Russian N1 Lunar Rocket

[TheBehSquad]

Why the fuck are you all on youtube and not getting Jobs at fucking NASA. I came here to see a rocket explode.

[ixorafy]

The N-1 Rocket was indeed much more powerful than the Saturn V. This Soviet rocket produces more than 50 million Newtons of thrust while the american rocket only produced 30+ million Newtons. N-1 carries more fuel than the payload. It was underfunded and undertested causing it to fail all its 4 launches. If only the Soviets put more effort into perfecting this uniquely designed rocket, the moon would've been a Soviet property.

[Blahblobify]

@ixorafy

More powerful on initial thrust, but that's all. The N1, even if it had worked, could only put a payload into lunar orbit HALF the weight of what the Saturn V could do.

To call the N1 more powerful than the Saturn is misleading. The Saturn V remains the biggest most powerful rocket ever built to this day. The N1 was a poor second.

[salland12]

it maybe more powerfull at lift off

but the payload was much less than the saturn v

the saturn: 119,000 kg to LEO

the n1: 90,000 kg to LEO

and the payload to TLI

saturn 45,000 kg

n1 23,500 kg

wich again is less then the saturn

you should check you're fact sheet better

and it wasn't 50% more powerful then the Saturn more like 20%

[Treblaine]

30 engines? WHY?!?

[bfmlc]

@Ferom79 Energia took off twice. Buran (Soviet shuttle) was the second launch.

[Segasaturn95]

@Ferom79 It wasn't scrapped. It was placed in storage after the first flight because of lack of funds, and decades later the roof of the warehouse it was situated in collapsed during a bad snowstorm and crushed it.

[earth2006]

its real simple the Saturn's worked these "monster" Russian jobs did'nt. not much more to say. thanks for posting this any way

[Blahblobify]

@earth2006

this thing had more thrust than the Saturn V on it's first stage but it's a popular misconception that it was "bigger and more powerful" than the Saturn. Even if it worked, the N1 could only get a 50,000 lb payload to the moon versus the 100,000 lb of the Saturn. In other words, it could only do half of the Saturn's lunar payload.

[MrSrgj]

The reason for failure of underfunding. Sorry, Sergei Korolev died, so would the Soviet Russia was the first on the moon. The fate of no escape. The Americans were on the moon.

[davetherocketguy]

That is some mighty expensive fireworks...

[DLantrip10]

Interesting how so many of these N-1 videos end before the explosions. And for the record, there was never a successful launch of the N-1. All ended with big explosions.

[rennieallen]

@DLantrip10

Ahhh yes, the miscommunications that were so common in the Soviet Union. The guy at the top says "Build a moon vehicle" and the guy at the bottom hears "Build a roman candle". If only they had iPhones with auto-correct, these type of problems would never have happened :-)

[KLRJUNE]

The N1 made more thrust initially than the Saturn V but not throughout the entire flight. The Saturn V used liquid hydrogen in all stages for fuel so it could lift a heavier payload into orbit than the N1 which used kerosene for fuel. The Saturn V had a 100% launch success rate while the N1 had a 0% success rate. That's all she wrote.

[harris3693]

@KLRJUNE u make the USSR seem like a 2 bit operation, they now own your ride to the ISS, so I;ll shut up if I were u!!!!!!!!!

[Xeno426]

@harris3693

I'd learn how to form a cohesive sentence if I were you.

[harris3693]

@Xeno426 I would stop being soo arrogant if I were you.

[Xeno426]

@harris3693

I would stop being so ignorant if I were you.

[KLRJUNE]

@harris3693

Yes, you'll shut up of you were you. Ever heard of grammar or spell check?

[Roflzmahwoflz]

The Saturn is more powerful....

[DoctorPossum]

@Roflzmahwoflz In terms of thrust produced, the N1 is significantly more powerful than the Saturn V. However, due to the American's usage of Hydrogen based propellants in the upper stages of the Saturn V, it was significantly lighter than the N1 (which used kerosene propellants in all stages), so the Saturn could actually lift heavier payloads into orbit.

