetsov, a noted designer of Soviet jet engines, but who had never developed a rocket engine before, to design and build the NK-33 high-pressure advanced closed-cycle kerosene engines for the N-1. The Soviets, in addition to their almost complete lack of hydrogen rocket technology, also didn't have the technology to build rocket engines as large and powerful as the US F-1. They also didn't have the technology to design and build enormous cylindrical pressurized fuel tanks with ellipsoidal top and bottom domes, on the scale of the Saturn V. SO, they decided to design and build spherical propellant tanks for the N-1; simpler and easier to design and build, but MUCH less efficient structurally and weight-wise. This caused the N-1 design to be a series of conical stages, as the larger spherical oxygen tank was topped by a very long inter-tank structure creating a stage "hull" with the smaller kerosene tank above it, topped by a large open trusswork inter-stage structure, with the thrust structure, heat shielding, and engines at the bottom. The lack of hydrogen upper stages meant that the rocket was much less efficient (since LOX/kerosene has a significantly lower specific impulse, as does hypergolic storable propellants in the L-3 spacecraft stack, but in fairness, the Apollo service module and Lunar Module were powered by hypergolic propellants as well, so the principle difference was the Saturn V's much more efficient hydrogen propellant second and third stages, where N-1's upper stages were kerosene/LOX powered). This basically drove the design from the 'top down' and meant the lower stages had to be truly enormous to provide the required payload capability. The Soviets DID develop much more highly advanced kerosene engines in the NK-33's powering the N-1; they used advanced closed-cycle combustion, versus the more simplictic but MUCH larger open-cycle combustion on the US F-1 engines.
That's the main differences and why the N-1 looks SO much different than the US Saturn V.
Later! OL J R :)
Just one of the problems with this: while being set in the 1960s, it features the 1977 lyrics of the USSR anthem. (In the period between destalinization and 1977, there were no lyrics.)
This is the VERY video that introduced me to KSP!
Wow, that's amazing. Glad to introduce you to it!
I opened the video and I saw a 24 minutes video about KSP mission... too long... that will be boring with long minutes of real boredom! And I began to watch it... and I didn't see the time passing. A real great KSP video with a great sense of filmmaking and of the detail. The images and the music were well chosen. Thank you for this little piece of art and alternate history, tovaritch! :)
Thanks for the pick-me-up. Also check out my other videos for more conceivable and actual missions!
Это было прекрасно! Спасибо, Товарищ!
Can I just point out how on point the song choices are: the soviet anthem to begin with, "Let's Go!" as the launch sequence, and Hymn to Red October for the TLI burn...which begins with "Farewell to the Motherland!" ("Das Vidanya, Rodina!") just to start.
Thanks for noticing, and watching!
Salute U.S.S.R 👍
The First Country Go To Space
🚀🛰
Honestly, as an American, I think the Russians did beat us. They won everything, except the moon. And somehow they lost the space race?
@@5Puff The Americans won, the moon is very far, and I am from Russia
@@mr.insectoid about 350,000 km
wrong, germany was.
@@jacko4932 yeah it was equipped with a nuclear warhead
did NOT know that soviets planned to use the same stage for orbital insertion AND powered descend, awesome :O Great video!
Wonderful video. That re-entry sequence was absolutely stunning, I'd forgotten how good KSP looks nowadays.
Looks like I need to update my mods and get back into it...
Looks like a big section around the lander separation got muted.
Did you know this rocket was originally designed for a manned flyby of Mars or Venus and was retrofitted after America landed on the moon?
Yeah, pretty cool stuff. I heard that the US planned to so something that too. But it got cancelled.
Yeah. The U.S. was thinking about converting the third stage of the Saturn V so it could provide more room to the crew for a Mars/Venus flyby mission.
@@translunarinjectionstudios6104 essentially a skylab...
@@translunarinjectionstudios6104
Can you give us where a you see that ?
@@Inedit3 It was the Apollo Applications program, which looked into using Apollo hardware for other things. They looked at lunar bases, space stations and the Venus fly-by. In the end only Skylab was funded. Unlike Skylab they wouldn't just have converted the empty tank but it would have actually had the living quarters submerged in the hydrogen tank with stuff that couldn't be submerged in the interstage.
Wonderful visualization, thanks! Exploding N1s aside, I can't imagine that the Soviets were very far along in perfecting their hardware and that enormously complex mission profile when the program was cancelled.
