Soviet N1 moon rocket

[maly33]

It's pity that Korolev died so soon. Without this, Russians can be the winners of race to Moon as well. Rocket developed under his supervision was much better than the American ones they had on those days. Compare R-7 with Gararin and Redstone with Shephard. Russian's bad luck was that they had many failures in first tests. I can remember Korolev blew up all first 5 test R-7. But later, until today, rockets derived from it are the most reliable rockets ever...

[maly33]

@maly33 They suffered from fuel pump failures and fuel line leaks mostly. The first N-1 failed because of fuel pump exploded after it sucked in a foregin object.

[bestamerica]

'

i like american rocket name is saturn V is the best great largest rocket in the world,,,

saturn V is better than N1

[Alexei55555]

@bestamerica wo are beter ? i dont think wo is beter Saturn 5 and N1 are different technology rocket ..

[MightySaturn5]

keep fucking dreaming -Apollo was so utterly complex that to this day anyone with even a semi deep understanding of engineering know that the level of technology involved with the CM and service module far surpasses any of the soviet era craft -try reading in depth books on both programs before throwing a statement out like that

[MadMark2006]

@MightySaturn5 Well that is a exaggeration on your behalf, you should post reliable reference sources to back up such a statement. Sure the apollo command service module, where more advanced with regards to guidance navigation control computer and comms. But the soviet LK had a more crude docking assembly, more efficient Coupling making it more robust, stronger retraction, and a more simple Separation process. Anyway Us rocketery was engineered by a ex nazi Wernher von Braun, during that era..

[MightySaturn5]

@MadMark2006 Von Braun had nothing to do with the incredibly complex CM, lunar module,computers, navigation, life support etc. -when confronted by obvious truths most sore loosers resort to playing the Von Braun "Nazi" card, additionally you have no actual engineering information regarding the clamping strength of Apollo docking mechanisms -if you did you'd know on some Apollo missions they made multiple attempts with each attempt using double the force with absolutely no structural fatigue

[MrSrgj]

A bad beginning makes a bad ending.

[geobo11]

Космос, подожди...;-)

[blitsed]

N1 was such an impressive rocket...too bad it was SO unreliable!

Just imagine how it would have been exciting to have a moon rush with both Americans and Russians landing on the Moon...we would have a couple of bases there by now, probably!

[darmader]

So fake!

[bombarderoazul]

clustering a lot of engines is not a bad idea actually. Several russian rockets like soyuz(16 engines) and proton(6 engines) have proven to be very reliable. I do agree that 30 engines is a very large number, The first stage of the N1 produced 50% more thrust than the american Saturn V. But the other stages were weaker than the ones of Saturn V. Nonetheless this is an impressive rocket.

[TheJomogogo]

@bombarderoazul

This Rube Goldberg monstrosity had 2/3 the payload capacity of the Saturn V and blew up every time it was launched, doesn't seem very impressive to me.

[bombarderoazul]

@TheJomogogo yeah it was a failure, personally I think the Energya heavy booster is a more impressive rocket. 100 tons into low earth orbit. That's less payload than a Saturn V, but i liked the piggyback style of launching cargo into space.

[GRATZIANI2002]

not all the time bigger means better..in special for russians with copy-paste system..anyway a good proove for russian engineering....my opinion is that they've had some rusky onboard...even now they don't recognize if so...

[cjdiverson]

Even if they got all of the plumbing perfect, to all of the 30 engines (stupid idea, really stupid.), if even ONE of those engines suffered from Pogo Oscillations, you can kiss your N1 rocket goodbye and watch a massive explosion.

Pogo Oscillations caused the Saturn V rockets problems (See Apollo 13's centre engine cut off during launch), and they only had 5 engines, reasonably spaced. If one of the 30 engines Pogo'd, it'd cause a chain reaction and rip the rocket to pieces.

[GRATZIANI2002]

@cjdiverson u didn't got the idea!..this it was a launcher!..means that by explosion they send the payload in space!..lol..

[arsenal553]

another high quality russian product!

[ugowar]

Yes, just as is the russian RD-180 engine Lockheed-Martin bought for the Atlas V launch vehicle. The engine has its roots in the N-1 first stage engine.

[snipagotcha]

much better quality than the US apparently we where first to be in space and we did not want to risk human lives for the moon, so instead wanted to send a computer-controlled shuttle first. US risked lives but made it luckily, but so wouldhave the Russians aswell. Soviet economy was the highest in the world at the time and so risking human life was not concidered at first.