[darmader]

Fake

[Theris1011]

Both amazing rockets. 30 engines vs 5 is incredible. With the 5 Engines Von Braun and his team had to solve combustion instability . With Korolev it seemed that the engineering around those 30 engines were the problem. I believe on the first test flight, a single bolt was sucked into one of the engines that led to it explode just after left off. Since Korolev died in Jan 1966 things went and kept going downhill for them. The Energia is an amazing booster system, more powerful than the shuttle.

[verbusen]

that was lame, no fireball, are you a commie lover?

[SingularlyDatarific]

I think it needs more engines.

[krenim786]

Bye bye USSR

We miss you!

Salute to a worthy adversary of the west!!

Instead the advanced western nations are now busy fighting gutter wars with primitive ragheads.A huge downgrade.

[VIR092]

Thrity engines, what a tragic yet immense accomplishment.

[454jags]

N1 payload was 100,000kg to LEO while saturn v was 118,000kg

[spencnaz]

Too bad Korolev died on the operating table to get this thing to work. That and the internal powerstruggles of the Soviet space program only made things much much worse.

[RomelioSanzz]

Why not the Soviets instead of the N1, the could made small launches in order to put together in space the Lunar and Orbital Modules, and the put them on the way to the Moon????

[Oikeroi]

Saying that it was the most powerful rocket is not really accurate. The first stage had more thrust, meaning it woud accelerate faster at the start, but total payload capacity to LEO was only 75 tons compared to Saturn V's 119 tons.

[TheJomogogo]

@Oikeroi

Yep.....the Saturn V had 50% more payload capacity, so even if the the N1 worked it was a poor second best. Claiming it was "more powerful" is.....misleading.

[bombarderoazul]

@TheJomogogo I wouln't call it a second best, Energya had more thrust and power than the N1.

[TheJomogogo]

@bombarderoazul

Yeah, third best. And the Energya had one launch that failed, then one that made VERY low orbit. BFD.

[hammeredinfire]

it wasn't pogo, it was hydraulic shock. for that flight, they decided to cut off the center 6 engines late in the first stage burn (like Saturn V shuts off it's center engine). unfortunately, when the valves snapped shut, the momentum of the flowing propellent in the lines created enough pressure to rupture the feed lines. it all went down hill from there. the N1 definitely wasn't a better design than Saturn, even had it worked, but it was an interesting and ambitious concept for sure.

[titanic019]

@hammeredinfire Very true.

[AERODYNAMICMICROSOFT]

love the music

[uzimodem]

good ol russian tech!! LOL BOOM!!!!!!!!!!

[TheRedeemedbygrace]

Too bad all that extra power couldn't get you to the moon, or keep your economy alive...

[chillaxer1993]

epic fail

[Alembic25]

The vehicle was underfunded and underdeveloped. I think the basic concept was good but there were too many unknowns to produce a satisfactory result. There were aerodynamic issues, pipework issues, attitude control problems and personality clashes behind the scenes. The first time all 30 engines ran in concert together was at the first launch attempt. That was Mishin trying to pull off the impossible. A great shame.

[gigobait]

Yeah, the system for controlling the engines was too primitive. Von Braun had trouble controlling 5 of his engines. 30 is just crazy

[titanic019]

@Alembic25 Yes it was. I personally like the design of the N1 a lot more. However they had the engine issues sorted by the 4th launch. Up until 107 seconds, everything seemed normal and the engines were functioning well. Then they encountered pogo oscillation (vibrations which also shook the Saturn V), which they had not sorted out or tested for. That's technically why it failed.

[TheJomogogo]

@titanic019

Yeah, the N1 was a great design, 4 launches, 4 blew up. Just a splendid vehicle.Claiming it was 50% more powerful than the Saturn V doesn't mean much since they could never get it to work.