Надеюсь ты переведешь))
ОТДОХНУЛ ДУШОЙ эти 24 минуты))
Пойду покормлю медведя и снова пересмотрю))
русский
Да россий!
Пойду ещё водяры возьму))))
Sorry i dont speak cant land on the moon
В России, отсталой стране дураков уверены ,что "путинизм" или Власть Воров-это и есть Демократия !
I agree with previous comments: BEST overall KSP video I've watched yet, with a great blend of real Soviet footage, realistic backgrounds and spacecraft, and music! VERY well done!
Just wanted to add that this is also the most detailed depiction I have EVER seen of the total N1 lunar crewed landing profile - even including the "double dip" reentry and spin stabilization of the reentry module. Better than any documentaries I have seen - and using KSP! Only thing it missed was the retro-rockets right before the touchdown on the steppes - I assume due to KSP's LOK mod lacking them.
Да очень жаль, что Королев умер так и не довел до конца создание Н-1.. Уверен что если бы прожил лет 5 еще довел бы все до логического конца и мы бы вторыми побывали бы на Луне.. И Н-1 летала бы до сих пор, на надо было бы трехкратно расходовать деньги на создание Энергии, а теперь мол мощного РН.. Было всего 4 пуска Н-1 без всякой имитации, это лишь половина испытательного цикла.. Так что следующий бы 5 запуск был бы удачный на все 90 процентов.. Очень жаль что Королев ушел из жизни так рано.. Такие люди раз в 100 лет рождаются...
Меньше по лагерям потаскали,подольше бы прожил.
я думаю он умер не случайно. и гагарин тоже....
@@altor5438 - тебя надо бы в лагерь... чтоб дисциплину познал. А то бездельничаешь тут и , вместо того чтоб ударно трудиться.. Глядишь и из тебя бы вышел какой толк.. А то пустозвонишь только.
The USA rocket, Command/service module and lander were much more attractive.
An obvious observation, the Americans knew how to dock modules with passage. The Russians must have developed that technology with the Apollo/Soyutz test project.
Things that would bei interessting:
What if...
-The N1 worked
-no accident in Tschernobyl
-The Soviet Union would still exist
I can't help wonder if the Soviet lunar lander had sufficient cross ranging control to avoid a boulder filled crater like the one Apollo 11 was heading into until Neil Armstrong took manual control.
What mod did you use for the parts? (Talking about the lander and the soyuz used)
By the way, amazing video! Should be used in history classes!
It's the Soviet Spacecraft mod found here - forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133579-13-soviet-spacecraft-soyuzvostokvoskhodloklk-v17-6-19-17/
A combo of the Soviet Rockets (forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/79433-13-soviet-probes-soviet-rockets-r7soyuzprotonzenit-6-19-17/) and Soviet Spacecraft (forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/133579-13-soviet-spacecraft-soyuzvostokvoskhodloklk-v17-6-19-17/) with Tantares LV (github.com/Tantares/TantaresLV/releases) for the N1
10/10 realistic flight profile, and camera shots.
That's fake! The Russians NEVER put a Kerbal on the Mun! :D
Pity they didn't. It would be so much more interesting in space right now. Great vid.!
I was gonna say this proves that the Mun landing was a fake. You beat me to it.
The moon landings wasent fake though it was REAL.
@exospace man, yes, but the mun landings are fake, they filmed them in a studio on duna.
It's supposed to be a alternate to the space race
Thomas Wijgerse look at the shadows in the pictures taken on the Moon. They are parallel, that can't be recreated in a studio. It's because the light source (the sun) is millions of miles away. The shadows alone say it was real. People that think the moon landings where fake are just as dumb as flat earthers. They have no scientific knowledge and half the time don't even have real proof and only make accusations. If you want people to belive that the moon landing was fake, give some concrete evidence and stop just making accusations.
This is an excellent production. Sincere thanks to Kevin Gustafson for uploading.
Thanks!
The Soviets would've never broadcast a lunar landing live... It would either be after a successful landing or more likely after the mission. At best, it would be a delayed transmission. Perhaps an hour?
I tend to agree, though with ASTP, they broadcast everything live!
ASTP...?!?
Ohhh! Apollo-Soyuz!
but everyone with a radio telescope would have watched it.....Just not the general public. Like the Apollo missions.
