N1 soviet moon rocket (Excerpt of "BBC - Space Race")

[zero00tolerance]

To eliminate catastrophic failures the N1 engineers at that time should of went for the design much like the Saturn V. Instead of 30 rockets engines it just be 5 big engines.

[MonstUrrwin]

"...explodes with the force of a nuclear bomb."

"...the failure is a state secret for twenty years."

Erm, what?

[rossmum]

Baikonur is a pretty long way from anywhere that would really be noticeable.

[uzimodem]

crazy russians. 30 engines? LOL unreal. no wonder they never made it off the Earth let alone to the moon.

[GRATZIANI2002]

1st stage has 30 nos. V1 engines.. von Brown was against, but crazy russians made it...

[cincye]

Vodka makes poor rocket fuel.

[SkyyCaptainn]

A unique aspect of N1 booster is that during it's first stage burn it produced the most rocket power ever achieved by man.

[antimatterXXXIII]

Engineer to self - "Oh shit, I sense a purge coming on.." - but let's give credit to the Soviet space engineers, they were nothing if not utterly dogged in their determination and they eventually prevailed and still have a viable program despite lack of funding and political chaos.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Of course, Energia can carry over 200 tons. But what to carry? The mankind has no usefull load over 20 tons to launch into space and no load to carry back to the earth from space. Buran, Shuttle and Energia are useless toys...

[antimatterXXXIII]

@SergeiPilipenko It's a good point - ultimately boosters in the Saturn 1B and Delta class are simpler and better at lofting things to be assembled in orbit. One positive aspect of the Shuttle/Station program is the knowledge developed in on-orbit assembly of large structures.

[Maltray]

A BOLT did this?

[rossco1966]

yep.

One piece of rubber and some wierd cold weather doomed challenger. Columbia was doomed by an oversized block of ice on the external tank (again i think cold weather helped) falling off at launch and cracking the wing leading edge. A soyuz crew of three was dead due to a 20c valve not closing and they not having helmets on during rentry. Another soyuz crew of one was dead when a parachute pyro was not warm enough to eject the parachute to land.

space flight is unforgiving...

[hootowl2112]

It's true. If we knew better, we'd not fling ourselves off into the voids of space, but it's mankind's nature to challenge and upset the established order of things.

[SergeiPilipenko]

It is no need to use the Russian Buran for carrying cargos to the ISS. Russia has an old good Proton rocket which can carry more cargo than the American Shuttle, but the Proton is much more effective and reliable as opposed to the Shuttle. The Protons have built all Russian orbit stations from SALUTE to MIR, and delivered the main ISS modules as well. As regards the Energia system, it can carry over 200 tons if it is needed.

[MightySaturn5]

It cannot carry 200 tons...those were nothing more then speculative drawings...its like saying the N-1 was a great rocket before it ever flew

[spencnaz]

I can hear the 'chyorts' being uttered at their mission control.

[Segasaturn95]

At least the N1 was cool looking. :D

[tagaEskinita]

indeed it was. i love how it tapered evenly

[rossco1966]

i love how it went bang in spectacular ways....

[AlexanderSigal]

@Segasaturn95 yeah looks like a tower, but engines are too close to the outside

[MyGodMyCarIsBurning]

I remember there being a soviet rocket in Ep 3 of space race which blew up on the pad, it had dangerous fuel but i cant remember what it was called :l Does anyone remember that one?

[Svaraijt]

AT+NDMG

[amsedelm]

Must have missed something: was that N1 manned, or unmanned?

[monkeyman1140]

The only tests of the N-1 were unmanned, all failed.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia is the only really heavy launch vehicle in the world and thats fact.However since it never got involved building the ISS due to politics then I imagine their never will be cooperation in space only politics.Shameful.

[Arcmate]

The whole N1 story is very interesting. It was pushed way too hard on too little funding with too little development. Saturn V had serious trouble in development don't forget but the US concentrated on one project where the USSR had, at one time, at least 3 projects on the go. As well as that, people like Glushko felt there were basic mistakes in the N1 design such as using LOX/Kerosene as propellant. Such diffences of opinion did not help.