[MightySaturn5]

damn fool

[arsenal553]

Woah, realx man. you must admit that cccp rockets failed during te space race but now russin space agency is doing great with their soyuz tma orbiters.

[arsenal553]

@snipagotcha The first space shuttle mission wasn't that dangerous because on two man crews the shuttle had ejector seats installed for use as a launch escape system.

[ibanez122]

@snipagotcha The N1 set the russians back a few years in the race for the Soviets being the first people on the moon. There were alternatives they could have used (they escape me at the moment), but they chose not to use them and instead used the N1 which was an outright failure. To say it was better quality is pretty far fetched considering the N1 never got into space to being with. The Soviets banked on an Apollo failure so they could gain ground but that never happened.

[Buttmunch5000]

i hate it when people say that the moon race was still on, the moon race stopped in 1966 when Sergey Korolyov died, he was the genius of the space race, and when he died the russians didnt know what to do.

The N1 would have worked if sergey was still alive

[Marx1958]

I grew up in New Mexico and studied Apollo during the 1960s and never knew about the N-1 until a few years ago. Where was the coverage of this rocket?

[hugo1332]

the russian nk-33 engine was far ahead of the us made engines. It used a oxygen rich preburner and closed cycle witch the americans thought was impossible to do. It is now developed into the RD-180 used in the Atlas rocked.

Read the story about the nk-33 engine. Also was a program about it in Discovery title was "the engine that came in from the cold"

[artwleb]

An interesting fact about the N-1 was it's tapered shape and you know why? Spherical propellant tanks. Just a major inefficiency for structural weight. Also the N-1 started late in the "moon race". F-1 engine was already maturing and liquid hydrogen upper stages were coming of age in US.

[RelGanricFlims]

I believe the problem was that all of the stages had to be broken down and fitted for railroad delivery, and then rebuilt at Baikonur. During that time, all of the failures could have been created.

[chillaxer1993]

Was there a launch abort system on the N-1? That could have saved their lives

[rwboa22]

It did, only larger than the ones in use on the A-2 Soyuz rocket (which saved the crew on Soyuz T-10-1 when the rocket exploded on the pad).

[Alembic25]

There was an escape system to pull the capsule clear in an emergency but no crew was ever carried. The system did work on one of the flights when the rocket faltered just clear of the tower. There's some footage of it although it's a bit poor. Have a look.

[chillaxer1993]

i heard about that, but didn't those astronauts die in that incident too?

[Alembic25]

No one was allowed to risk their necks on the N1. Alexei Leonov was keen to give it a try but Vasily Mishin, the then chief engineer vetoed the idea. One of the launch failures caused an explosion which totally excavated the launch pad to a depth of five stories. The equivalent of a small nuclear device.....

[reticulan5]

Every nation has it's 1st's and greatness.Every

nations also has stupidity and ignorance.Then there is the politicians who make good or bad decisions or are corrupt or honest.With the N 1 the complexity of the 30 rockets brought it down.The Russians may have solved it with

more time and money.But they should have gone with there other rocket.That way they would of got to the Moon whether 1st or 2nd

That way the race would have continued for many more years.Man needs competition or a

threat.

[yarahahrwe]

+1. Progress only comes from competition.

[SergeiPilipenko]

It is remarkable that exactly these engines for the N1 rocket have being purchased by the U.S. after the crash of the Shuttle program. Russia has already sold over 100 these unique and very reliable engines which are 35 years old. It was no reason to close the N1 program, it was a stupid, ideological mistake of the Russian government.

[bc1969214]

Isn't it a modified version of these engines that didn't make it on the four N1 launches? The NK-15s was used on the N1 first stage, the NK-33 and 43 are the offspring intended for the modified N1 that was cancelled.

The private U.S. company using these engines that got a NASA contract didn't meet requirements so it was cancelled.

[ugowar]

The private company you're talking about was Rocketplane Kistler. Its COTS contract was terminated and the rest of money awarded to Orbital Sciences Corp. which, coincidentally, also plan to use the NK-33 engine (2) on the first stage of their new Taurus II rocket. After all these years, it will be the first time these remarkable engines do what they were designed to do - lift rockets off the ground.

[TheCottonTop]

It's cool looking

[irishguy200007]

If the first stage was statically tested then the N1 would have flown without incident.Placing an untested first stage on the launch pad was gambling.