Very nice... launch pad is all wrong in the launch simulation; the N-1 pads weren't raised like the US pads at Kennedy Space Center launch complex 39 A and B were. The N-1 pads used a 'flame bucket' and three "blast tunnels" to divert the rocket exhaust and vent it away from the rocket, spaced 120 degrees apart like a triangle. Also, the Soviets favored what we called "fire in the hole" staging (which was used on Titan II, for instance) where the second stage engines ignite and come up to rated thrust BEFORE the stage below it shuts down... this is why the Soviets always had those large open-trusswork interstages, rather than panel-constructed interstage rings like the US rockets did (such as Saturn V) or "blow out panels" and openings in the interstage (like Titan 2)... So the second stage would fire up its engines moments before the first stage engines shut down; this does away with complicated "ullage motor" arrangements required to "seat" the propellants against the bottoms of the tanks and ensure the propellant lines going to the upper stage engines are full of propellants (and not pressurization gases) at engine startup, which simplifies the event timing and staging of the vehicle. Once the upper stage engines are ignited, the interstage connectors holding the stages together are released and the lower stage engines are commanded to shut down simultaneously, freeing the upper stages.
Also, when the LK lander touches down, the four upward-facing rocket motors on the top of the landing legs would fire off to "plant" the LK solidly down onto the surface, to ensure it didn't "bounce" back up off the surface in the low gravity and possibly tip over, which was a concern the Soviet engineers had.
Nice skip reentry, too. The Soviets pioneered the skip reentry technique to minimize heating and enable spacecraft on those trajectories to land back on Soviet territory. The spacecraft *could* survive a direct entry, but the g-loads were SO high that it was thought the astronauts would be injured or killed, and direct entries ended up landing in the Indian Ocean because of the trajectories... Some of their Zonds ended up landing in the Indian Ocean, as well as some other tests.
Very good effort, comrade. Of course, had they succeeded, there'd be a lot of guys drunk on vodka claiming it was all faked in a secret facility in Siberia, and the Motherland never actually sent men to the Moon...
Later! OL J R :)
You missed the retrorocket firing before touchdown on Earth.
Yeah because this is how soyuz lands on the ground without killing ppl inside
The real program got halted for financial reasons. On the other hand, this first ascend stage would have driven a crewman's capability on holding acceleration (g-) forces to a quite high limit. Image this tremendous amounts of rockets attached to it, burning a lot of fuel already in the very first seconds of flight, so the rocket's weight is reducing quickly, while acceleration increases.
in soviet russia, moon lands on you
In soviet russia you launch the moon to a rocket
In soviet Russia moon explodes
Demoblade is Soviet Russia you launch moon to rocket and launch rocket to cosmonaut
Jay Kay XD
*Majora's Mask flashbacks*
Holy moly, three stages to get into Earth orbit, then another two to get the 'thing' down on the Moon. Far too much to go wrong, it often did. This is a great Kerbal vid though. As for the N1: the world's biggest firework which Glushko emulated with the Nedelin disaster.
Да самый опасный и трудный участок полета посадка на Луну.. Одни человек в посадочном модуле... И всего одна минута на посадку, время работы двигателя лунного модуля после отделения ступени, которая выводит на орбиту систему и дает импульс на посадку... В течении одной минуты надо все решить и успеть.. У американцев куа больше времени было на посадку и запас топлива в посадочной ступени, взлетная ступень отдельно....
Wow the rockets and lunar lander look so realistic great job!
Not bad for years ago!
Well, they got close, maybe if the design bureaus hadn't bickered among themselves, they'd had a bit more money and support from the USSR's leadership, and in general they'd gotten their shit together, they might've done it.
In any case, great video Comrade! An interesting look at what might've been. What mods did you use?
It's funny - a lot of people claim capitalism drives innovation when Soviet OKBs were churning out ideas nobody in the West would even touch, but the moment they were required to STOP competing with each other and work together on common goals, then it became a problem!
Great video, would be cool if we could see the saturn v launching on the the background at re-entry but that's just too hard to happen
Farewell of Slavianka playing over a Soviet moon landing is something I never thought I needed.
Might have had fatalities at the last moment when it landed on earth.
That was one hard landing ...lol
Hey, that Soviet flag was waving in the breeze!
😂
Robert O'Neill No actually a flag will still wave in a vaccum since it has mass and therefore possesses inertia. They will also tend to wave for longer since there is no air to dampen the motion of the flag
@@oremooremo5075 no, the mun landings were faked!