[monkeyman1140]

Yes the Saturn V had a huge vibration problem that never was solved. We were lucky none of them blew up in the air.

[MightySaturn5]

The Saturn V vibratory issues were solved after SA-502, where are you getting your information from?

[rossco1966]

sort of... there was pogo on apollo 13 but a sensor saved them from disaster by a wisker. Other than that she was good.

[hitide286]

Its almost mind boggling in your 7 SEVEN post you use or sat things like "was planned to", could of, was supposed to, was designed to,maybe could have,next generation, "could go to moon, could also used for,""if"..wow..if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.! The bottom line here after all of your "excuses", and "maybe's" is that Buran flew ONLY ONVE UNMANNED and the Engeria flew twice..wow. what a successful program...now lets hear how Germany almost won WW2.!!

[Irishguy20008]

Please don't mention Buran because I am not talking about Buran. Buran like the USA Shuttle it was copied from is history and of little interest to me or anyone interested in space. Energia is the machine which is of major interest here.

[Irishguy20008]

The clipper project along with the new modified soyuz will carry 6 and 4 respectively in next 4 years.

Will Energia ever fly again is anyones guess.

[hitide286]

maybe in the next four years you will actually post something that actually happened, and no more "would'a", could'a, "should.a"...Enegia never did lift anything close to 140tons..it all looked good ON PAPER..!!!

[Irishguy20008]

Two launches of the soyuz can place 6 astronauts or cosmonauts for a fraction of a USA shuttle launch. The USA shuttle is being scrapped and not before time. It should have been scrapped 10 years ago and a new system build. The money wasted on i could have sent many probes.

[hitide286]

The only money NOT wasted was a "probe" to see if your brain was still functioning.!!

[Irishguy20008]

I was so happy when NASA touched down on Mars last year. It was time they dusted off those wonderful machines and put them to work.I am glad they are retiring their shuttles and opting for something more sensible safe and sane.

[hitide286]

How easy it is to look back at anything that was designed in the 1970's, built in the 1980's, and they say it was not the best design, or course not, are 20+ year old cars just as good as 2009 cars,??..Space travel will always have some degree of danger and failure.

[Irishguy20008]

The Buran orbiter like it's USA counterpart is of little value moving forward.Energia on the other hand is of enormous interest.Clipper space plane is due to launch in 2011-2012 and will carry 6 people to space on top of the Angara or modified Soyuz vehicle.

[Irishguy20008]

Buran was never of any interest to me what soever. It is a relic of the past. Energia on the other hand is a super heavy launch vehicle for launching large platforms into space.Buran will never fly again nor should it ever.

[Irishguy20008]

Buran is of no interest to me what soever. I am talking about Energia.There is no need to launch Buran anymore as the newly developed Soyuz capsule will carry 4 and the clipper space plane will carry 6 in 3 years.

[Irishguy20008]

I am not talking about Buran here. Buran is simply an orbiter that can be placed on the back of Energia. Energia can carry any payload. They were planning to also use Energia to carry radioactive waste to space.

[Irishguy20008]

Now Russia favors using smaller rockets and assembling in space so maybe Energia will never fly again.Perhaps China may rent Energia who knows.She remains in cold storage maybe for generation

[Irishguy20008]

She was designed to carry massive space platforms such as lasers, space stations , giant telescopes in one hop. Now she was considered for building the ISS due to her lift capacity but politically never suited the USA and NASA.

[Irishguy20008]

On the pipeline were plans to add more engines to Energia to increase it's lift to 240 tonnes to LEO.I know a few American companies went to see it a few years back and there were rumors she might be taken out of storage and flown again.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia was designed to place into orbit Mir2 which was then cancelled due to lack of funding. Instead the ISS was based on Mir2.Energia can be over 90% throttled which means it could go to the moon if needed and beyond.

[Membrane556]

LK was 1/3 the mass of the LEM google it but it only carried a single cosmonaut.

The Soyuz had an N2/O2 14.7 psig atmosphere from the start this was far more advanced then Apollo's life support which was a partial pressure pure O2 system.