[titanic019]

@TheJomogogo It was never given proper funding. It's still likely that with today's technology, this design could be made to work. The guy who designed the engines was not who Korolev originally had in mind, anyway.

[schusterlehrling]

@TheJomogogo

Actually the Saturn 5 had higher payload and more thrust.

[Zbyszkoz]

@Alembic25 too many unknowns to produce a satisfactory result........ was only one unknown, how meany spay lake Tolkachev work for USA. this was no incident but some body pay for failure.

[Xeno426]

@Alembic25

Didn't help the fact that Sergei Korolev was often working pretty much alone trying run the whole program. The guy deserved far more credit than he received in life. The guy worked so hard on the space program, only to be continually underfunded, underappreciated, and overworked throughout his life in the program.

[eMobster]

Whoa! These jet flames resembles a giant R-7 Rocket. Too bad the 30-engine cluster didn't work accordingly to its plans. Anyway, they have my admiration for being able to assemble horizontally a Saturn-sized rocket roll it out to the lauch pad as if it was just another, big, Soyuz

[cladiax1]

that fgootage is very rare i mean it was so clasifide they cept it more secret thant the cosmospies or astrospieses

[iamamenlala]

N1 was an epic fail

[happyguy82]

Who says the N1 was more powerful than the Saturn V? The N1s were less powerful than the Russian Energia rockets which are in turn less powerful than Saturn V.

[perlghost]

It's in some way speculative note.

In fact, N-1 first stage was (theoretically) far more powerful and effective than Saturn's one. Hymeric merge of N-1 first stage with 2nd and 3rd H2/LOX stages of Saturn, launced from Cape Canaveral, could beat original Saturn up to 30 tonnes.

Energia with 3rd stage could hold up to 150 tonnes. But certain version of Energia without 3rd stage and with side placement of payload, which was used in two first launches, had lesser capability.

[happyguy82]

ohh ok thanks for the clarification.

[roboticmehdi]

N-1 first stage produced force of 50MN, while Saturn-5 produced 35MN. this clearly shows that N-1 was much powerful than Saturn-5. Any other questions ?

[midouban1360]

Power isn't everything, there is a reason none of these rockets had a successful launch and the program was cancelled. Longest flight for one of these was 100 some seconds.

[roboticmehdi]

what is the reason in your opinion?

[blue46gt]

The Saturn V could actually carry more payload into orbit though due to its use of liquid hydrogen on the last stage.

[PC3900]

Both the second and third stages of the Saturn V used LH2 fuel.

[2007ASpaceOdyssey]

@roboticmehdi

Powerful in the mathematics sense (F×D/t). But the Saturn could lift more into orbit than the N-1 and therefor more powerful in the colloquial sense.

[mcclir]

But the Saturn V didn't fail :o)

[TonyFirelli]

@roboticmehdi Why was the rocket exploding then?

[roboticmehdi]

@TonyFirelli First of all, whether or not the rocket explodes hasnt anything to do with power. 50MN > 35MN. here is the evidence that satun5 is less powerfull. Second, not only the moon program but the whole space program felt down with the death Sergei Korolev. Exept moon landing the soviets always were ahead americans in space technology.

[Arrogantdick]

@roboticmehdi The saturn was made less powerfull becouse there was no need for the extra power. Why make a 1000pk weelchair while 1 pk will do the work better?

[roboticmehdi]

@Arrogantdick Neither i said that there was a need for extra power and saturn5 could not provide it. come on people, give me a brake, i just mentioned a fact.

[mikespeed20082]

@roboticmehdi The Saturn V could actually carry more payload into orbit though due to its use of liquid hydrogen on the last stage.

Also, Saturn V success rate: 100%. N-1 success rate: 0%. it's a no-brainer to guess which rocket was better...

[roboticmehdi]

@mikespeed20082 i did not say that saturn 5 could not carry more payload. and i did not say that saturn 5 wasnt 100% success. and i did not say that n1 was better. so your comment doesnt mean much thing.