@@Fried_11901 oh if N1 fake appolo 11 is too fake.
Am I wrong, ow wasn't the N1 supposed to be a direct ascent vehicle (no docking in lunar orbit; the whole vehicle lands and the whole vehicle takes off from the moon again)?
Nope, you are mistaken. Lander and orbiter in Low Lunar Orbit rendezvous
@@kevincgustafson Thanks for the Answer. I guess you probably did quite a bit more research than me, so I'll just accept your info as true.
What if Soviet Russia ia the first man in the -sun- mars
of course it will.Everything is ready for the flight to Mars, follow the news.
It looks as if the cosmonauts may have needed medical attention after that landing. Cool Video.
Good video, really good. But i had to say that N-1 was crap. Sergey Korolyov was a genius, but his confrontation with Vyalentin Glushko buried the Soviet dream of the Moonю Glushko's rocket, UR-700 was much more advanced and it had much more chances to get o the moon, and Korolev used all his authority from the party leadership to prevent it from being produced in favor on his own N-1.
ю
Also, the USSR didn't do the extensive testing on the N-1 like NASA and von Braun did with the Saturn V. The biggest problem the Soviet Union had was "go fever," all in the name of Communist propaganda. And even if the N-1 was properly tested, it was still less powerful than the Saturn V; the Energia rocket designed by Glushko outmatched the Saturn V and had two perfect flights. Now the Russian Federation is developing the Anagra rocket, but even that will only match the Proton booster (another Glushko rocket) and the Falcon 9 Heavy, but not the Saturn V, Energia, or the Block II SLS.
alexchivilev but the real N1-L3 rocket have not been launched with cosmonauts because at all tests it blowed up
Richard Bowley not falcon 9 heavy but falcon heavy and the most powerful rocket is N1-L3
Nosty GamerLV By usual definition, the Saturn V is still more "powerful" than the N1-L3. The N1-L3's Block A first stage may have produced more thrust at liftoff (10 200 000 pounds) than the Saturn V's S-IC booster stage (7 500 000 pounds), but it burned significantly shorter at 125 seconds vs the S-IC's 168 seconds. All further stages compare similarly, resulting in a payload capacity to LEO of 95 000 kg for the N1-L3 as opposed to the Saturn V's significantly higher 140 000 kg. On a side note, the space shuttle (STS for you nitpickers) produces 7 800 000 pounds of thrust at liftoff, slightly more than the Saturn V, but only has an LEO payload capability of 27 500 kg. No one would argue that the Space Shuttle is more "powerful" than the Saturn V just because its thrust at liftoff is higher, just as no one would (or should) argue that the N1-L3 outmatches the Saturn V, because the definition of the " power" a rocket has is its payload capacity.
It is fun to imagine this, but in realty it never could have happened. Even if the soviets' had managed to success launch the N-1, there where many other challenges. The soviets had no experience in docking space crafts, while the American spent the entire Gemmi project doing just that. Also the American and a world wide tracking and navigation system. They could accurately see where Apollo was as any time, with in 30 feet. And Apollo had the most advanced computer systems of the day, the first use of integrated circuits, that could run for over four days with out failure. Something that was unheard of in the 1960"s.Had the soviets actually launched a moon mission, I believe it would have only resulted in dead cosmonauts.
Peter Dinklage was a Soviet cosmonaut?
Shame the N1 project did not succeed. But it is amazing what esoteric stuff one can find on TH-cam. Superb video. Superb animation. Well chosen background music.
I would have wished them a successful moon landing sometime after Apollo 11.
tbh i wish they beat us
This reminds me of for all mankind
Грандиозно! Спасибо!
Добро пожаловать, товарищ
Я в восхищении! :)
спасибa!
Kevin Gustafson Все очень круто)Но с советскими аудио записями переборщили)
Звуковая дорожка с "Калинкой" на моменте посадки лунного модуля вырезана TH-cam или автором видео?
Russian logic: just stick 100 engines into a rocket and watah it explo- I mean fly to space
Nanozine 21 more is stronker!!!!
It's isn't logic. Just technologies and 1950's design don't let it to stick only 10 engines.
@@РандомныйКомментатор-л4н supply issues of Soviet era hardware limited designing engines to a certain size. Even so, production flaws in the NK-15 doomed the first 3 attempts (plus the KORD computer) and even the N-33 engines were later found to have many of the same metallurgical flaws in the turbos that the NK-15 had. of the 5 N-33 bench tested, 2 exploded. The rest were disassembled and the flaws discovered. Makes you wonder who was building the turbo pumps....