One reason the Soviet moon program was not successful partly was it's budget was only 1/4 that of Apollo's they didn't even have a test stand for the N1.

The Saturn V probably would have exploded too if they didn't have test stands for the vehicle.

[Irishguy20008]

No No the orbiter can be taken off from Energia and replaced by acontainer carrying the load. If the USA orbiter could be replaced with a container it could also lift a huge load otherwise it lifts 25 tonnes.Energia carries 140 tones.

[Irishguy20008]

Will Energia ever fly again who knows.

[Irishguy20008]

As a result of this the ISS is still not finished and even though it's due date to be de orbited is 2015 it has yet to be completed.Energia could have build it in a fraction of the time.Politics prevailed.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia was designed to place in orbit a massive space station due to the fact it has an enormous lift capacity. Due to politics the USA shuttles were chosen even though Energia can lift 140 tonne versus 25 tone of the USA shuttle.

[MightySaturn5]

Energina alone (without Buran annexed to its body) and in advanced configurations would supposedly lift 140 MT.

The version that flew did not have 140 MT lift ability to LEO.

If you took the shuttles weight out of equation and instead created a standard configuration rocket,the weight to LEO would be much closer between the two, in fact if they ever build the Ares V (basically a larger version of the afore mentioned) it will easily exceed the lift ability of the previously flown Energia.

[Irishguy20008]

The Soviet orbiter one of which is called Buran has built in ejection seats in case of an emergency during launch which the USA shuttle doesn't.The Soviet orbiter can be blasted also away from energia in time of trouble which the USA cannot as it is one unit.

[hitide286]

..and it only FLEW ONCE...then what happened to the Buran?..where is it now?

[Irishguy20008]

Energia flew twice and is now in storage. 80 engines from Energia were bought by I think Macdonald Douglas in the USA. The Rd170 was the first closed cycle engine out performing an other three fold.They fly it on their delta rocket.

[hitide286]

Its almost mind boggling in your 7 SEVEN post you use or say things like, "was planned to", could of, was designed to, "was considered for",maybe next generation, "could go to moon", could also use , "if"...wow if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle..!!The bottom line here after all of your 'excuses"..and maybe, is that Buran flew ONLY ONCE UNMANNED, and Engeria flew twice..wow what a super successful program..now lets hear how Germany almost won WW2!!!!!!!

[hitide286]

...the bottom line is Engeria was never a success as a platform, yes a lot was learned

...never went to moon

...never did lift 140 tons..even though '"it could have"

...what is the total weight of the Space Shuttle & cargo & up to seven astronauts, as still in 2009 the Russians can only put 3 into space at a time.!!!!

..you could have saved some time if you answered the first question..Buran was destroyed when the hanger it was in collapsed on it, more great Russian engineering??

[Irishguy20008]

Energia is the largest and most versatile launch vehicle that exists to this date. It's a shame the USA shuttle was chosen to build the ISS as it has taken over 10 years and now the ISS is due to come down in 2015.Politics is shameful. Nasa have now been forced to go private.

[rustygates]

I don't know where your getting all this information from but im having a laugh, energia..costs a ALOT and I mean..ALOT more to deploy that the space shuttle, and even tho energia can carry alot more, the ISS parts built on earth are not going to all being developed and manufactured simultaneously for 10 big hauls to to orbit.

Another thing, the ISS was started in 1998 and planned to be FINISHED in 2011, there are NO plans for it to come down..i dont know where the hell you got that info from.

[Irishguy20008]

Is the ISS not due to come down in 2015??

I know they want to extend it.

[rustygates]

No its not...there is no date for it to come down.

Let me ask you though, why do you think that people would want to let an engineering feat, the most expensive single object...ever...be only in service for 4 years? or even 10 years at absolute min?

[rossco1966]

only if you have a very short sighted US administration that pulls its fund and either refuses to sell its share to say the chinese or india or let the russians by them out.

[Irishguy20008]

Ok Energia launch complex can launch the ISS in 10 launches compared to 50 shuttle launches as the USA shuttle can only carry 25 tonne cargo whereas the Energia can carry 140 tonne. Due to politics it never flew to the ISS.