[HackerGuitarist]

@mikespeed20082 ..better and more successfull are 2 different things, more things have been launched on russian rockets than any other

[mikespeed20082]

@HackerGuitarist yes more things have been launched by russia, but that rocket is the r-7. which is great, by the way. however, this is the n-1, and it is terrible.

[beerwitz]

it failed because the political pressure by krushchev caused the engineers to have to forego proper testing.

[MageScribe]

Sure 30 engines on one stage. Did any of you ever wonder why? It was the fuel they used, plain and simple. The United States used liquid hydrogen while the Soviet Union was stuck using kerosene. The large number of engines was not Korolev's intent but was Kuznetzov's baby, a man experienced in designing jet engines but relatively inexperienced with rockets.  It compensated for the fuel thrust differential to use 30 rockets but at the expense of enormous complexity. Six times as many engines

[bfmlc]

to MageScribe

The first stage of US Saturn V - the lunar booster also burned kerosene/LOX, not H2/LOX as you suggest, so check your facts before making hasty judgments.

There were no computer chips back then, that's why it was so hard to keep all 30 engines in sync, and the big ones like the five on Saturn V 1st stage couldn't be manufactured by the Soviets back then. Only in the '80s they came with Energia - the most powerful booster in history, the one that took Soviet shuttle to orbit.

[yarahahrwe]

oh snap beaten my bad

[MightySaturn5]

the Energia was actually about the same thrust as the later Saturn V's

[TonyFirelli]

@bfmlc whats sync? so maybe this rocket can get to the moon? why didn't this one explode in video?

[stev1212]

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. i believe given another year the N1 would of flown to the moon, i mean it did achieve lift off even with its extra complexity.

[goodyears73]

Anyway ...russians didn't decided to built multi engines rocket ...they has been OBLIGED to use 30 engines because they wasn't able to build bigger nozzles due to poor quality of the special steel they produced.

MageScribe is right when talk abt complexity and don't forget 30 engines stage weigh more than 5 engines stage at the same lifting power.

Sovs was bound to fail in moon race... even giving them 1 year or 5 years more...

By they way: how many Energia + russian shuttle went to space ?

[bfmlc]

As to who was bound to fail - your opinion is irrelevant, sorry. Just shows the effectiveness of US propaganda crap. The Sovs had 3 lunar programs in the works, US - only one, yet the Soviets spent approx. 4 times less money in equivalency. Besides the USSR started the whole thing, gave the fat yankee ass a mighty kick and made them fart out $25 billion. They deserve credit for that alone.

Only 1 flight of Energia+Buran ever took place, but it was completely automatic, including the landing.

[goodyears73]

Sovs got fewer money than USA ? This is not an excuse, but it shows how such country and its political and economic sistem was inadequate to moon race.

USA had more and more to spend and shops werer full of goods... americans never queued up for bread.

The sovs had 3 lunar programs ? This fact show how their management was poor ... politics pressure and internal rivalry within communist party leaded to split scarce resources into three programs.

( continue...)

[goodyears73]

Sovs was not able to produce high tech materials ... do you know russians copied all USA projects, tried to built copies of Titan and Saturn v and failed ?

Honour to sovs engineers: with few money and political "problems" worked very well but moon race was beyond USSR ability ...even for a simply "propaganda" flight as they was used to do (read USA schedules and put in orbit something just before).

Russian shuttle arrived late and only a unmanned test.

And these are facts ....I'm sorry for you.

[siemusashi]

The facts are USA copied the tecnology from Nazi Germans, including rockets and planes

[goodyears73]

Yes ...it has been a good starting point for USA ...of course Saturn V is a little bit different from a V2 :- )

[goodyears73]

Are you japanese ? Nazi, in the last days of war, filled up a submarines with rocket and partially assembled jet airplanes and try to reach japan but US navy catched it.

There was also some kilos of uranium on board ... in which way japanese thought to use it ? To make a bomb and kill all people in a town in a faster way than you did in Nanking ?

