Get your own privacy report by signing up for Delete Me at joindeleteme.com/SPACERACE20 and use our promo code SPACERACE20 to receive 20 percent off any of their consumer plans.
As great as your content is I just cant't watch your vids anymore. Your transitions hurt my brain. Really. For me they are highly disturbing. No idea why I can't process them. I wish you wouldn't chose these flickering transitions
If you are making historical video be more precise on your wording. Ex: Soviet Union was not just Russians. So, when you say Russian did this or that and not Soviet Union you exclude 50% of Soviet Union population. As well I as well I think you do exaggerate how far ahead was Soviet Union in the space race. Soviet Union was ahead of US due to building the first big rocket before US due to priority (they had big nuclear bombs they needed big rockets) and they fully banked that advantage. This was not true anymore for the moon landing race. I would not call this huge advantage.
@@amotriuc Russian ≈ Soviet was, and remains, a very common writing convention, even in more formal writing. And more to topic: "When talking about the *Russian space program* , there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized." (--Scientific American, July 2009. The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev. By Saswato R. Das) This is very pertinent, given that fact that Segei was the son of _Ukrainian_ Premier of the USSR, Nikita.
Allow me another nitpick: "...would be powered by a nuclear fission reactor..." 8:30 You're picturing a nuclear _fusion_ reactor there. Albeit it's a nice touch for the topic inasmuch as the tokamak design was first conceptualized by Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov
@@-danRif you just talk to someone randomly using Russian ≈ Soviet is completely fine, but I don't think this is rigorous enough if you try to do describe history. You should not leave space for misinterpretation.
After the moon landing, both sides began cooperating more than competing. Just a few years later, a Soyuz and an Apollo CSM would dock marking the world's first international docking in space. Almost 20 years later, both sides would begin Shuttle-Mir, where the US space shuttle docked with the Russian Mir station, and shortly after the ISS would start going up. Both sides began helping eachother out to better spaceflight as a whole, rather than constantly trying to be first for something new and rushing and inevitably losing lives.
Human space flight isn’t that great. We’ve done amazing things with unmanned missions to every planet in the solar system and many minor planets including the dwarf planets Pluto and Ceres. Our space telescopes have changed our view of the universe, and we’ve discovered thousands of Exoplanets thanks to Kepler. Sure I’d love for humans to go out there as far as we can go, but it’s not necessary to push before we have the proper infrastructure and robust vehicles.
@@russellharrell2747yeah that much is understood but ultimately worth while projects were completely abandoned. The people who worked on them are long gone and we regressed when it comes to manned flights. We should have pushed more. You get the most progress through trial and error. Just doing a little bit does way more then nothing.
The description of the N1's intended use shows how clever NASA was with their redocking approach. Saturn V and the Apollo modules had fewer stages and fewer steps. That means more efficiency and fewer risk factors to account for
But as vid say US landed so many times it got bored ... why didnt US build some station on moon ... maybe even smaller/simpler but just to close the chapter what russians were wet-dreaming!?!
IIRC, Korolev himself said that his design is insufficient piece of shit, and smaller amount of bigger engines would work better. But the government didn't get any money and time to develop new engines.
Ive been saying this for months, if apollo continued and nasa still got funded as it was back then, we would already have a mars colony and a moon city!!
We are the greatest problem solvers yet humanity is fighting merely its own problems. It is not obvious that we will ever reach out to other planets, it needs a special Zeitgeist to be able to, not just technological progress. Hopefully this time around it will not just be about who plants the next flag.
Unfortunately the US would rather do tax cuts for the corporate feudal lords so they can have an extra yacht per year, thus requiring the defunding of programs deemed as "non essential", rather than push humanity forwards to a better future.
@@davidrobertson5700 halifax explosion also up there, its just hard to really get a figure on these things since most of them were accidents or during some battle
Whoa. I thought it was a mistake but it kept happening. that out-of-focus-fast-jumble-transition is like poking your viewers in the eyes. Omg you keep doing it.
I love that show so much. Things began to get a bit wacky and not so ground in reality/science in season 2 and onward, but even those wacky seasons are great imo. The first season though was amazing though, it had a vibe nothing else has achieved for me
@@PrairieCossack and you prefer every ex SSR state being economically backwards due to economic shock therapy imposed by Western nations, where human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organized crime skyrocketed when the union was dissolved
Every time I see these videos talking about who was first in space and what side was planning to do, it just haves me always thinking about what would happen if they just ended up working together instead of just by them self. But to be honest even if Coralv lived and help change how N1 preformed, it'll probably still be him and Glo's to be head budding over who's is better and may lead to another rocket to challenge N1. But it'll also be a question how long they would be able to stay there and what would they actually use that place for?
If they were both working together both countries would not have been competing and governmental inertia plus the political difficulties of planning together would have slowed the effort to get to the moon by decades. Take a look at NASA's Constellation program vs. Space X Starliner, and then add the difficulty of the communication between the US and Russia that would have been necessary to pull off a moon landing. Endiless discussion and consensus building.
That's the thing, nothing would happen. The reason both sides were progressing so quickly as they were racing against each other. You would think that everybody working together would be more efficient but it reduces innovation .
@@kaiserwhence2468 I watched "For All Mankind" on Apple TV In that Alternative History series, the Soviets land on the Moon first, in June 1969, beating us by about 30 days! We and the USSR are NOT "working together". We still have separate programs.
Great video @TheSpaceRaceYT -interesting and educational. But I’m kind of surprised you got through it all without mentioning For All Mankind (Apple TV+), which showed what could have happened if the Soviets got to the moon first, even focusing on the Zvezda moon base. Anyone interested in what *could* have been would get an interesting glimpse at it in that show.
This video is mostly nonsense. The Russians who do not live in urban areas have carpeting to their bathroom but it is 100 meters from their bedroom and a cold walk at that.
Russia / Soviet could never have reached the Moon first, they knew they were behind. And that is part of the story why they rushed things so badly not only with the N1, but also with the Lunniy korabyl lander which was lacking in several respects - and the extended Soyuz was not even built! For them coming second to the Moon did not matter - and therefore they cancelled the program entirely. Later on, they actually did do parts of the follow up program of a manned mission to Mars - manned flight without landing, the Cosmonauts would instead land remote controlled vehicles, and possibly do one excursion to Phobos. There was a lot of vapourware also in those plans. The launch vehicle for that was the even more powerful Energia. Which did fly with one successful flight and one failed.
@@Aibo-cx9gw Actually no - Soviets did what they did - steady space advance as they did all the 50s and first half of 60s - it was A) Death of Korolev which baffeled soviet space programs B) NASA was shocked of USSR rapid progress so they ramped up the Lunar program - Appolo missions were developed in great hurry just to tip the moon and never come back later after. It was a space race with several rounds. US won the lunar round. But the cost is almost unbearable - it's more than a half-freaking-century no man lands the moon. Why is that? Wouldn't that be a great event and opportunity to display prowess? But it's not. Because it's costs hell a lot of a money for not so practical event until you have an infrastructure to sustain that establishment. And no one have that as for now. Not US, nor Russia, not even China.