[MightySaturn5]

the Energina as flown could never carry 140 tons...thats plain fiction.If you're talking about future designs fine but it was never built

[Irishguy20008]

The orbiter strapped to Energia to form a shuttle was copied from USA designs and that is obvious but is only a small part of the overall complex. The Soviets had also their own orbiter designs but neglected them for the USA design.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia's main engines are the first closed cycle engines to be built and have a massive power advantage over USA kerosene engines. The USA shuttle has solid rocket boosters to give it the power it needs but they cannot be throttled making the USA shuttle very dangerous.

[Irishguy20008]

Actually not full true. The Soviet shuttle consisted of the orbiter attached to Energia and is not one unit like the USA. Energia can be flown on her own to carry any cargo and is radically different to the USA system.

[vox2007]

Russia seems to be good at stealing our designs, they stole the space shuttle design, called the buran shuttle, looks just like the space shuttle we have over here.

[RomelioSanz]

That was a so big mistake of the Russians, try to copy the american designs, if they had made an original alternative instead of Buran, maybe its creation could have overcame the American Shuttle; Soyuz is the most clear example of the Russian way of thinking, good,cheap and simple.American Shuttle will be retired soon but Soyuz will continue to fly around the Earth's skies.

[dunkelfalke]

it is not really a copy. buran glider body just looks like that of the space shuttle, but in the reality it is a completely different (and a much more modern) system. buran is launched piggybacked on the energia carrier rocket, space shuttle has the main engine inside, and that big red "rocket" is only the fuel tank. that is why buran could lift and return 5 metric tons more payload. there are also other differences like the tile configuration and the full automatic flight and landing mode.

[ghartran31]

Anyone know where I can get a DVD copy of this series? I saw it on Nat Geo and had it on my DVR in hope to burn it onto DVD but it crapped out on me and I lost it.

[fredgt28]

No one won the space race because the americans never landed on the moon. they staged the whole thing.

[ghartran31]

Dude, get over it we landed their.

[fredgt28]

"their" ? Its spelled THERE. Stupid Americans not worth talking to. You know what, you SUCK!

[ghartran31]

Pardon my misspelling....fuck-stick. Did I spell that right?

[fredgt28]

YOU SUCK!

[KFodor]

Bull.

[vox2007]

No need to be jealous, fredgt28. Except your motherlands failure, and get on with your life. Oh btw, USA USA :D

[JohnLenardWalson]

From:

Henry Kline Henr .Kline jpl nasa gov

Sent:

Mon 8:32 AM

To:

john lenard santamonicajohnhotmail

Mr. Lenard,

Someone sent me similar images about 6 months ago, they're military classified human spaceflight.

Johnson Space Center require large elaborate spacecraft to get them where they need to go.

--Henry

[SunnBurn]

It is now 39 years later. To this day the Saturn V is still the only booster to have powered manned spaceships beyond the grasp of the Earth's gravity. The U.S. is still the only nation to have landed men on the moon.

[Membrane556]

The N1 would have worked if Korolev was still around and they got a test stand.

The N1's engines and first stage were much more complex then the SC-I and F1 engines.

The were trying staged combustion engines during the 1960s which the US didn't really try until the SSME on the shuttle and for good reason since real time controls needed to keep the engine from exploding were not up to the task until 1975.

The next rocket to take humans beyond LEO will likely be either Falcon 9-H or Angara.

[hitide286]

would , could, should..the bottom line is the N-1 DID NOT WORK..the Saturn system, NEVER HAD A FAILUE..AND GO TO THE MOON AND BACK..

[shuha24]

@SunnBurn Hope it will change to "first nation" to have landed on the Moon

[shasha1873]

@SunnBurn Are you sure we landed on the moon? How come we are not going back?