But design wise, brillant! Still not a fan of "hot fire" separation of a rocket.... I think NASA had the better approach using strap on booster rockets to maintain fuel feed.
like 32 in R7
Irony. N1 was a wreck train with 30 engines. Nowadays with better computers and building, Falcon Heavy has 3 time 9 so 27 engines. Superheavy will have more than 30. Elon Musk will probably succeeed where Korolev failed. But as said, it was the quality of the work that was bad, the design itself was brilliant on many things.
Super Heavy and Starship is what the N1 should have been. In that it is more of an offspring to the N1 than to the Saturn V.
The polar approach of the Soviets would have let the Soyuz LOK orbit across the poles providing the chance to detect ice in the permanently shadowed craters. This most likely would have increased the priority for manned Lunar exploration beyond Apollo and Soyuz. Did not the N1 pad have three flame trenches designed to redirect the exhaust outward in three directions? You can kind of see that in your original footage at the beginning. Thank you very much for this informative and enjoyable video. Go, Roscosmos.
It did, but in KSP I don't know of any way (modded or otherwise) to alter the launchpad in such a way.
that bgm got the taste of the red army choir, nice choice
Imma download this video just in case.
when they made a whole apple tv show about your video 😩
For all mankind! lol
Snif beautiful glory to the motherland
nice! that reentry and landing got pretty kerbal.
There's a conspiracy theory that says the Russians never had an imaginary landing on the moon.
Noooooo the landing has no sound. I hate copyright. That was my favourite part of the video, because of the music.
kaaaAAAALIN(stage separation)
I did my first mun landing last week, and i did it on basically vostok 1 but little modifications (like landing legs)
Korolev's dream came true
The most expensive firework in human history
So many engines it failed
The story is more complex. Years before the first flight the soviet chief designer died and with him not only crucial engineering knowledge, but also the decent relationship with the soviet leadership (which never really saw much benefit in this rocket), so funding became even more of an issue.
With the time pressure by the Americans and severely limited resources, the majority of engines where never even tested before installation, let alone the entire stack combined. Not to mention, that Americans eventually landed on the moon, so it became just a resource eating project for a feat, they already got beaten on and got scraped.
Note that the Falcon Heavy will fire 27 engines in the first stage, which should be flown in the coming months (also keep in mind the ITS with a whopping 42 engines should it ever be build). There are advantages to adding a lot of engines instead of building massive ones (for example easier combustion stability, more thrust to weight ratio, and of course more redundancy in case engines fail, unless of course the rocked decides to shut down most of the engines like the N1 enjoyed doing).
But once again the story is also more complex than this...
Too many pipes. All vibrating at unfirgureable modes that shook the poor thing apart. Today computers would be able to solve those issues.
The design was fundamentaly flawed and bound to fail. Time and funding weren't as much of the issue soviet scientist like to pretend to justify their failures.
Mr Sturm Not really. It was took down due to a computer glitch in the guidance system. They could have easily fixed it with enough resource and time
It's more complex than that. N1 had 30 engines. Falcon heavy has 27. So is 30 too many and 27 just fine? Antares only had two engines in it's first stage but they were NK33s...
The "Your grace, Lady Luck" song would be fitting for the start, since it's from the soundtrack from the "White sun of the desert" movie, that is being screened to cosmonauts before every start (as a lucky charm tradition)
admit it. we all love the Soviet anthem. After Stalin and a few other leaders, Reagan and Gorbachev were good friends I heard. If we had Gorbachev leading the USSR it would be way better.
I'm a Soviet history geek, please note I love my country and the freedoms I have.
Brian Levitow Gorbachev was one of the main reasons why Soviet union fell apart
Unfortunately Gorby was a bit naively optimistic. He meant well but I don't think he realised at all the impact that his actions would have on the country, which was already suffering from the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev years. I feel pretty sorry for the guy since he cops it from both sides.
rossmum No Comrade, Gorbachev did not "Mean well". He simply tried to implement trade and economic reforms, combined with a slightly less belligerent foreign policy to a highly corrupt third-world dictatorship which had bankrupted itself trying to maintain a massive,bloated military complex. He was first and foremost a true Communist, and simply offered up far too little, and far too late to a long-suffering people who were deprived of nearly everything by their government. They were closer to the West culturally, spiritually, and geographically than Asia and envied the very obvious success of free and democratic nations to the Marxist misery of theirs. Please, Fellow Travelers of the Democratic Party, STOP TRYING TO FUCK UP AMERICA, AND GO TO CUBA, CHINA, OR VENEZUELA!☭🏚💩🖕
Hell, the Nazi anthem was a toe-tapper too! And get a gander at Mussolini's cavatina. Nothing says good music like totalitarianism!