[bfmlc]

During WWII the US was packing its coffers with gold while the Soviets were trading 3 citizens for 1 German. Half USSR was in ruins when the US was lending everyone money and only decided to really join the war when it became clear Red Army would soon be at the shores of the Atlantic. They started from the same technological starting point - nazi V program, US with all the money in the world and the V program leaderdship, standartenfuhrer SS Werner von Braun, Russians with nothing patchy pants.

[goodyears73]

Don't forget how many ships with materials from USA arrived in Murmansk DURING WWII and helped Red army ...or prefer to ignore it ?

[bfmlc]

About the 'copying' bull. What are you promoting so fervently? The techno skills of a country that has been robbing the whole world blind the last 60 years, that won the race being forced by the opponent to spend countless gazillions? Woo-ha!

Why would the Russians copy something worth 2 their annual budgets? Did the Russians copy the T-34 after one of the crappy WWII Abramses too? It's not difficult to build a car when you have a million bucks on your account. Try doing it saving every penny.

[bfmlc]

About the political system. Inadequate? That was the ONLY political system that could compete with the world's richest nation for half century, allowed Soviets to post so many firsts in space race, allowed them to rebuild the country in 5 years after the War THEY WON, not freakin' private Ryan.

Fact is Korolev was commissioned with beating US to the moon only in 1964, much like the 'American' von Braun he was dreaming primarily about Mars, in early '60s the N-1 was a Martian rocket blueprint.

[goodyears73]

No ... N-1 has been a total failure, fullstop

[bfmlc]

Finally. If USSR was so backwards, so inadequate, technologically hopeless, its rockets - poorly made copies of capitain america's genius, why waste your breath defending the shining glory of the US space feats? Shouldn't it be obvious to everyone?

Look at todays world - the system with US at the helm comes to a grinding halt. USSR is long gone but US is a country of nothing more than lawyers, Wal-Marts and credit card debt. And project Orion, rumours persist it'll be out of funds really soon.

[MightySaturn5]

Yeah bfmlc, in addition to the Walmarts and laywers there's also me -you know, the guy that accidently wrapped his cock around your mothers tonsils and yanked her eyes violently out of her mouth while simultaneously singing "America the beautiful" and blasting a hot fountain of Jizz.

As I said it was an accident however most of us Americans laughed as you worriedly ran to her side as my bubbling semen poured from her empty eye sockets and lathered your head like a shampoo comercial gone wrong.

[bfmlc]

Sorry I didn't know you're 14. When you jerk off at the picture of Saturn 5 make sure you point it at the monitor.

[MightySaturn5]

bfmlc dear I was 13 when I took that wet, 6 lb. peanut riddled shit into your mothers mouth while holding a gun to her head and sweetly informing her that she couldn't swallow for 15 minutes as tears were rolling down her face.

She almost made it, unfortunately at 14:27her eyes suddenly rolled back into her head like a winning Vegas slot machine as quarters dribbled out of her ass...right before she died she had an expression that seemed to say "Soviet coat hangers suck, my kid lived-sorry".

[goodyears73]

I just mention facts based on real technical elements.

Reality should be obvious for everyone ...except for who got his brain full of propaganda.

My opinion on the matter is based on impartial elements ...politics is irrilevant ... clearly it's not the same for you, you got preconceived ideas against america.

Abt the car: in the 60' an american president praised a russian car, so they tried to export it in USA and failed...why ? In all USSR none was able to produce safety glass for windscreen

[MightySaturn5]

US propaganda crap? ...considering the US announced everything they planned on doing in advance and had the balls and confidence to put launches and missions on tv for the world to see while the soviets were busy hiding their failures shows which side had the real propaganda machine.

By the way -Buran was NOT man rated you fool, its far easier to automate a craft then to design a craft that is man rated with complex life support systems.

[bfmlc]

It was not man rated? You moron, the Buran cosmonautes team were begging to make the first flight manned.