[MightySaturn5]

Testing is always the best recourse however as Prince has said this design was flawed due to a failure increase proportional to each engine.

Its especially obvious in more modern times that the design was a poor one which even the Soviets (as per usual) tried to cover up, in fact nearly all Soviet "firsts" were primarily done to upstage the pre-announced U.S. efforts (first satellite,first manned flight,first spacewalk etc.) however pre-announced or not they could never have made it to the moon

[Setebos]

"Gambling" pretty much described the Soviet space effort. James Oberg's "Red Star In Orbit" is a good (and hair-raising) source of stories about how often the Soviets flirted with disaster during their space program.

[sovieter]

os sovieticos só não chegaram antes a lua por que o genio Sergei Pavlovich Korolev havia falecido prematuramante, se não hoje em dia os sovieticos/russos já estariam hoje em marte ou mais longe !!

[PrinceNoctisCaelum]

The N-1 was doomed to fail before it ever got off the drawing boards.

The complexity of the network of tubes for a 30-something rocket engine arrangement means that the probability of total failure is near 100%. With the extreme vibrations and such, there's never a shortage of variables to make this rocket system go awry. Hence its flight record.

[ugowar]

N-1 was doomed because there was no ground test program, there was *never* a static firing of a N-1 first stage! The engineers could have been able to make it work eventually, but there was no time and funding, but pressure for results instead.

The NK-33 engine that resulted is by far the most impressive kerosene engine in the world, with a thrust to weight ratio that is unmatched even by RD-170 descendants. Orbital's new Taurus II rocket is slated to fly them, units refurbished by Aerojet.

[PrinceNoctisCaelum]

I don't think I implied that the individual rocket engines themselves are the source the issue here. On the contrary, Russian made RD-180s power the Atlas V and some Delta IV rockets, I think. These rocket engines truly are the best in their category, no question.

However, no amount of ground testing would have resolved the issues that the N-1 system had. The material science simply wasn't there and the design was stupendously complicated. Flawed from its very conception.

[ugowar]

What material science? It's the engines that put the greatest requirements on metallurgy and material science. The rest is plumbing and tanking if you will.

That's a rather hard qualification that "no amount of ground testing ...". I wonder if the designers of F-1 engines thought similarly when combustion instability reared its ugly head...

[PrinceNoctisCaelum]

Yes material science. The vibration build up in a thirty engine configuration would seem to indicate that the complex network of tubes require more than just ingenious plumbing techniques but perhaps more robust and flexible alloys to overcome the intense stress.

Just speculation on my part but who knows. In any case, the time spent troubleshooting such a needlessly complex design might as well be forever since it would amount to possibly many years.

[losfelizvillage1]

It was Sabotage (A "bolt" falling in to...). Seriously, do you think Russian rocket engineers were brain dead vs NASAs? Keep in mind, Russia had a nice set of Nazis too.

[IAmKingBonzo]

brain dead? No. Under funded, under resourced and rushed by their political masters? Yes

[bombarderoazul]

Forget the rocket, the machine designed to carry and lift the rocket into position into the launch pad was a marvel of engineering in its own right.

[MightySaturn5]

The crawler used on the Saturn V and currently in use with the shuttle is far and away the most impressive rocket moving device created -basically it can move a 36 story building alongside a 45 story building while climbing a low Mayan pyramid keeping both structures perfectly straight while doing so and eventually positioning them with pinpoint accuracy...its truly one of the greatest engineering devices of the 20th century

[stev1212]

Electronic dildo beats it.

[XxretardhaterxX]

well at least the escape tower worked

[bombarderoazul]

The N1 actually produced more thrust than the american Saturn V, however because it used kerosene in all it's states it could only deliver 95 tons into low earth orbit compared to Saturns V 130 tons. The project was also underfunded and started years after the Saturn V, thus it wasn't surprising that all four launches failed, but it could have worked.

[hwoods01]

I agree.

[MGR1900]

Just like communism, right?

[Irishguy20008]

The engines in the main section fly to this day and have since proven very reliable. The problem was the CHORD system to switch off the radial opposite when one engine shut down.Modern computer would make that easy.

[blablubb12345]

No, there were plans to use the NK-33 engines on modified versions of Soyuz but it never flew on any other vehicle than the N1. Rocketplane Kistler has also bought some NK-33 engines for its proposed launch vehicle.

[Irishguy20008]

If they had static tested the main section many of the problems could have been eliminated.Getting all 32 engines to fire in tandem together was the problem and of course so much plumbing.

