N1 soviet moon rocket / N1-3L Launch

[followthefleet1]

I had read that the failure here was much more likely than for Saturn V, because there were very many smaller rocket engines, which increased the probability of failure, many times. The Saturn V, had many fewer, and more powerful engines. It was really just a matter of stochastic probability.

[NewVahan2011]

Let's hope that the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan, China, India, Brazil, as well as many other nations put their political differences aside and allot money to a Global Human Space Exploration Initiative. If we all spend just 5% of our GDPs on Space Exploration, instead of the Military, we'd be much better off in many ways.

[gurusurfers]

this is a prime example of what happens when people dont get along and think of thierselves, i like this rocket, it reminds me of something out of a alternate reality. if only the right cccp parties woulld front the money and if glushko was willing to play ball with korolov maybe just maybe that would keep pressure on NASA and we would have a moon colony. but thats my rant

[bestamerica]

'

i like american saturn V big rocket was the best top rocket in the world than CCCP ussr russia

[Nascarking24]

@bestamerica If they stop using vodka as fuel then yeah it might work.

[mafia1911]

it would be possible to go on moon with such a rocket, only it needed is little more money, time and valentin glushko and korolov to work together while korolev was alive

and btw americans could have gone more far in space technology till now if they only listened to Dr. Werner Von Braun ideas

but Also USA made alot of mistakes and they also focused too much on military, nuclear development and wasting money on medium range balistic missiles for submarines back in the 50s and 60s

[BricktropolisStudios]

English please

[WizzRacing]

That rocket engine configuration could not be used to launch man to the moon. One reason the Soviets never tried it. They knew they would have to design a whole new booster rocket.

The N1 was designed fro low orbit satellites and manned missions in low orbit. They would have needed a hugh ass booster from it's launch location being so far from the equator as well. I think you would have needed at least 1.5 million pounds of thrust to get the lift capacity needed to get to the moon with 3 men.

[Scruceful]

@MRMRmonsterguy No, COD has the Soyuz you dumb fuck.

[sheemsheem]

damnit, where is the first launch explosion?

[harris3693]

@1:07, V-TEC just kicked in yo!!!!

[MrMrmonsterguy]

I wonder how many Call Of Duty geeks out there know that one of these are in one of the multiplayer maps.

[stellaruniversexmpls]

In 25 June 1983, the Castor SS exploded just in start of launch

when pogo oscillation turned 3 of 4 engines.

[stellaruniversexmpls]

@stellaruniversexmpls *turned off

[stellaruniversexmpls]

In 24 June 1983, the Castor RSM exploded 12 seconds after launch, due

to breakdown of engines 1 and 3. Also, the explosion was found near decomissioned LC-13 launch pad located in Cape Canaveral, Merrit Island.

[fuckshoestheclown]

The NK-33 engine is a well designed stable engine that's still in use today.

However, strapping 30 of them into a single stage was a horrible idea, and caused the failure of the N1.

[demiseofpurity]

@asdfghjkl48402 Because the RD-170 consists of four combustion chambers and nozzles and only puts out 250,000 more lb/f I find this to be a topic which could be debated at length. But to satisfy all parties: the F-1 is at least the most powerful single-chamber rocket engine of all time.

[SilverRedix1]

the N1 has like 30 first stage engines

TRY LIGHTING 30 ENGINES AT THE SAME TIME!!!

the US is WAY smarter to use 5 F1 engines and SUCCEED

[youngdones]

Why did so many soviet space rockets explode shortly after launch?

[UndeadPizzaGuy]

@youngdones Because the soviet space program was more concerned with setting "firsts" than safety. Even the manned Soyuz capsule never had an unmanned test launch, and its pilot was killed aboard Soyuz 1. The US spent more time and resources on completing their lunar rocket, and reduced its complexity by building larger engines, instead of just using many smaller existing engines to compensate.

[Rakemaan]

Drink Glushkozade!!

[evilassaultweaponeer]

Damn communism, ruining the chances of such a marvelous piece of machinery to succeed.

[Warkhan]

As it's explained on 0:21, the whole thing caused by the champaign bottle hitting the electrical connections on the pad which in turn caused the huge explosion and the failure of entire Soviet Space program and eventually the fall of CCCP. Had the Russians landed on the moon first, you all be speaking in Russian now. That's what happens when you follow stupid western traditions instead of respectfully pouring a little bit of vodka at the bottom of the rocket.

[UndeadPizzaGuy]

@Warkhan That's not what is said at all, the failure - as with the other three N1 failures, was caused by the N1's inherent complexity. Until this point, soviet rockets had more or less reliably used clustered engines successfully. The N1 however took it to ridiculous proportions - nearly three dozen engines in the first stage alone - many small engines does not equal one large engine, there are simply too many things that can go wrong when you have so many working together.

[Warkhan]

@UndeadPizzaGuy You're wrong and obviously doesn't speak Russian. The acidic and highly conductive nature of the champaign shorted out the pad's release connectors.

[2007ASpaceOdyssey]

If only, if only.

I so wish this rocket had worked. It might have re-sparked the space race, which was already a distant memory in 1970s US.