You may glorify your scummy empire all you want, when you print the world currency at will, of course you can afford everything. Others were fighting WWII for you, you were sitting on your hands, lending everybody money and stuffing fort Knox with gold.

Once again, the real engineering is a capacity to build a rocket using junk from scrapyard not make a it literally made of gold.

[bfmlc]

The fact that you go out of your way trying to prove the rotten US 'superiority' shows how soft it is. US didn't really win the race to the Moon, they ALMOST lost it to the country of yesterday's illiterate peasants, that's a better way to put it. Read Zubrin, an aerospace guru, on how NASA makes rockets with a pound of weight costing tens of millions when in fact it can be scaled down to thousands.

You guys only have the balls and confidence to nuke civilians and attack defenseless countries.

[goodyears73]

What such "guru" have said ?

Space engineers did only mistakes during all their career ... or it's possible to cure cancer with fresh water or something else ? ROTFL

[yarahahrwe]

Huh? Both Saturn V's / F1's and the N1's first stage used kerosene... Hydrogen was used in the Saturn's second stage, but that's not what you're criticizing ("30 engines"). Hell the Russians still use hypergolic first stages today, lol

[bfmlc]

Read what I criticized first before posting nonsense - all N1 failures were about the first stage. As to IoI - Proton booster is completely hypergolic - all 4 stages, so what? One hell of a heavy workhorse. Pretty toxic stuff that fuel but makes rocket simpler. What counts in engineering - is how far you can go on limited resources. Times when the US were printing hundreds of billions in green toilet paper money and throwing them away are over. The Bushy Orion PR stunt is already in question.

[yarahahrwe]

I disagree with 'how far you can go with limited resources' being all that counts in engineering. Is something that's substantially easier and cheaper to build but ridiculously more dangerous and damaging to the environment the best option? To Russia and China, it clearly is. To you as well apparently. I certainly respect what the Russians did in the space race - they were winning to the end, and doing it with crap. But they got there on piles of dead cosmonauts.

[yarahahrwe]

That's really my gripe with 'communist' nations in general: they clearly don't care about their people.

[happyguy82]

btw, Kerosene is a better option because it has much higher energy density and can be stored w/o crygenic cooling. So how is H2 better? Check your facts b4 commenting.

[nonamedyet]

N1 design failed at the end because of the death of the Russian mastermind Sergej Korolev

[Atomicskull]

It actually had a lower maximum payload than the Saturn V though.

[jamcrane3]

I have all the respect in the world for old Soviet and Russian ingenuity, but who was the rocket scientist who thought it would be possible to manage 30 engines on one stage?

[Alembic25]

Korolev the chief designer fell out with Glushko the chief engine designer over the fuels to be used on the N1. Korolev wanted LOX/Kerosene and Glushko wanted UDMH/Nitric acid. They split acrimoniously and Korolev went with Kuzhnetsov the jet engine designer who designed the NK33 rocket engine for the N1. The N1 was underdeveloped with many unresolved issues but the basic concept was workable although 30 engines in the first stage was always going to be hard to pull off. Too hard in the end.

[willzyx86]

this songs pretty brutal...

[XxretardhaterxX]

the n1 wasnt 50% more powerful than the saturn v. it was 7,648,000 to 9,000,000 something. the rocket sucked and cant even be considered more powerful than the saturn v because it couldnt even launch successfully. plain and simple, the saturn v was better because it made it to the moon and this pile of shit did not.

[bombarderoazul]

Well, when you have 55 billion dollars a year for your space program lika nasa had in the 60's anything is possible.

[MightySaturn5]

bomb-your numbers are way the fuck off-the entire 10 year run of Mercury,Gemini and Apollo program was around 25-30 billion...what compelled you to even type this shit?

[MGR1900]

Yea, communism sucks, doesn't it?

[MightySaturn5]

Actually the Saturn V had a average thrust (by the end of Apollo and Skylab) of 7.76 million lbs of thrust.