[blablubb12345]

Yes, very likely. The last flight of N1 failed only a few seconds before stage separation. However, the soviets decided to cancel N1 and build energia.

[Alembic25]

The N1 project was short of funding as money was initially spread between 3 designs from competing design teams. By the time the decision was made to concentrate on N1 it was way too late.The first time all the first stage engines were fired in concert was at the first launch attempt. There were also aerodynamic problems around the base of the rocket as well as pogoig. Personally I think the basic concept was good but as I say, lack of funding caused too many corners to be cut.

[Irishguy20008]

If they had static tested the bottom main section containing the 30 engines they would have eliminated any problems with the main section safely.A machine this big is very unforgiving when something goes wrong.

[Joe35983]

Aww...EPIC FAIL

[Plutoplatter]

The N-1 was a typical socialism engineering product, a fragile monstrosity doomed to never work. While the engines were quite good, the rocket's design was fatally prone to destructive vibtrations and mechanical breakdown. Those 30 engines in the first stage alone meant many times more moving parts in their valves and associated fuel pumps than our Saturn V had. With so many moving parts and the harmful harmonics shaking the first stage violently, N-1 was best at making spectacular blowups.

[Sacto1654]

The N-1 failed because the untimely passing of Sergei Korolev in early 1966 deprived the program of the type of leadership that would have gotten the engineers to get the rocket properly tested and ready for flight. Did you notice that before Korolev's passing the Soviet space program was very successful?

[Plutoplatter]

Hi Sacto, yes, the Soviets had early successes...but successes were the only rocket events that the Soviets ever publicized. They had their failures, fatal ones, too, but the evil Soviet Politboro made 100% certain we never heard about them in the West. Only after the Soviet Union finally collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and contempt for its own people (and a huge helping push from President Ronald Reagan) did we finally get to learn of their missile disasters (N-1, etc.)

[monkeyman1140]

The real problem was the pressure from the Soviet leadership to get the moon program going. The R-7 rocket has multiple engines yet was the workhorse of the Soviet space program.

The space race had its bad side too, and people died as a result, Americans and Russians.

[skirtmanwarrior]

I beg to differ. The N1 design is inherently no worse (or better) than the Saturn V; it's just different. The US chose to solve the problem of building a large engine (and the F1 had its share of spectacular test-stand explosions); the Russians chose to solve the problem of using many smaller engines. The N1 faile because of tight budgets (a fraction of what we spent) and politics. Read James Harford's definitive biography of Korolev to understand why the N1 never flew successfully.

[Plutoplatter]

Skirtman, your stance is one of "would have, should have, just wait until we Soviets catch up!" The cold reality is that the N-1 was an abject failure. Four launches, 4 explosions. Now, whose fault was it that N-1 development was underfunded, for goodness sake? America's? Of course not. If the Soviets chose not to fully develop and staatic-test the N-1, that is 100% their fault. And your sly allusion that the Saturn 5 'cheated' because it had better funding is silly. Saturn 5 wins fair & square.

[ugowar]

Plutoplatter: Oh, come on. The Soviet designers didn't "choose not to fully develop and static-fire" the N-1, they didn't have the time or the money to do it. They were under serious pressure for results. Noone's saying Saturn V cheater, but the fact remains if Soviets threw funding at the N-1 the same way U.S. threw at the Apollo program, the bugs COULD have been worked out.

[ugowar]

Noone's downplaying Saturn V and the U.S. efforts here, it's you who's downplaying the Soviets, their accomplishments and expertise. I would advise against that. The Soviets had just as capable engineers and scientists as the U.S. did. In fact, given their very limited funding they were forced to be resourceful, I'm almost inclined to think they'd have been able to do more with the same amount of funding than the U.S. was.

[Plutoplatter]

Pure speculation. Using the same logic, with more money than it had, America could have kicked the Soviets' in their space program pants even harder than history shows happened.

[bc1969214]

The U.S. program publicized 400,000 people involved. Any manpower figures on the Soviet effort?

[Plutoplatter]

Upowar, your parsing words too finely, to stick up for the junky Soviet progam. Clearly, the Soviet designers did choose to produce terrible equipment, even if the reason was fear under pressure to get something on the pad fast for the Great Socialist Experiment to brag upon to the world. Now, one imagines that with enough funding, the N-1 could have been made to work some day. But why bother? It was too fragile & had a substandard payload compared to the Saturn V. The Soviets must have agreed.