Korolev had numerous health problems stemming from his time in the Gulags the operation he underwent was an exploratory operation that discovered a large tumour on his colon the surgeon attempted to remove it but Korolev didn't survive. Korolev was a high profile patient even though he was not famous in his own lifetime so his Surgeon was the Russian Surgeon General Boris Petrovski
In Mother Russia you must watch when in Gulag you don't suffer from unauthorized docking procedure when in bathing room, it can unfortunately lead to future problems.
@@dukecraig2402 Bathing room? This was the Soviet Gulags a bath room would have been luxury generally you were lucky if you got to sleep somewhere that had a roof. Korolev lost 5 stones and all of his teeth during his stay in the Gulag and was never the same again. On the other hand he's the only person who was sent to the Gulags that subsequently received the "Order of Lenin" and he won that twice
If the Soviet chief engineer of their space program, Sergei Korolev, had not, strangely enough, died in a simple stomach operation in january 1966, the Soviets might also have been first in the field, ahead of the US. Sergei Korolev, just like Wernher von Braun in the USA, had a vision that we humans would establish ourselves in space. Both were unique individuals, were brilliant engineers and had the unusual ability to get many different people to work together on the same goal. Sadly, Wernher von Braun also passed away to early, a few years later, from kidney cancer in June 1977. With both visionaries dead, the air went out of both the Soviet and American space programs. What the world needs today are visionaries like Sergei Korolev and Wernher von Braun.
Wernher von Braun, a Nazi SS member, had slave labor in the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp build the V1 and V2 rockets. Under Operation Paperclip, the US looked the other way and recruited him and thousands of other Nazi scientists for their expertise.
I’ve recently had your channel pop up on my recommended videos and I have to say I love your content, ive learned more information about the space race than I ever learned in school . It’s been my go to the past several days.
Creating the biggest non nuclear explosion is an really unexpected achievement And it could have been much worse, because block b and c did by an incredible chance not explode
The Soviet Union was known for making very impressively large things, seems to have been an obsession of their leaders. Often impressively big messes, but in this case it was an explosion *AND* a mess.
It beats the black Tom explosion in Jersey city in WW1? This was a shipping/train yard sabotage by a famous German spy that leveled the dredgepile and industrial park next to the port which is now known as liberty State Park
Just imagine if Korolev didn't die early and Soviets would have succeeded with N1 rocket, the race would continue for decades longer and we would have got lunar bases at least.
You are right but you're also wrong considering that the space race bankrupted the Soviet Union. Ultimately they lost, I mean money is what makes the world go round. They dominated the space race and quite handily dominated it, but in the end, no. And this doesn't mean that I think that the US won fairly, I'm not 100% convinced that we landed on the moon, but in the end, we weren't the ones that went bankrupt and saw our nation dissolved.
It's funny how the soviets basically were ahead all stages in Space up until the moon landing. Somehow then they "lost" the space race. I agree that they lost the moon-race, but they pioneered lots of important steps.
I remembered a joke about the race for the Moon: An employee rushes to the director of NASA and shouts: The Russians are painting the Moon red!! The director calmly replies: Don't panic. When they're done, we'll write Coca-Cola on it :)
"Your channel is something very very special. Top 3 on TH-cam for this type of programming in my opinion. It boggles my mind almost as much as the information you provide in the shows, how you only have half a million subscriber’s. I feel like I’m getting in early on a community with the potential to reach 10 million subscribers or more. Just fantastic ground breaking work you’re doing here my friend. I’m honored to be a part of it. I will be making donations to the channel going forward. Thank you for what you’re doing from Canada. 🙏💫🇨🇦🍻"
@@TheSpaceRaceYTlove and respect to you from India as well man,amazing man,it would have been marvelous for both us and soviets to build bases on mars and moon ,by now you guys would have had moon coties or bades with millions of population there,but as mations were wasting resources in unnecessary wars which didnt make any sense
Korolev got his jaw broken in gulag and it didn't healed properly. Years passed and it caused a problem during the surgery. Korolev possibly himself didn't realized the severity of the problem, he kinda had more pressing problems like almost dying of scurvy also in gulag, and he had space to conquer later. Very tragic how a life of such extraordinary man was cut short by something that shouldn't have ever happened.
Uhhhh the planned soviet moon trains... did they plan to use standard track design and rely on weight and friction of the wheels on the smooth metal tracks? Pretty sure there would be some distinct issues there.
Will it better to build a lunar spacestation first before the lunar base? So instead going directly to moon dock first with the space station. What can you say?
15:22 Correct! NASA lost Nixon’s support just from not being sexy! The space agency’s only error was not making the final Apollo missions more engaging to the average American. Studying lunar geology was never going to cut it. New goals and ambitions were essential to keep the nation excited! Stanley Kubrick did more for space with 2001 than any movie. But his next one, “A Clockwork Orange,” actually featured a drunk poking fun at NASA’s lack of foresight.
That’s all nice to say that the Soviet N1L3 rocket produced more thrust that the Saturn. One small point to make is the N1 never completed a test flight. The Soviets had twelve test flights planned, but the four flown, and I use the worn flown very lightly here, ended in failure. I bet your next video will be of the Buran, and how much better it was than the space shuttle. It flew once, was unmanned and only had two orbits before landing back on earth.