[Example626]

NASA uses the N-1 engines named RD-180 on its spacecrafts Atlas-5. They are really powerful and reliable. NASA never would use bad engines.

[dalek14mc]

@PeiperJ2-Yes, but how many (successful shuttle missions) compared to russia? I think it's 125:1. Plus, your crappy N1 failed to even get through the earths atmosphere.

[matteuklol]

only the Russians can go to space in a train

[Leivinn20]

By the way, it was ugly, rare, monstrous, inefficient...

[Leivinn20]

I think NASA engineers smiled when they saw this monster first time. It wasn't difficult to realise that the great quantity of engines was screaming : WE DOESN'T HAVE A POWERFUL ENOUGH ENGINE TO REACH THE MOON. They had needed a miracle to reach the Moon but unfortunately they were atheist. As far as any rocket has more engines, its chances of explosion are higher.

[Leivinn20]

@Leivinn20 : Sorry, I mean: ....WE DON'T HAVE A POWERFUL ENOUGH ENGINE TO REACH THE MOON...

[RichardEllisxyz]

Imagine what might have happened if the N1 had been perfected? The USSR might very well have cranked out this spacecraft by the zillions..........bypassing a moon-shot,  this could have been the premier heavy lift vehicle. Imagine giant MIR stations......with modules lifted into orbit with this monster.......unlike the Americans that dropped the Saturn V after making a handful.

[dalek14mc]

@RichardEllisxyz-Actually, it would use up fuel too fast. It wouldn't even get past the van allen belts. 

[TheApana]

@PeiperJ2 We're not using the Russian's spacecraft just because of the Space Shuttle, it's been scheduled to be retired around 2010 for a very long time (even before the Columbia accident), the reason we're resorting to Russia is because it's a cheaper way than making a new space program (That's what Obama thinks anyways, because he doesn't support space flight).

[ar15expert]

N1 failed because of the number of engines. They could not work out the stability issues of huge single engines with giant combustion chambers like the F1 team did. It's just too many fucking engines. Anyone that says otherwise is retarded.

[llynellyn]

@ar15expert Actually they did figure it out and they perfected the design whereas NASA hit a wall with their liquid fuelled engine. That's why the Atlas V rocket uses Russian engines derived from the N1 design :P

[TheApana]

@llynellyn Atlas isn't going to be used anymore... Because of stupid Obama, we'll be using the Russian's rockets which is absolutely stupid...

[chailey666]

@TheApana - Sigh... Obama had nothing to do with it, NASA ended the shuttle program long before he was even a state senator. And don't blame Bush either, it was NASA that wanted to retire the aging shuttle for a new ship.

[iskander982]

@ar15expert Well, Russians are use to clustering engines for their rockets. Their rocket R7 that is still used today as a booster for Soyuz has 32 engines in total. So the problem wasn't the number of engines, but the lack of funds.Plus, the N 1 used new engines NK-13, a revolutionary design, but not perfected at that time. When NK-33 engines finally arrived , the program was canceled. One more thing, NK-33 engines, although 30 years old are still the best high performance engines in the world.

[demiseofpurity]

@iskander982 There are alot of claimants to the title of best rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is thought to be very good. The SSME is also an incredible rocket engine and a serious contender, as is the F-1 (which continues to hold the title of most powerful single rocket engine).

[GRATZIANI2002]

every time I've told you that my dick is better than any shit russian, you comment...

[HITMANMONSTER]

haha a fucking wine bottle caused that sucks 4 u

[flanksteak1]

That is one big Son Of a Bitch.

[Membrane556]

The N1 did not fail because of the number of engine but instead because the Soviets never built a static test stand to test a complete stage.

Plus the fact closed loop controls and health monitoring for staged combustion engines just simply were not very mature at the time.

[tommyboomboom]

it's a shame the N1 didn't work... it was an amazing piece of engineering

[rossco1966]

0:44 THERES YA PROBLEM - 40 odd engines all having to run perfecly with no combustion instability and at pretty much the same thrust band. Along with the central ones to create the (minimal) annular aerospike effect. Loose one engine, or just loose more than 20% thurst on one and you have to shut down or throttle back the matching one on the other side of the ring, or loose attitude control.

[demonewok]

they should really try something like this now, it could easily be done with the technology of today.

[jingxi02]

The tail flame is beautiful on this N-1 rocket and it's the only good thing I can remember. As far I know those 30 engines were not tested at all before the launch. launch date was the fisrt time they were fired. You can't put 30 engines in a car and expect they all run perfect on the road at the first time. Try it in a space mission is mother of impossible!!!!!

[predatortheme]

the russians make awesome rockets and spaceships such like the soyuz = apollo they are based on the same system service module and comando module but the russians use 30 rockets for no reason... they could use 5 like the saturn rocket :]

[niiidar]

that is one hell of a rocket. Good god. Just look at the tiny people next to it!

[ApolloWasReal]

The N1 was roughly comparable in size to the Saturn V, another hell of a rocket.

[LeMagicZont]

It failed because of to many engines! Im sure in it.