[ugowar]

The "junky Soviet program" produced more quality stuff than what your typical American fanboy (which you certainly seem to be, judging by the tone of your responses) would like to admit. I'm sure you already knew Lockheed-Martin Atlas V rocket now launching commercial and government payloads is powered by the *Russian* RD-180 engine, a direct descendant of the Energia booster engine, RD-170.

[ugowar]

Engineers CHOSE to produce terrible equipment? Puh-leese, get of that ignorancy trip of yours. Nobody in their sane minds spends so much manpower as rocket engineers are forced to do to deliberately make crappy equipment. Neither the U.S. engineers nor the Soviet engineers did. If you really believe so, there's no point in arguing with you.

You think the F-1 engine would work without a shitload of testing Rocketdyne did? You think testing would have been performed if the money wasn't there?

[ugowar]

I don't think you realize just how much money was spent on the Apollo program compared to what the soviet economy was able to provide so your comment about how the U.S. could have kicked Soviet ass even more with more funds is irrelevant. I'm talking about EQUAL grounds here, which Soviets were not on. NOT due to crappy engineering.

[ugowar]

The space race was won by U.S. superior economy, NOT superior know-how. Superior economy enables advanced technology development, with which the soviets could not compete (no matter how good their scientists and engineers were). Period.

[Plutoplatter]

Your means of reationalizing America's smashing victory over the Soviet space program is to insist that the space race would only have been fair 'on a level playing field'....as long as you get to keep re-levelling the playing field to ensure that the Soviets are not held to be the reason for their own failure. you really have to tilt the playing field almost vertical in favor of the Russkies to 'splain away why, even after all these years, no Soviet/Russian manned ship has reached the Moon.

[ugowar]

Smashing victory - LOL. Look, fanboy, I can see this "argument" serves no purpose anymore as you're unwilling to admit any other nation was even close to "your" expertise, which is beyond ironic seeing how Wernher Von Braun, a natural born German, led "your" Saturn V program. Get off the high horse of yours already. Where did I say anything about a level playing field? The Soviets never stood a chance against American economy. I thought an intelligent person would conclude that from my comment.

[Plutoplatter]

Your argument has become specious. Your logic is this: America won, so America must have cheated. Well, at least you are clear in your lunacy.

[ugowar]

Where the fuck did I imply America cheated?????

Please, DO SHOW ME HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION.

Look at my goddamn profile, see what videos I have posted and you'll see I haven't got a goddamn thing against the American Moon program.

[Plutoplatter]

Agreed, the RD-170 & RD-180 engines are good engines. And the workhorse Soyuz launch is a workhorse success (except for that time it caught fire prior to a manned launch). Other than that, well, that's about it for the quality space products of the Grand Socialist Experiment. America's? A veritable shopping mall of successful gear and services, compared to the Soviet small second-hand goods store across the street. And you are so comical, implying that being proud of America's success is wrong!

[ugowar]

Who the hell is implying being proud of America's success is wrong? Your rhetoric is pitiful. If you think I'm bashing American space progam, see what videos I have posted.

It's you who's downplaying the Russian efforts on purpose. As if though YOU yourself contributed to the Saturn V, yeah right. Hint: Wernher Von Braun was German. U.S. had capable engineers just as soviets had. The U.S. engineers had the benefit of LEARNING from Von Braun team so cut the "smashing victory" B.S. for once.

[ugowar]

Also, if you're only willing to admit the R-7 a.k.a. Soyuz is a success, might I point out to you the inherent DESIGN FLAW of the Space shuttle. In that it REALLY, REALLY doesn't like any debris shed from the External Tank. Which is fine, I guess, except you CANNOT avoid debris from the ET foam.

That qualifies as a design defect in my book. Caused a loss of life of one crew (Columbia) so far and much effort in mitigation, to little avail.

[bc1969214]

I think a lot of shuttle issues go way back to the Nixon years. They had to make it cheap for Administration approval. There were plans way back then to continue a second generation of Saturn Vs using the S1C instead of SRBs to boost the shuttle sitting on top. Would have avoided the tank debris hitting the shuttle. Amazing how many launches were lucky with this system.

[ugowar]

Yes, and when S-IC was dropped, the proposed liquid rocket boosters (LRB) were dropped in favor of cheaper to design SRBs. So in a remote way, Challenger's fate was set back then.