There are some parallels, yes. Where the Saturn V stages were built and underwent extensive individual testing before being shipped to the launch site for integration, the N1, like Starship Suoerheavy was built at the launch site, with only the engines being shipped in as completed units. This was partly because there was no way to transport a 17m diameter rocket stage over any great distance, as Russia's rail network was inadequate to the task, and no aircraft even close. Barges couldn't be used. Also, both the N1 and Starship used a large number of smaller engines to achieve massive thrust, rather than a few large engines like the Saturn V. This allows large numbers to be built in production line fashion, and ease of installation, at the cost of increased flow complexity in the exhaust, plumbing needed and controlling the engines together. However, there are major differences which hopefully mean that SpaceX will succeed where the USSR failed. First, testing. Only two in six of the NK-15 engines were tested and not the ones actually being used as they used one shot pyrotechnics to open valves, which meant they could not be turned off after activation. Likewise, the stages of the N1 could not be test fired individually or as a stack before launch. By comparison, every Raptor engine is tested, and both Superheavy and Starship stages are tested before use. As far as we know, while the Raptor V1 may have had problems, no V2 has failed due to malfunction. They've failed due to other factors. Second, improved computer technology. This is big, the KORD (KOntrol Raketnykh Dvigateley) computer that was designed to control the N1's many engines, while cutting edge, was not up to the task of handling fault situations like a turbo-pump exploding. No 1960's computer could have simulated the complex flow mechanics, so the only way to test the programming was to launch. By comparison, modern computer systems are far more sophisticated, from simulations to monitoring and telemetring every component and managing insanely complex systems. Three, quality control and iteration. SpaceX is always looking to improve the Starship design, testing, upgrading, and testing again. Fifty years of improving quality control processes may also play a part. By comparison, the Soviet system was fundamentally authoritarian. Finding a fault would be tantamount to saying your boss/fellow worker has made a mistake, which gets you no friends in a society based on collective action. Add to that the difficulty of testing in the first place and you can see how something like the N1 would have trouble. The design was brilliant, the execution less so, especially under Mishkin. But even so, the first two launches of Starship have both failed, you cry out, eager to puncture my thesis. But look at how they failed. The first launch suffered problems due to FOD from the launch pad just not being able to take it. Even so it got further along it's mission path than any N1, including passing Max Q. Remaining engines and computers held up despite failures. The second launch had a flawless first stage launch and stage separation. It blew up only after the flip manouvre to return to launch site, something that had never been tested. Some complex interaction, possibly shock hammer or fuel slosh starved the engines and then caused damage. The second stage flew almost all the way to orbit, but was pottentially damaged during the hot staging manoevvre, another thing that hadn't been tested, as it was apparently losing oxygen. The last and most important difference is support. SpaceX is committed to making Starship work, and has the funding and infrstructure to keep going, even if they do blow up a dozen more vehicles in the process. By comparison, after the Apollo missions succeeded, the N1 was a vehicle without a purpose. They had two more units ready that could have continued testing, but it was abandoned instead.
I’ve heard that the cosmonauts weren’t so hot on an untethered spacewalk both directions, one with a bag of rocks. As well, it was enormously risky to land on the moon with a single cosmonaut. The trouble with the N1 was that they had to use many small engines in solid mounts because they didn’t have the capability to build an engine as large as the Rocketdyne F-1.
Thanks for a comprehensive summary of the Soviet Luna programs. It would make sense to compare them to the current Russian, Chinese and even Indian programs - to see whether one can speak of a conceptual continuity.
At the 14:50 mark -- the LARGEST non-nuclear explosion in history! That's pretty Awesome. But as for the "70 Years" reference -- -That means the Soviets began planning the Moon Base in 1953 ? Or 4 years before Sputnik? That's hard to believe!
I’ve heard that the cosmonauts weren’t so hot on an untethered spacewalk both directions, one with a bag of rocks. As well, it was enormously risky to land on the moon with a single cosmonaut. The trouble with the N1 was that they had to use many small engines in solid mounts because they didn’t have the capability to build an engine as large as the Rocketdyne F-1. The N1 had a crusty analog steering system on the first stage that (didn’t) work by shutting down an engine to offset on that failed, etc.
The amount of engines was not the major issue (It was a very big one however) The major issue was that they couldn't be tested beforehand, an NK-15 could only ever be fired once.
They might have won with N1 if they managed to rotate central ring of the engines like Starship and not turn off engines. But the problem was still a cpu to control whole process, they didn't have it back then. Yeah if they sticked with RD-270 engines for UR-700 rocket, maybe they flew to the Moon
Korilov's death and the Apollo 1 disaster are to me the turning point of the space race. Korilov was an absolute genius, but the others around him not so much. N1 may have failed even if he lived, but there was no chance after he died The deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White created a giant change in how NASA did business as expressed by Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option.” I think choosing quality at all costs versus expediency is what turned the corner. Greatly oversimplified, but it gets the gist of it Another issue for the Soviets was how overcomplicated the N1 was. 5 stages, 25 boosters on the first? Think of igniting all of them, not to mention keeping them in the correct position. It also required 10 million pounds of thrust to get less to the moon than Apollo. No wonder it had a 100% failure rate. Compare that to the Saturn V. Five engines on the first stage, three stages total with the third able to reignite.with some minor technicalities, it had a 100% success rate. In the space race, the Americans failed hard at first, but learned. I always thought it was more compelling that we endured lots of humiliation at the hands of the Soviets, but finally succeeded where it counted. It's just a shame we stopped there.
It was never going to succeed. Not only could they not afford to test all the engines all together at one time, but they couldn't even test every engine on its own.
Let me get this straight , Soviet Union: First Object on the moon, First Living organism in space, First Man in space, First Satellite, first , Woman, First Space Station. US: One man on the moon How did the US win the space race again?
The same Wiki page he quotes when talking about Vasily Mishin, "best remebered for the failures...": Wiki: "He inherited the N1 program, intended to land a man on the Moon, but which turned out to be fatally flawed (largely due to lack of adequate funding)." SO, when talking about the N1 project, money was the limiting factor. Possibly other projects aswell. So, no regime, no materter how strong of a dictatorship is present (Stalin dead for 13 years at that point BTW) would kill the top scientist on a project that's a d*ck measuring contest, and replace him with a dimwit. Narratives.
TV show 'For all Mankind' on Apple TV explores this 'what if' alternative history of the space race. First 2 series are worth a watch. Series 3 was awaful and have to see what they do with series 4 which is out now
The entire purpose of Apollo was the feasibility of basing ICBMs on the moon for a guaranteed 2nd strike capability. Apollo was supposed to run through the mid 1990s, eventually switching from the Saturn V to the more powerful Nova around Apollo 30. Another fun fact, the Saturn V was built with a 4th stage, this stage was for missions to Mars.
A little naive. It wasn't just the booster. There were a thousand technological advances needed to successfully rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit and then accurately and safely land on and take off from the lunar surface, and the Soviets had developed neither the equipment not the training or experience to do so. NASA had patiently and systematically developed all of these through Gemini and Apollo, and it was a stretch even for them. Just thinking about the computers alone-the Soviets had nothing remotely like MIT's onboard Apollo navigation computer-gives me shivers. The Soviets' effort was a desperate, last-ditch kind of stunt from start to finish and would never have gotten close to succeeding, though they might have managed to kill a bunch of cosmonauts in the process. But oh well.
You sound a little over biased. The Russians did have their bord computers, with so called pen-valves or pen-tubes. I find them more reliable, and I would love to build some amplifiers with these. Though the N1 didn't work, the Russian space program is continueasly functioning since 1957. If any problems arrise, cosmonauts can hand-steer their Sojus craft. Something the west has seen only on the Shuttle and I'm not sure if to the same degree. Their landing is somewhat exciting.... Also, when I like saying Apollo was only a tin can, I rather not think about inside a Sojus. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
They didn't get to the Moon but Soviet space program by no means stopped after N1 failure. They got the first space station in orbit and they made it to Venus. Especially the Venera program is amazing.