He did lead the Soviet Union though
12:20 Secret radio transmission intercepted from Luna: "Abort mission, abort mission! Cosmonaut Leonov's head has swelled to massive size relative to his body! And he's turned GREEN!"
Good job, good video, i subbed. But next time, please, do not insert into the video songs, the meaning of which you do not know. I mean this is a good songs, but it is all military marches, and i think there is no place for militaries in space. We, have several good soviet/russian songs about space exploration, wich should be in this video instead of these marches
alexchivilev out of curiosity, do you have the names of those Soviet songs about space exploration?
alexchivilev Успокойся
Santiago B.
"Трава у дома"
th-cam.com/video/2seJEwKPx7s/w-d-xo.html
"К дальним планетам!"
th-cam.com/video/Ys8I5OiRhho/w-d-xo.html
"И на Марсе будут яблони цвести"
th-cam.com/video/zUxm2kJ5Jbo/w-d-xo.html
"Я верю, друзья"
th-cam.com/video/wzPZZjSksoY/w-d-xo.html
И с чего ты решил, что они не понимают смысл? или что трудно найти эти песни и перевести на любой язык? в каком веке живем?
Look how cute and happy Comrade Gagarin is!:3
Юрий Гагарин - Хороший парень!
Писает криво,
Пьет молоко - летает высоко!:
Юрий Гагарин - Хороший парень!
Писает криво,
Пьет молоко - летает высоко!:
it’s soooo russian...
I LOVE IT!
Excellent choice of music comrade :)
respect for the Soviet anthem
Odlična muzika i animacija!
so what is all this music it is amazing
Red Army Choir
thanks mate, your videos are astounding like truly incredible glad to have found you
Not quite all of them. The theme from Hunt for Red October (~7:56) is often attributed to the Red Army Choir but is definitely not (and they don't sound exactly like native Russian speakers, either). It was written by Basil Poledouris who also did the soundtrack for Starship Troopers. The Soviet Anthem here is also sung by the Bolshoi Theatre choir, the Red Army Choir version is more commonly used but is male vocals only.
00:20 Anthem of the Soviet Union - Choir & orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre
03:45 V Put' (usually translated as Let's Go/On the March) - Red Army Choir. Not the version from the film it was originally written for, this is from a live concert. Not sure where.
07:07 Kalinka - Red Army Choir (only the beginning)
07:29 Utyos (The Cliff) - Red Army Choir, soloist Leonid Kharitonov (only the beginning, which is a shame because it's an incredibly powerful piece)
07:40 Hunt for Red October theme, written by Basil Poledouris, I have no idea who the choir is but it's not the RAC
12:43 Farewell of Slavianka - Red Army Choir
15:28 The Partisans' Song - Red Army Choir
18:30 I don't know the title of this one though I recognise the tune. It's used on military parades.
20:52 Svyaschennaya Voina (The Sacred War) - Red Army Choir
rossmum thank you comrade
What music did you use
Ouviram do ipiranga as margens plácidas
De um povo heróico o brado retumbante, e o sol da liberdade, em raios fúlgidos, Brilhou no céu da pátria nesse instante.
Se o penhor dessa igualdade conseguimos conquistar com braço forte, Em teu seio, ó liberdade, Desafia o nosso peito a própria morte!
Ó pátria amada, idolatrada, Salve! Salve!
Brasil, um sonho intenso, um raio vívido
De amor e de esperança à terra desce, Se em teu formoso céu, risonho e límpido, A imagem do cruzeiro resplandece.
Gigante pela própria natureza, És belo, es forte, impávido colosso, E o teu futuro espalha essa grandeza.
Terra dourada, Entre outras mil, És tu, Brasil, Ó pátria amada!
Dos filhos deste solo és mãe gentil, Pátria amada, Brasil!
Photos and videos are interesting, but the soundtrack is killer! :))