Apollo 15 had very close to 8.

The N-1 could lift about 90 tons to LEO whereas the Saturn V could loft 142 tons to low earth orbit.

The N-1 was in reality a big cumbersome rocket that was not nearly as efficient, elegant or reliable as the Saturn V.

The old Soviet goverment would lie and brag about any scrap they could alter yet tried to hide the fact that this thing ever exsisted.

[originalrhombus]

HOT POGO ACTION

[rwp16db]

ran on kerosene, had more thrust but saturn V could produce more lift thanks to liquid hydrogen. tell ya what i do like the look of this rocket though. if proper funding was given im sure it would have given the US a run for our money.

[myso2008]

" im sure it would have given the US a run for our money. "

yeah i guess that's why NASA is paying russian seats into space

[Alembic25]

She veers badly almost on lift off and was having trouble keeping trajectory. I believe they destroyed her but there are conflicting reports. On this one, I don't think it developed a fire like the other 3 attempts.

[05u16hep]

beautiful machine, just a shame it never worked. If you look at the russian rockets though, they are of a similar design to the very latest nasa rockets with a fairing protecting the payload untill in space, when it seperates exposing the crew capsule and lunar module, similar to that of the nasa constellation programme

[ericpaine]

I love the subtitle "Operated since 1969-1972"

HAH! If it had EVER flown, that is. 100% failure rate.

Saturn V? 100% success rate.

Suck it, commies.

[Throbula]

Right on ericpaine!

[cograilfan]

Bight me

Communist ingenuity was spilling out the launch pad.

Sadly this vehicle was manufactured in a very poor quality factory.

COMMUNISM IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE!

[peresciutti]

us would never had build such a good rocket (sat urn V) without the help of nazi von Braun. Before he started to help, us was 5 years after ussr s main master korolev and his n1.

[XmegaPresident]

You terminology of Verner Von Braun is very piss poor...

asshole..

[chamath1985]

true .if there was no Braun America would b doing their first successful launch in mid 70s

[pjt]

Whaarn Von Bruan? THis I agree with yet if the Soviets had not taken most of the rest of the German Scinetists after the second world war then Russia wouldn't be in space till about the 70's as well. Rember Most of Von Brauns staff was capture by Russians after the war and Van Braun Surrendered to the allies himself.

[perlghost]

So it would be easy for you to mention 2-3 names? But, alas, there is _none_ which could be considered seriously. All the head stuff of nazi rocket project and most of the equipment and the manufacture were captured by USA. Crazy "soviet espionage" had failed. Personal, captured by soviets, were mostly technicians, which were leaved as useless by USA agents. Most of them were released far before 1957.

[perlghost]

Some of the latter (including sacramental Gruetrupp) were repeatedly captured by USA, but proved to have no actual information about soviet rocket program. In fact, the most valuable help they provided to Soviet Union was in the deployment of the production equipment.

[Arrogantdick]

@peresciutti True without Werner von Braun the Soviets would have defenitly won the space-race.

[Neillil411]

@peresciutti I would not consider him a Nazi. He did not entirly agree with the Nazi party and did not intend to build weapons for Hitler. His dream was allways space exploration but he was forced to use his tallents for distruction at the hands of a faciast regime. As a mater of fact his last act before coming to the United States was to escape from the S.S. and surrender to the Alies. He allways knew he and his team were expendable and he ran away as soon as he had a chance.

[dietcoke3396]

that rocket has 10.01 million pounds of thrust

[000darkstar000]

this is acool vid*****russki hi tec..if only ussr+usa+china..would co-operrate.science would benefit so much..1 DAY I PRAY THEY WILL...JJ

[apollosaturn5]

I think the N-1 had a beautiful shape. But, I don't think that this vehicle was the only solution to go to the Moon. The Soviets could have used another method. They could launch the orbiter and the lunar lander separately; rendezvou in low Earth orbit and then go to the Moon. If you look at the orbiter is practically a soyuz spacecraft, so they could launch it with a R-7, and the lunar lander with a Proton rocket. Both launch vehicles where available before Apollo 11.