[loki4145]

Russian engines RD180-RD36-N1 Atlas

Es lo mismo

[000darkstar000]

OMG!!!what an Awsum rocket+awsum vid thnx!!!

however it makes me sad when they fail.all that work gone!as 4 the Dumbass's that coment,

HaHaHa!they r the sadest MF!SOB'S!.Ever!

[Stylensky]

They couldnt build large enough engines so they just kept putting more on it. The odds were against them. Plus they kept blowing up their engineers and cosmonauts so they had like a tire changer and a model maker runiing things by the end of the space race.

[Arcmate]

Vasily Mishin was running the show at this point. Under immense pressure to achieve he resorted to vodka which lead to his dismissal. A shame as he was a good engineer, but not as politically adept as Korolev. It was felt that an F1 type engine would be too unstable to work so the russians used a large number of smaller engines with an advanced computer system (KORD)to selectively throttle the engines to achieve stability. Maybe the huge ammount of pipes lead to the inevitable leaks and fires.

[rusak24]

If i remember correctly was this rocket more powerful that the Saturn V?

[kalashnikova06]

it was, but it was also less efficient and used kerosene in every stage

[xxxAloopzzz]

yeah, because it was better for military use ;)

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Higher thrust, lower overall mass and overall impulse. Could put about 95 tons into LEO rather than about 130 for the S-V. What a great rocket, so complex and cool - shame they didnt make it work.

[000darkstar000]

this is cool*****thnx 4 vid ussr!hi tec!

[Zoomer30]

The Soviets did not have a chance with the N1, just too many engines that ALL had to work. Every time you add an engine you add pumps and parts and pipes. The video of the rocket losing thrust and falling back to the pad is kinda indicative of this kind of program.

The Sovs were pushed into this race to the moon and just could not come up with a good system of ship and rocket.

[georgH]

>too many engines that ALL had to work

False. The N1 could lose some engines and still reach orbit (if the whole thing had worked, of course). Even the KORD system was designed to shut down an engine to keep equilibrium after loosing another.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

It was actually a great rocket, in some ways more advanced than the S-V (Fuel Pre-burn for example) but it just did not have the time, or the static testing, that it needed. It is a subjective thing, but I think the N1 is the best looking rocket out there.

[PC3900]

Beautiful vehicle, agreed. Even the Soviets concluded that the main program failure was not the technology, but the terrible Soviet style management system in the design and testing. Apollo stands out as the greatest single management feat in history.

[Membrane556]

Well they didn't build a ground test stand for the N1 first stage this would have helped a lot in figuring out how to get all those engines to work together.

As for a ship the Soyuz was actually far superior to the Apollo in that it had an airlock,a proper toilet and an N2/O2 atmosphere vs a dangerous pure O2 atmosphere.

Even the Argon flight computer was light years ahead of the apollo flight computer.

[monkeyman1140]

The soyuz was to be darn sure more reliable, and the dual gas system was an update because the Soviets too lost an astronaut to a pure oxygen atmosphere in a ground test. They learned their lesson the same way we did!

[rnech]

In commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Star Wars franchise a rocketeer named Andy Woerner, with the help of his rocketry club members, has built a 21 foot long replica of the X-Wing Fighter that will actually fly on four rocket motors in the scale engine locations. For more info check out 3dub d/ot plasterblaster d/ot com/projects d/ot html.

[Korolev61]

Even if the N1 worked well, the Americans would still have gotten to the Moon first. Too bad Sergei Korolev, the genius who started the Russian space program, died in 1966.

[HAL11000]

All three exploded.

[greenseaships]

The funniest thing is that this video is classified as How to/Do it yourself! Now, how much have I got in the savings account...

[georgH]

LOL!

Youtube (Google) has eliminated science classifications.

[spencnaz]

I suggest you do more research into the Soviet space program mdmcgrory. The Soviets had a lunar lander ready for the flight. Alexi Leonov was slated to be the pilot chosen for their lunar landing attempt.

The spacesuit designed for lunar excursions later was developed into the Sokol (falcon) series of EVA suits used at the ISS and during the Mir programs.

[mdmcgrory]

Even if it had worked the Soviets weren't working on a lunar lander. I guess they wee going to burn that bridge when they came to it.

[Hairysteed]

The soviets had the LK lander. It differed from the LM for carrying only one crewmember and since it didn't have a docking hatch the cosmonaut would have to EVA to the LK from the Soyuz capsule.

[Membrane556]

Actually the soviets did have a lunar lander and they even tested it in LEO.

[RmanDC]

Majestic!

[predocc]

good!