[monimstarfox]

@shasha1873

the moon is a worthless piece of crap

its barren and dead

why spend another 100 billion when were in the middle of a recession and nasa plans to send astronauts there by 2020

The moon is almost like Antarctica its barren and has no worth

other countries can go there but they choose not to because its a wasted effort

[shasha1873]

@monimstarfox Well, I agree 100%, It is a barrn and a dead place for sure. I thought they want to build bases there! Then again, the US will never have money for such projects. We are becoming third world man.

[rss0246]

@monimstarfox 50 years after the first explorers visited Antarctica, the nations of the world went back -- to stay, for science -- using steel ships, ice breakers, air support, radio and modular housing. We found Mars meteorites, the Ozone Hole, the world's climate history, etc. Fifty years after Apollo, the nations of the world will go back to the Moon -- to stay, for science -- and will do astronomy, earth studies, etc. The only issue is whether the U.S will play any part...

[rss0246]

@monimstarfox 50 years after the first explorers visited Antarctica, the nations of the world went back -- to stay, for science -- using steel ships, ice breakers, air support, radio and modular housing. We found Mars meteorites, the Ozone Hole, the world's climate history, etc. 50 years after Apollo, the nations of the world will go back to the Moon -- to stay, for science -- and will do great geology, astronomy, earth studies, etc. The only issue is whether the U.S will play any part...

[Missmelmelxx]

@monimstarfox Have you heard of Helium 3?theres a shit load on the moon,and its our clean nuclear energy for the future,for us to continue using energy as we do.Its worth and potential cannot be ignored because whoever controls the moon essentailly controls mans energy resources for millions of years.Hell the U.S could mine it-sell it to the russions to pay for a manned mission to mars.the moon has about 100 million tonnes of He3 @ $3 billion a tonne its worth going there->not a WPOC

[ayaneva]

I don't understand why anyone thought something with a total of 44 engines (if I counted correctly), 30 of those just to get it off the ground, would work. There's just so much that could go wrong with that many components. Why so many engines? Were they forced to make do with what was available or something?

It kind of seems doomed to failure right from the start. You have accidents with just four or five engines and you're going to try for 30?

[frostypaws12]

Thats a big firework!! Just put some colored stars and you have the worlds largest firework! (not to mention the first liquid fueled firework!)

[frostypaws12]

Thats a big firework!! Just put some colored stars and you have the worlds largest firework! (not to mention the first liquid fueled firework!)

[HeliosPhoenix]

Lovely reconstruction of the accident.

It should be noted though that the N1 didn't explode in the air like in the re-enactment. The engines shut down 200m above the pad, the rocket fell back to the pad and then exploded, which totaled the pad.

Footage of the actual launch attempt is avalible on this site for anyone interested :)

[prototype747]

.hey remember that the N1 did numerous take-offs including test flights that were really not intended to fly. The one you were sayin' was the main lift-off

[Arcmate]

This was a brave, bold attempt. The whole project was starved of funds to pump into 2 rival designs (Yangel & Chelomei) and suffered from lack of development. The concept was valid with selective throttling of the engines to control trajectory being particularly interesting. However, if the N1 had made orbit, would the LOK lander have worked? Probably not. Very spectacular to watch though! There is some daylight footage of later attempts on Youtube. The rocket blast as it climbs away is awesome!

[Membrane556]

The LK lander was tested in LEO and it did work pretty much perfectly the major elements of the LOK test remain in orbit until the 80s.

An interesting thing about the LK was it weighed only 1/3 that of the Apollo LEM though it only carried a single crew member.

In some ways the Soviet lunar system esp Soyuz was actually much more advanced then Apollo but with out a working LV it was a moot point.

[MightySaturn5]

The LK's weight was almost that of the Apollo LEM, additionally there was not a single system on the LK or Soyuz that was more advanced then Apollo.

Even the old Soviet cosmonauts mention this...most of the ramblings on youtube to the contrary are from those that are ill informed and refuse to admit what an incredible masterpiece the Apollo program was.

Most of the worlds current technology can be traced back to either world war 2 or the Apollo program-the worlds two biggest technology leaps.