Well considering we are supposed to be living like the Jetsons according to how the 50’s & 60’s had it what was possible. It’s very sad we could stop fighting ourselves over stupidity.
Just using the normal crew department without using the complete internal space of the rocket would give us already almost the same amount of pressurized space as the ISS. I think as a start this would be already a great station.
N1 was not ugly at all, actually looks more beautiful than Saturn V. Interesting that the rocket array approach is similar to the one used by SpaceX today.
If there did a full thrust test on the N1, they would figured out the issue on day one. Taking shortcuts are really bad and the Soviet Moon program is a great example of that. N1 moon rocket was a great design, plumbing for the engines, not so much but nothing that could not be fixed.
Unfortunately the N1 main engines used pyrotechnic valves, so the engines could only be fired once. They test-fired 1 in 6 of the engines off the production line, but those tested engines were then scrapped.
The same would have happened under Korolev. The Soviets didnt do full engine combustion run of the N1 on a test stand, so they would do iterative development by launching and seeing what happens.
Agree, they were behind at that time, US starred development of the F1 engine before the moon program started. Soviets didn't have anything equivalent in the works and had to take serios shortcuts to catch up.
The N1 could not be test-fired without replacing ALL of the engines afterward. The main engines were designed so they could only be fired once. Decades later, the leftover unused N1 main engines were sold to a US company, that had some launch failures because of engine failures.
@@55stryker The engines that US uses from Russia are not the exactly the same as the ones from N1 rocker. The ones used in N1 rocket were not properly finished yet. Korolev did complain about it himself.
Your opening statement was very ambiguous if not incorrect. If the space race was to see who reached the moon first then yes the Americans won BUT if the space race was to see who reached space first then the Soviets were the clear winners.
That depends on how you define "reached." Yeah, the soviets put the first man in space, but No-No Germany was the first to get a man-made object into space. Sure it was suborbital, but they still reached space in 1944.
@cornpowa, Perhaps a bit earlier ? V2 went in series production in 1944. First successfull launch was 1942. In 1944 they were already working on a spy rocket called V2b, the first space shuttle prototype. 2 flights until 1945. Also, work was underway on a 1st stage booster for V2, the A9/A10 rocket. That was supposed to prevent America entering the war. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
When I first read the title, I thought the Soviets were planning for the future and building an abandoned moon base so it would never have to be occupied.
The USSR didn’t lose the space race. It’s just the Americans moved the goal posts to “moon landing” being the finish line. It is the “Only” thing they didn’t beat us to.
Yeah, soviets had a lot of fantasies like that Moon base. But they never had enough resources to make it real. They made N1 test flights without any on ground tests because of funds shortage.
No N1 test fires because the N1 main engines were designed to only be fired once. The engines used pyrotechnic valves, which means tiny explosives operated those valves. After a test firing, the N1 main engines would need to be scrapped and replaced.
Get your own privacy report by signing up for Delete Me at joindeleteme.com/SPACERACE20 and use our promo code SPACERACE20 to receive 20 percent off any of their consumer plans.
As great as your content is I just cant't watch your vids anymore. Your transitions hurt my brain. Really. For me they are highly disturbing. No idea why I can't process them. I wish you wouldn't chose these flickering transitions
If you are making historical video be more precise on your wording. Ex: Soviet Union was not just Russians. So, when you say Russian did this or that and not Soviet Union you exclude 50% of Soviet Union population. As well I as well I think you do exaggerate how far ahead was Soviet Union in the space race. Soviet Union was ahead of US due to building the first big rocket before US due to priority (they had big nuclear bombs they needed big rockets) and they fully banked that advantage. This was not true anymore for the moon landing race. I would not call this huge advantage.
@@amotriuc
Russian ≈ Soviet was, and remains, a very common writing convention, even in more formal writing. And more to topic:
"When talking about the *Russian space program* , there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized."
(--Scientific American, July 2009. The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes:
A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev.
By Saswato R. Das)
This is very pertinent, given that fact that Segei was the son of _Ukrainian_ Premier of the USSR, Nikita.
Allow me another nitpick:
"...would be powered by a nuclear fission reactor..." 8:30
You're picturing a nuclear _fusion_ reactor there.
Albeit it's a nice touch for the topic inasmuch as the tokamak design was first conceptualized by Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov
@@-danRif you just talk to someone randomly using Russian ≈ Soviet is completely fine, but I don't think this is rigorous enough if you try to do describe history. You should not leave space for misinterpretation.
It really sucks the Space Race just kinda stopped after Apollo
well, the powers that be decided to do the vietnam war instead... we all know how that went...
After the moon landing, both sides began cooperating more than competing. Just a few years later, a Soyuz and an Apollo CSM would dock marking the world's first international docking in space. Almost 20 years later, both sides would begin Shuttle-Mir, where the US space shuttle docked with the Russian Mir station, and shortly after the ISS would start going up. Both sides began helping eachother out to better spaceflight as a whole, rather than constantly trying to be first for something new and rushing and inevitably losing lives.
Human space flight isn’t that great. We’ve done amazing things with unmanned missions to every planet in the solar system and many minor planets including the dwarf planets Pluto and Ceres. Our space telescopes have changed our view of the universe, and we’ve discovered thousands of Exoplanets thanks to Kepler. Sure I’d love for humans to go out there as far as we can go, but it’s not necessary to push before we have the proper infrastructure and robust vehicles.
@@russellharrell2747yeah that much is understood but ultimately worth while projects were completely abandoned. The people who worked on them are long gone and we regressed when it comes to manned flights. We should have pushed more. You get the most progress through trial and error. Just doing a little bit does way more then nothing.
Moon landings are fake people wake up
The description of the N1's intended use shows how clever NASA was with their redocking approach. Saturn V and the Apollo modules had fewer stages and fewer steps. That means more efficiency and fewer risk factors to account for
The Germans are known for their efficiency.
Cringe
But as vid say US landed so many times it got bored ... why didnt US build some station on moon ... maybe even smaller/simpler but just to close the chapter what russians were wet-dreaming!?!
It's all a scam! No one has been to the moon! There are no satellites. It's all a scam! Wake up people!
IIRC, Korolev himself said that his design is insufficient piece of shit, and smaller amount of bigger engines would work better. But the government didn't get any money and time to develop new engines.
Ive been saying this for months, if apollo continued and nasa still got funded as it was back then, we would already have a mars colony and a moon city!!
People in the 60s thought we'd have been to outer planets by now. They'd be very disappointed
@@Clone683yeah, just because countries thought winning a stupid war was more important than our future as an interplanetary species
We are the greatest problem solvers yet humanity is fighting merely its own problems. It is not obvious that we will ever reach out to other planets, it needs a special Zeitgeist to be able to, not just technological progress. Hopefully this time around it will not just be about who plants the next flag.