[movieman523]

If I remember correctly, they originally considered a dual-launch method but decided that a single launch would be easier. Unfortunately the N1 design they chose was too complicated with so many engines and would have taken probably another couple of years and lots of money to sort out; by the time it flew, there was no longer the political will do continue flying until it worked, because Apollo had already landed on the Moon.

[apollosaturn5]

Well, they should have used the "harder method". Sometimes when you go the easy way, you pay the most expensive price.

[pigje]

there was a battle between two proposed systems to go to and land on the moon, a battle that even stretched to the political level. That was one of the reasons the Sovjets lost the race to the Moon. They didn't even launch their 3rd Moonjeep, which I was able to see in Moscou

[Arcmate]

Glushko (shown at the periscope) believed that a huge Saturn style LOX/Kerosene engine wasn't feasible and a Nitric acid/Hydrazine engine was the way to go. He felt a huge saturn type engine would blow up and this was a major challenge for the US. Thus, N1 had 30+ LOX/Kerosene main engines in the first stage alone. Selective throttling was used to control direction. The problem was lack of funds and crucially the loss of Sergei Korolev, chief engineer. It's a great looking rocket though!

[nico3481]

The UFO made them explode, Russian dont like no one flying over they vast territory, Sorry ET,,you got to ask for permision.

[apollosaturn5]

Not only the amount of funds, but the number of engines were a huge problem. A launch vehicle's plumbing system is a very delicate feature due to the stress that encounters during flight. The Saturn V had problems with its plumbing system and it only had 5 engines. So, by adding 30 engines to the first stage, the Soviets where in fact "asking for it."

[94070]

u shouldve showed the explosion! all 4 exploded.

[MightySaturn5]

The lift off thrust given was off by a bit, the N-1 had just under or slightly over 10 million (depending on the text)plus needed 30 engines to achieve that(as opposed to 5 for the Saturn) additionally the N-1 had around 180,000 lbs lift ability to low earth orbit-the Saturn 5 had around 285,000 lbs. Basically the N-1 was nothing more then a bunch of engines strapped together into an inefficient design that never worked, the Saturn V was exactly the opposite

[apollosaturn5]

I agree, although I like the shape of the N-1; but the use of 30 engines in the first stage seems unreallistic. It might have been a great subject on a Jules Verne type of story. These engines couldn't "stand" each other.

[artwleb]

Reason for the shape of the N-1 was the inefficient use of spherical propellant tanks for stagees 1 and 2. It also created

a larger diameter which was ok for 30 engines! While a real

fascinating story many elements of the design was a real step

back.

[Diamonddavej]

The Soviets could make bigger rocker engines and they could have made a simpler rocket. However, the engines would have used highly toxic hydrazine. A hydrazine leak from a rocket a few years earlier killed several engineers; the Soviets were terrified of the stuff. They chose Sergey Korolev's complicated design fuelled by oxygen and refined kerosene instead.

[golfer0000001]

was the hydrazine accident related to the N1 development?

[rebut509]

hI brother

[apollosaturn5]

Yes, the Soviets had the knolege potentioal to design an engine as powerful as the F-1 (look at the RD-170 engine, which is more powerful than the F-1). But, building an engine as big as the F-1 would require new testing facilities and hardware. The Soviets didn't have that much money, so they had to rely on smaller engines that could be tested on their already-built facilities.

[apollosaturn5]

The rocket explosion that killed several engineers was the "Nedelin Catastrophe" where a R-16 exploded at Site 41, Baikonur space center. The commander of the R-16 development program, Chief Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan Nedelin, was instantly incinerated because he was seating right next to the rocket. The explosion ocurred when, by accident, the second stage ignited on top of the first stage, while the missile was on the launch pad during launch preparations.

[ozzyscruggs1]

First rule of engineering -- KISS -- Keep It Simple,

Stupid.