[MightySaturn5]

The Saturn five was far more efficient then the N-1 (95 Tons to low orbit vs the Saturns 140),It was also taller,weighed more then the N-1, had a hell of a lot more technology and testing involved with it, even the engine issues with SA-502 showed it could still reach orbit...The Saturn V/Apollo program was far more complex then anything the russians have done especially when considering the short time it took to create it.

[falconlem]

Yes it was so efficient it failed. DUDE! :) GIMME SOME SKIN< WE BEAT THE SOVIETS ASSES!@! YEAH :)) USA USA USA USA ! :)

[Arcmate]

One of the four N1 launch failures excavated the 5 storey deep launch pit beneath the rocket with the force of an atomic bomb devastating the pad with flying wreckage damaging a further N1 being prepared on an adjacent pad!

[HunterX78]

N-1 a huge and high sophisticated machine

great vid thanks

[Alue26]

Oh, so are it! BTW, the N1 was the most powerful rocket ever made right?

[NukeRocketeer]

Nope. The Saturn 5 was. The N1 had somewhat more first stage thrust, but could not put up as much payload as the S5. Its upper stages were less powerful, so overall, it was not the most powerful rocket ever built.

[barbamonde]

That's all true except the part when you say that Saturn 5 was more powerful. The payload that can be delivered is not a meassure of power. I think that to meassure the power of a rocket we should use appropiate units: Von Braun's rocket had 33360 kN of thrust and Korolev's almost twice of that POWER thus making it the most POWERFUL rocket, maybe not the most "payloadful", but that should be another topic.

[TocTep]

Maybe Energia, made for Buran, is the most powerfull rocket?

[apollosaturn5]

The Energia launch vehicle uses liquid rocket booster derived from the Zenit rocket. They use one RD-170 engine. The core uses four RD-0120 engines. On its most powerful configuration (with eight liquid rocket boosters) it could launch 200 metric tons to low Earth orbit. So it is the most powerful Launch vehicle, even when launching Buran (with only four liquid rocket boosters).

[apollosaturn5]

Well, in order to send heavy payload to ,at least, low earth orbit you need the necessary thrust (whether if is measured in pounds or Newtons) to achieve/maintain a certain acceleration; in order to achieve the proper altitude and the necessary velocity within the weight limits per stage (which limits the time of powered flight) that are necessary to achieve a circular parking orbit with such a payload.

[apollosaturn5]

Having a powerful first stage might lift you off the ground easily, but it doesn't guarantee you that you'll achieve the velocity for LEO. For example, the N-1 might have a first stage more powerful than the Saturn V's, but it wasn't capable of putting a 140 ton payload to LEO. The point is that the thrust (power) of each stage is critical to launch a heavy payload to LEO. The power of a rocket is measured on how much power it has to launch a payload of certain weight to a certain trajectory.

[barbamonde]

I agree with that. But the response was for the statement that "NukeRocketeer" made... Anyway, as for taking the payload into account, one should also consider the place on earth the rocket is lifting off from. Remember that american (german really) engineered rockets lifted much more nearer the ecuator than soviet ones, thus, needing less power to achieve the objective...

[gordongate]

not entirely correct, the n1 had weaker experimental oxygen rich turbo pump exhaust engines and therefore needed more engines to overcome weight of fuel, the later closed circuit engines are more powerful than the saturns. nasa even procured a couple of engines to examine, they looked like a bag of bolts but they were very impressed as the russians had managed to overcome the resonance problems with a closed loop engine.

[MightySaturn5]

More powerful then the Saturns?....perhaps the H-1's from the 1-B but I believe the uprated F-1 was and still is the most powerful single chambered engine made.

[apollosaturn5]

Respect liquid rocket engines,if you're going to talk about single chamber technology the F-1 is the most powerful. If you're going to talk about multichamber technology the RD-170 is the most powerful; and if you're going to talk about liquid rocket engines in general sence the RD-170 (again) is the most powerful of all.

[Alue26]

Well, so are the Soviets never reached to the moon!

[Stormrider444]

oh, you are pretty wrong, mate

They were first there with a vehicle but they never brought a man there

[foxbat008]

Well It did make the Biggest EXPLOSION -

WOW Their Good Man