Unfortunately the US would rather do tax cuts for the corporate feudal lords so they can have an extra yacht per year, thus requiring the defunding of programs deemed as "non essential", rather than push humanity forwards to a better future.
@@RySabre its true
Space Race: "Not with a bang"
Also Space Race: "It was the largest non-nuclear explosion in human history"
Nazis took us to the moon. With von Brauns. Paper clip team along with keen USA engineers along..and ibm and MIT making computers too😊😊
I thought that the Messine ridge was in ww1, heard in London 🤔
@@gerry-p9x okay?
So the explosion in Beirut that was supposed to be fertilizer was actually a Israeli tactical nuke?
@@davidrobertson5700 halifax explosion also up there, its just hard to really get a figure on these things since most of them were accidents or during some battle
Whoa. I thought it was a mistake but it kept happening. that out-of-focus-fast-jumble-transition is like poking your viewers in the eyes. Omg you keep doing it.
Those transitions hurt. Everything else is amazing, but they make me wanna flip the table.
There's a cool series called "for all mankind" that explores how history would have gone if the soviets had landed the first person on the moon
its so good dude, god I wish we were in that timeline
I love that show so much. Things began to get a bit wacky and not so ground in reality/science in season 2 and onward, but even those wacky seasons are great imo. The first season though was amazing though, it had a vibe nothing else has achieved for me
@@notenoughmemes1847Soviet union in 21st century? No thanks😂
@@PrairieCossack and you prefer every ex SSR state being economically backwards due to economic shock therapy imposed by Western nations, where human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organized crime skyrocketed when the union was dissolved
Way to much girl boss crap in it though
Oh we have pretty good idea what would happen if Soviets got to the moon first. It's called For All Mankind and it's absolute banger of a TV serie
You showed a picture of a nuclear fusion reactor but said the soviets planned to build a fission reactor.
Good catch.
Never mind that. He said two tortoises and showed two turtles 😂
What's the difference
Every time I see these videos talking about who was first in space and what side was planning to do, it just haves me always thinking about what would happen if they just ended up working together instead of just by them self.
But to be honest even if Coralv lived and help change how N1 preformed, it'll probably still be him and Glo's to be head budding over who's is better and may lead to another rocket to challenge N1. But it'll also be a question how long they would be able to stay there and what would they actually use that place for?
If they were both working together both countries would not have been competing and governmental inertia plus the political difficulties of planning together would have slowed the effort to get to the moon by decades. Take a look at NASA's Constellation program vs. Space X Starliner, and then add the difficulty of the communication between the US and Russia that would have been necessary to pull off a moon landing. Endiless discussion and consensus building.
That scenario has been made into a series called For all Mankind
That's the thing, nothing would happen. The reason both sides were progressing so quickly as they were racing against each other. You would think that everybody working together would be more efficient but it reduces innovation
.
@@kaiserwhence2468
I watched "For All Mankind" on Apple TV
In that Alternative History series, the Soviets land on the Moon first, in June 1969, beating us by about 30 days!
We and the USSR are NOT "working together". We still have separate programs.
Nothing, it's a waste of time going there, current spacefaring tech is a joke, all the efforts should go towards fusion
Great video @TheSpaceRaceYT -interesting and educational. But I’m kind of surprised you got through it all without mentioning For All Mankind (Apple TV+), which showed what could have happened if the Soviets got to the moon first, even focusing on the Zvezda moon base. Anyone interested in what *could* have been would get an interesting glimpse at it in that show.
Exactly my thoughts! For All Mankind is awesome!!!
This video is mostly nonsense. The Russians who do not live in urban areas have carpeting to their bathroom but it is 100 meters from their bedroom and a cold walk at that.
Russia / Soviet could never have reached the Moon first, they knew they were behind. And that is part of the story why they rushed things so badly not only with the N1, but also with the Lunniy korabyl lander which was lacking in several respects - and the extended Soyuz was not even built! For them coming second to the Moon did not matter - and therefore they cancelled the program entirely. Later on, they actually did do parts of the follow up program of a manned mission to Mars - manned flight without landing, the Cosmonauts would instead land remote controlled vehicles, and possibly do one excursion to Phobos. There was a lot of vapourware also in those plans. The launch vehicle for that was the even more powerful Energia. Which did fly with one successful flight and one failed.
@@Aibo-cx9gw Actually no - Soviets did what they did - steady space advance as they did all the 50s and first half of 60s - it was A) Death of Korolev which baffeled soviet space programs B) NASA was shocked of USSR rapid progress so they ramped up the Lunar program - Appolo missions were developed in great hurry just to tip the moon and never come back later after. It was a space race with several rounds. US won the lunar round. But the cost is almost unbearable - it's more than a half-freaking-century no man lands the moon. Why is that?
Wouldn't that be a great event and opportunity to display prowess? But it's not. Because it's costs hell a lot of a money for not so practical event until you have an infrastructure to sustain that establishment. And no one have that as for now. Not US, nor Russia, not even China.
Korolev had numerous health problems stemming from his time in the Gulags the operation he underwent was an exploratory operation that discovered a large tumour on his colon the surgeon attempted to remove it but Korolev didn't survive. Korolev was a high profile patient even though he was not famous in his own lifetime so his Surgeon was the Russian Surgeon General Boris Petrovski
Penalty for having health issues because of gulag: gulag!
In Mother Russia you must watch when in Gulag you don't suffer from unauthorized docking procedure when in bathing room, it can unfortunately lead to future problems.
@@dukecraig2402 Bathing room? This was the Soviet Gulags a bath room would have been luxury generally you were lucky if you got to sleep somewhere that had a roof. Korolev lost 5 stones and all of his teeth during his stay in the Gulag and was never the same again. On the other hand he's the only person who was sent to the Gulags that subsequently received the "Order of Lenin" and he won that twice
The soviets put their Nazi scientists in gulags America made them in charge of everything F the USA
If the Soviet chief engineer of their space program, Sergei Korolev, had not, strangely enough, died in a simple stomach operation in january 1966, the Soviets might also have been first in the field, ahead of the US.
Sergei Korolev, just like Wernher von Braun in the USA, had a vision that we humans would establish ourselves in space. Both were unique individuals, were brilliant engineers and had the unusual ability to get many different people to work together on the same goal.
Sadly, Wernher von Braun also passed away to early, a few years later, from kidney cancer in June 1977.
With both visionaries dead, the air went out of both the Soviet and American space programs.
What the world needs today are visionaries like Sergei Korolev and Wernher von Braun.
Wernher von Braun, a Nazi SS member, had slave labor in the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp build the V1 and V2 rockets. Under Operation Paperclip, the US looked the other way and recruited him and thousands of other Nazi scientists for their expertise.
we have elon musk and kanye west. Close enough
@@honkhonk8009 Who is "kanye west"?
Капиталистическа Россия не в сила создать ещё одного Королёва
I’ve recently had your channel pop up on my recommended videos and I have to say I love your content, ive learned more information about the space race than I ever learned in school . It’s been my go to the past several days.
Creating the biggest non nuclear explosion is an really unexpected achievement
And it could have been much worse, because block b and c did by an incredible chance not explode
The Soviet Union was known for making very impressively large things, seems to have been an obsession of their leaders. Often impressively big messes, but in this case it was an explosion *AND* a mess.
It beats the black Tom explosion in Jersey city in WW1? This was a shipping/train yard sabotage by a famous German spy that leveled the dredgepile and industrial park next to the port which is now known as liberty State Park
I really enjoyed this episode. Thank you.
Just imagine if Korolev didn't die early and Soviets would have succeeded with N1 rocket, the race would continue for decades longer and we would have got lunar bases at least.
Soviets didn't have Hollywood filmmakers to cover up how hard radiation of space is unserviceable with out shielding. A mylar sheet doesn't succeed.
I loved the " For all mankind "show just to see how things could of been different if the space race went differently and we kept pushing
2:31 None of N-1's engines were gimballed. The control was by throttling the trust of the outer rim engines.
Come on man, the Russian didnt loose the space race, they lost the moon race maybe, but they, if any, won the space race..
You are right but you're also wrong considering that the space race bankrupted the Soviet Union. Ultimately they lost, I mean money is what makes the world go round. They dominated the space race and quite handily dominated it, but in the end, no. And this doesn't mean that I think that the US won fairly, I'm not 100% convinced that we landed on the moon, but in the end, we weren't the ones that went bankrupt and saw our nation dissolved.
i always thought that the soviets just had a handful of unmanned probes to the moon, never knew more than this
They were the first in space until the Apollo mission. The first man in space, the first landing of probes on the Moon, Venus and Mars and much more.
@@Merku808 yea, I was just talking about their lunar program, but most of their mars missions failed I think
@@hypersonic911 The vast mojority of all missions to Mars have failed. Its notoriously hard.
@@Vorpal_Wit and then there's china, first try, one launch with 1 probe 1 rover and 1 orbiter, complete success, really impressive.
@@TomDrezThey are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Still, impressive to do it first try.
I pay TH-cam for no ads for a reason. YT should automatically skip your in-video sales pitch for those of us with Premium accounts.
I guess youtube ads and his ads are different ads. Unless youtube will pay him extra for his ads.
the corporations always win. that's all you need to know.
It's funny how the soviets basically were ahead all stages in Space up until the moon landing. Somehow then they "lost" the space race. I agree that they lost the moon-race, but they pioneered lots of important steps.
Love it, this remains one of my favorite channels! 💜
Thank you. This is a brilliant video.
And watching Elons Starship stuff , the N1 story kinds gives you chills..
I remembered a joke about the race for the Moon:
An employee rushes to the director of NASA and shouts: The Russians are painting the Moon red!!
The director calmly replies: Don't panic. When they're done, we'll write Coca-Cola on it :)
8:33 That's not a nuclear fission reactor ! It's a Tokamac...Fusion experiment...
Damn what
"Your channel is something very very special. Top 3 on TH-cam for this type of programming in my opinion. It boggles my mind almost as much as the information you provide in the shows, how you only have half a million subscriber’s. I feel like I’m getting in early on a community with the potential to reach 10 million subscribers or more. Just fantastic ground breaking work you’re doing here my friend. I’m honored to be a part of it. I will be making donations to the channel going forward. Thank you for what you’re doing from Canada.
🙏💫🇨🇦🍻"
Wow, thank you! This really means a lot and glad to hear you're enjoying the videos we put so much time and effort into :)
How much were you paid to say that.
@@TheSpaceRaceYTlove and respect to you from India as well man,amazing man,it would have been marvelous for both us and soviets to build bases on mars and moon ,by now you guys would have had moon coties or bades with millions of population there,but as mations were wasting resources in unnecessary wars which didnt make any sense
*cities or bases
And 2nd comment is thats why there was a setback in terms of technology
Korolev didn't want to work around hypergolic fuels due to the fact that they are extremely poisonous if memory serves me correctly.
Don't forget the Soviet Luna remote controlled rover .
Lunokhod 1 and 2.
@ How can someone do a "documentary" and not have all the facts.
@@kennypool Because it’s not relevant to the space race. It happened after the US had landed with astronauts on the Moon for several times.
@@bobmusil1458 get some sleep, your very cranky
Lunokhod was mentioned in the video.@@kennypool
Korolev got his jaw broken in gulag and it didn't healed properly. Years passed and it caused a problem during the surgery. Korolev possibly himself didn't realized the severity of the problem, he kinda had more pressing problems like almost dying of scurvy also in gulag, and he had space to conquer later. Very tragic how a life of such extraordinary man was cut short by something that shouldn't have ever happened.
Followed the channel for a while.... One of your best video's to date. 😊
I like how bro used Kerbal space program footage 😂
Love the “We never went to space” comments from those who actively avoided the hard classes in school.
It's a logistics nightmare to pull off. Not hard to see why people don't believe
Uhhhh the planned soviet moon trains... did they plan to use standard track design and rely on weight and friction of the wheels on the smooth metal tracks? Pretty sure there would be some distinct issues there.
Wow i never knew that! great video!
1:52 lol you can say this about every failed project ever. "It would have been awesome if only it didn't suck so bad."
Will it better to build a lunar spacestation first before the lunar base? So instead going directly to moon dock first with the space station. What can you say?
I am pretty sure that is NASAs plan for the Artemis mission
No ,that was from a company intranet. Something started to show a livefeed from the moon.
15:22 Correct! NASA lost Nixon’s support just from not being sexy! The space agency’s only error was not making the final Apollo missions more engaging to the average American. Studying lunar geology was never going to cut it. New goals and ambitions were essential to keep the nation excited! Stanley Kubrick did more for space with 2001 than any movie. But his next one, “A Clockwork Orange,” actually featured a drunk poking fun at NASA’s lack of foresight.
That’s all nice to say that the Soviet N1L3 rocket produced more thrust that the Saturn. One small point to make is the N1 never completed a test flight. The Soviets had twelve test flights planned, but the four flown, and I use the worn flown very lightly here, ended in failure. I bet your next video will be of the Buran, and how much better it was than the space shuttle. It flew once, was unmanned and only had two orbits before landing back on earth.
Hater much
The N1 seems very similar in critical path to Starship.
There are some parallels, yes. Where the Saturn V stages were built and underwent extensive individual testing before being shipped to the launch site for integration, the N1, like Starship Suoerheavy was built at the launch site, with only the engines being shipped in as completed units. This was partly because there was no way to transport a 17m diameter rocket stage over any great distance, as Russia's rail network was inadequate to the task, and no aircraft even close. Barges couldn't be used.
Also, both the N1 and Starship used a large number of smaller engines to achieve massive thrust, rather than a few large engines like the Saturn V. This allows large numbers to be built in production line fashion, and ease of installation, at the cost of increased flow complexity in the exhaust, plumbing needed and controlling the engines together.
However, there are major differences which hopefully mean that SpaceX will succeed where the USSR failed.
First, testing. Only two in six of the NK-15 engines were tested and not the ones actually being used as they used one shot pyrotechnics to open valves, which meant they could not be turned off after activation. Likewise, the stages of the N1 could not be test fired individually or as a stack before launch. By comparison, every Raptor engine is tested, and both Superheavy and Starship stages are tested before use. As far as we know, while the Raptor V1 may have had problems, no V2 has failed due to malfunction. They've failed due to other factors.
Second, improved computer technology. This is big, the KORD (KOntrol Raketnykh Dvigateley) computer that was designed to control the N1's many engines, while cutting edge, was not up to the task of handling fault situations like a turbo-pump exploding. No 1960's computer could have simulated the complex flow mechanics, so the only way to test the programming was to launch. By comparison, modern computer systems are far more sophisticated, from simulations to monitoring and telemetring every component and managing insanely complex systems.
Three, quality control and iteration. SpaceX is always looking to improve the Starship design, testing, upgrading, and testing again. Fifty years of improving quality control processes may also play a part. By comparison, the Soviet system was fundamentally authoritarian. Finding a fault would be tantamount to saying your boss/fellow worker has made a mistake, which gets you no friends in a society based on collective action. Add to that the difficulty of testing in the first place and you can see how something like the N1 would have trouble. The design was brilliant, the execution less so, especially under Mishkin.
But even so, the first two launches of Starship have both failed, you cry out, eager to puncture my thesis. But look at how they failed. The first launch suffered problems due to FOD from the launch pad just not being able to take it. Even so it got further along it's mission path than any N1, including passing Max Q. Remaining engines and computers held up despite failures.
The second launch had a flawless first stage launch and stage separation. It blew up only after the flip manouvre to return to launch site, something that had never been tested. Some complex interaction, possibly shock hammer or fuel slosh starved the engines and then caused damage. The second stage flew almost all the way to orbit, but was pottentially damaged during the hot staging manoevvre, another thing that hadn't been tested, as it was apparently losing oxygen.
The last and most important difference is support. SpaceX is committed to making Starship work, and has the funding and infrstructure to keep going, even if they do blow up a dozen more vehicles in the process. By comparison, after the Apollo missions succeeded, the N1 was a vehicle without a purpose. They had two more units ready that could have continued testing, but it was abandoned instead.
Five stages vs two. Focus on reusability and refueling instead of one big shot... there are zero similaritys except the number of engines.
@@stainlesssteelfox1ain't nobody reading your essay lil bro
Cringe
8:32 speaks about nuclear fission, presents fushion reactor LOL
I’ve heard that the cosmonauts weren’t so hot on an untethered spacewalk both directions, one with a bag of rocks. As well, it was enormously risky to land on the moon with a single cosmonaut. The trouble with the N1 was that they had to use many small engines in solid mounts because they didn’t have the capability to build an engine as large as the Rocketdyne F-1.
Thanks. I was unaware of N1 launches 3 and 4.
Wow I see a lot of inspiration for the spacex booster
Thanks for the history lesson
Didn’t know much about this
3:54 i like your use of KSP.
Thanks for a comprehensive summary of the Soviet Luna programs.
It would make sense to compare them to the current Russian, Chinese and even Indian programs - to see whether one can speak of a conceptual continuity.
Love your videos! Would be great for AUD pricing options on the site so I could get some merch.
Subscribed!
At the 14:50 mark -- the LARGEST non-nuclear explosion in history! That's pretty Awesome.
But as for the "70 Years" reference --
-That means the Soviets began planning the Moon Base in 1953 ?
Or 4 years before Sputnik?
That's hard to believe!
I’ve heard that the cosmonauts weren’t so hot on an untethered spacewalk both directions, one with a bag of rocks. As well, it was enormously risky to land on the moon with a single cosmonaut. The trouble with the N1 was that they had to use many small engines in solid mounts because they didn’t have the capability to build an engine as large as the Rocketdyne F-1. The N1 had a crusty analog steering system on the first stage that (didn’t) work by shutting down an engine to offset on that failed, etc.
The amount of engines was not the major issue (It was a very big one however) The major issue was that they couldn't be tested beforehand, an NK-15 could only ever be fired once.
The F1 also had huge problems with vibrations of the engine bell. In the end, the cruder more conventional design succeeded.
U forgot the first dog in space.
It didn't survive reentry.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
Had Russian gone with the UR-700 and not tried to build the N-1, they might have won.
They might have won with N1 if they managed to rotate central ring of the engines like Starship and not turn off engines. But the problem was still a cpu to control whole process, they didn't have it back then. Yeah if they sticked with RD-270 engines for UR-700 rocket, maybe they flew to the Moon
Korilov's death and the Apollo 1 disaster are to me the turning point of the space race. Korilov was an absolute genius, but the others around him not so much. N1 may have failed even if he lived, but there was no chance after he died
The deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White created a giant change in how NASA did business as expressed by Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option.” I think choosing quality at all costs versus expediency is what turned the corner. Greatly oversimplified, but it gets the gist of it
Another issue for the Soviets was how overcomplicated the N1 was. 5 stages, 25 boosters on the first? Think of igniting all of them, not to mention keeping them in the correct position. It also required 10 million pounds of thrust to get less to the moon than Apollo. No wonder it had a 100% failure rate.
Compare that to the Saturn V. Five engines on the first stage, three stages total with the third able to reignite.with some minor technicalities, it had a 100% success rate. In the space race, the Americans failed hard at first, but learned. I always thought it was more compelling that we endured lots of humiliation at the hands of the Soviets, but finally succeeded where it counted. It's just a shame we stopped there.
These questions are probably the exact reason why we have the show 'For All Mankind'.
Thanks for the video
It a lot cheaper and easier to make a movie.
It was never going to succeed.
Not only could they not afford to test all the engines all together at one time, but they couldn't even test every engine on its own.
The N1 main engine design was for single-fire engines. After test firing, the N1 main engines would all need to be replaced.
Let me get this straight ,
Soviet Union: First Object on the moon, First Living organism in space, First Man in space, First Satellite, first , Woman, First Space Station.
US: One man on the moon
How did the US win the space race again?
The same Wiki page he quotes when talking about Vasily Mishin, "best remebered for the failures...":
Wiki: "He inherited the N1 program, intended to land a man on the Moon, but which turned out to be fatally flawed (largely due to lack of adequate funding)."
SO, when talking about the N1 project, money was the limiting factor. Possibly other projects aswell. So, no regime, no materter how strong of a dictatorship is present (Stalin dead for 13 years at that point BTW) would kill the top scientist on a project that's a d*ck measuring contest, and replace him with a dimwit.
Narratives.
TV show 'For all Mankind' on Apple TV explores this 'what if' alternative history of the space race. First 2 series are worth a watch. Series 3 was awaful and have to see what they do with series 4 which is out now
Agree first two are worth a watch. Haven’t seen 3rd series yet… doesn’t sound promising based on your feedback?! lol
I liked the 3rd season, though it does veer more into sci fi than the earlier 2
The entire purpose of Apollo was the feasibility of basing ICBMs on the moon for a guaranteed 2nd strike capability. Apollo was supposed to run through the mid 1990s, eventually switching from the Saturn V to the more powerful Nova around Apollo 30. Another fun fact, the Saturn V was built with a 4th stage, this stage was for missions to Mars.
Great video, thanks a lot.
A little naive. It wasn't just the booster. There were a thousand technological advances needed to successfully rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit and then accurately and safely land on and take off from the lunar surface, and the Soviets had developed neither the equipment not the training or experience to do so. NASA had patiently and systematically developed all of these through Gemini and Apollo, and it was a stretch even for them. Just thinking about the computers alone-the Soviets had nothing remotely like MIT's onboard Apollo navigation computer-gives me shivers. The Soviets' effort was a desperate, last-ditch kind of stunt from start to finish and would never have gotten close to succeeding, though they might have managed to kill a bunch of cosmonauts in the process. But oh well.
You sound a little over biased. The Russians did have their bord computers, with so called pen-valves or pen-tubes. I find them more reliable, and I would love to build some amplifiers with these.
Though the N1 didn't work, the Russian space program is continueasly functioning since 1957. If any problems arrise, cosmonauts can hand-steer their Sojus craft. Something the west has seen only on the Shuttle and I'm not sure if to the same degree. Their landing is somewhat exciting....
Also, when I like saying Apollo was only a tin can, I rather not think about inside a Sojus.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
They didn't get to the Moon but Soviet space program by no means stopped after N1 failure. They got the first space station in orbit and they made it to Venus. Especially the Venera program is amazing.
Well considering we are supposed to be living like the Jetsons according to how the 50’s & 60’s had it what was possible. It’s very sad we could stop fighting ourselves over stupidity.
Remember : The USSR did all of this with a fraction of NASA budget
Great story!👏🏼👏🏽
We're Whaler's on the moon, We carry a harpoon,
For they ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling tune.
Just using the normal crew department without using the complete internal space of the rocket would give us already almost the same amount of pressurized space as the ISS. I think as a start this would be already a great station.
N1 was not ugly at all, actually looks more beautiful than Saturn V.
Interesting that the rocket array approach is similar to the one used by SpaceX today.
Nice info
Excellent videos
Thanks for insight into some history.
Looks all too familiar to todays age, all things old are made new.
Moon Base Vodka, it was worth a shot.
How can you get humans or film thru van Allen radiation
It's just a belt. You don't have to cross it.
14:28
"Do you know the definition of insanity ?"
those transitions feel like glitches. Thanks for the video.
If there did a full thrust test on the N1, they would figured out the issue on day one.
Taking shortcuts are really bad and the Soviet Moon program is a great example of that.
N1 moon rocket was a great design, plumbing for the engines, not so much but nothing that could not be fixed.
Unfortunately the N1 main engines used pyrotechnic valves, so the engines could only be fired once. They test-fired 1 in 6 of the engines off the production line, but those tested engines were then scrapped.
The same would have happened under Korolev. The Soviets didnt do full engine combustion run of the N1 on a test stand, so they would do iterative development by launching and seeing what happens.
Agree, they were behind at that time, US starred development of the F1 engine before the moon program started. Soviets didn't have anything equivalent in the works and had to take serios shortcuts to catch up.
The N1 could not be test-fired without replacing ALL of the engines afterward. The main engines were designed so they could only be fired once. Decades later, the leftover unused N1 main engines were sold to a US company, that had some launch failures because of engine failures.
@@amotriuc So far behind that the U.S. is still using Soviet engines.
@@55stryker The engines that US uses from Russia are not the exactly the same as the ones from N1 rocker. The ones used in N1 rocket were not properly finished yet. Korolev did complain about it himself.
They only lost the moon part, they kicked our ass in everything else.
Your opening statement was very ambiguous if not incorrect. If the space race was to see who reached the moon first then yes the Americans won BUT if the space race was to see who reached space first then the Soviets were the clear winners.
That depends on how you define "reached." Yeah, the soviets put the first man in space, but No-No Germany was the first to get a man-made object into space. Sure it was suborbital, but they still reached space in 1944.
@@cornpowa I agree. That's good info.
The US did everything that the Soviet Union did.
The Soviet union could not do what the Us did.
So the US won.
@cornpowa,
Perhaps a bit earlier ? V2 went in series production in 1944. First successfull launch was 1942.
In 1944 they were already working on a spy rocket called V2b, the first space shuttle prototype. 2 flights until 1945.
Also, work was underway on a 1st stage booster for V2, the A9/A10 rocket. That was supposed to prevent America entering the war.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Thanks for that interesting information
When I first read the title, I thought the Soviets were planning for the future and building an abandoned moon base so it would never have to be occupied.
"The Soviet Union lost the space race"
*sighs*
it didn't
*closes the video*
it's a good thing that that N-1 Massive Explosion wasn't mistaken as a Nuclear Attack from the US
Both country's military are well informed of moves each other make.
That is a scary thought that someone was out in the vastness of space with 1965 technology
When Sergei Korolev died, it set the soviets WAY back. Such a tragedy.
We are already on the moon and Mars and have been for years ,,,we have the technology to take ET home ,that is a very famous quote ,
The USSR didn’t lose the space race. It’s just the Americans moved the goal posts to “moon landing” being the finish line. It is the “Only” thing they didn’t beat us to.
@1:23 those space tortoises look an awful like space green sea turtles
The irony of showing a tokamak when saying, “fission reactor”
What happened to the Venus landing for the Russian Rover?
Yeah, soviets had a lot of fantasies like that Moon base. But they never had enough resources to make it real. They made N1 test flights without any on ground tests because of funds shortage.
No N1 test fires because the N1 main engines were designed to only be fired once. The engines used pyrotechnic valves, which means tiny explosives operated those valves. After a test firing, the N1 main engines would need to be scrapped and replaced.
The statement was fission reactor, the picture was of a fusion reactor.
Okay but do we know why the rocket kept failing to launch?
@TheSpaceRaceYT >>> Great video...👍
3:27 I hate Jared Owen because he blocked me. Screw that guy and screw Scott manly for blocking me.