[NPSurvival]

@LeMagicZont That is actually true because the grouped engines created a vacuum in between, which created odd pressure waves that were strong enough to tear the fuel lines apart. This is what I have heard at least.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Actually the money was of no importance for the Russian lunar program. The causes are others: Russia started its lunar program 4-5 years later than US (it was no real race for the moon); small interest of the Russian government; N1 was primarily developed not for the Moon; and deleterious Glushko. Russia spent the same time (9 years) as USA, but could send 6 cosmonauts for a whole month to the moon and build a base there in the end of 1974. But Glushko ordered to annihilate everything

[IPVentertainment]

I hate Glushko. I did since I saw the docudrama 'Space Race' but now I hate him even more. If the Russians had built the moon base in 1974 we would have had a man on Mars by now! And that one idiotic man, Glushko, stopped it... he is an asshole.

[ingwar68]

@IPVentertainment

Foolish film 'Space Race' - docudrama?! No Glushko- No Gagarin!!! No Gagarin- No Appolo!!!!

The Academician Glushko - pride of our country.

[CaptainNomura]

The N1 rocket reminded me of von Braun's "3-stage Ferry Rocket" design without the fins of the 1950s which was shown in Disney's Men in Space TV series. Too bad that it failed. It would've made the 1969 Moon race even more interesting.

[roboticmehdi]

actually the money was a cause. there was no founding moon manned project while Sergei Korolev. He was trying to send man on moon first. meantime Von Braun in U.S. had everything what he needs. Engine design is not easy. Von Braun tested his engines many many times and there were many failures before finally success. When Korolev died USSR finally found money for a several tests, but that was not enough, because this time the designer was not Korolev, who was the number one in rocketry.

[rossco1966]

US had 4 aces in the hole. (1) F1 engine was built in 58 and they almost threw it away as couldnt find a use for it but come 61 nasa said "we'll have that". still took till 65 to get right. (2) Guidance Computer - miles ahead of what russians had for 68/69 therefore better descent profile and more flyable by astronauts. (3) Sat V - much simpler design than N1 (4) Earlier commitment - US started 61, russians didnt start till 64 on moon project, and then did not have a Gemini to learn from.

[SergeiPilipenko]

I think the money was no cause because in 1974 two absolute perfect N1 rockets stood on the start pad and were ready to successfully complete their mission. All needed money for that program was found and already spent. The cause was Valentine Glushkos arrogance and his envy to Korolevs achievements and fame. And the ideological mistake of the Russian government which had no more interest for the lunar program after the success of the U.S.

[juancarlosbascu]

And also the failures after the Korolev dead during Mishin works in the Bureau, Then Glushko gave the best and last powerfull rocket to the soviet union, the Energia.

Maybe if Korolev and Glushko didn't fight, the N1 flew with succes

[rossco1966]

I have also read that the basic stack lifted too little for the lunar mission anyway. It was right on the edge. And a lot of that was due to korolev way back in 64 underestimating the mass required to lunar surface. Vehicles always gain wait as they are designed up but N1 could BARELY lift what was required to lunar orbit. It was bigger than saturn V but actually have considerably less lunar payload capability mainly due to fuels used (US had LOX/LH) and engine weights

[krenim786]

@SergeiPilipenko

True valentine glushko was a bastard he said he couldn't build a powerful F1 type engine -ostensibly due to combustion stability problems- which powers the Saturn V but when he got control of OKB1 and renamed it Energia he made the even more powerful RD170 engine which powers zenit to this day which he could have made in the 1960s and put the USSR on the moon before the americans.A traitor if ever there was one!

[Blahblobify]

@SergeiPilipenko

LOL@ "two absolute perfect N1 rockets were ready".....the N1 was launched 4 times, blew up 4 times, I doubt the two they had left were "absolute perfect".

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Blahblobify All machines had some failures during flying tests before they get perfect. It is normal. And four failures are not many.

[Blahblobify]

@SergeiPilipenko

4 out of 4 is 100%. Then they quit trying because they couldn't make it work. That = complete, total failure.

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Blahblobify It is false logic. If there was only 1 failure, 1 out of 1 was 100% as well. The normal tests have to be failures. If not, they are useless.

[Blahblobify]

@SergeiPilipenko

Candy coat it any way you want, they made 4, all 4 blew up. That makes it a complete failure. Stop trying to brag up the N1, which wasn't shit compared to the Saturn V anyway. Even if the N1 worked, it's payload capacity to the moon would have been HALF of the Saturn V !

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Blahblobify Everyone knows that the payload of N1 was 73% of Saturn-5. But it does not matter because N1 was 5 times cheaper than Saturn-5. And in 1974 Russia could send 6-7 cosmonauts to the Moon with 2 rockets for living on the Moon for a month. By the way, N1 was originally designed not for the Moon, but for sending robot apparatuses to the Mars without men.

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Blahblobify For example, the most reliable and safety rocket R7 (Soyuz) also had 3 unsuccessful flying tests. R7 could fly only after three unsuccessful flying tests in 1957. N1 had 4 unsuccessful flying tests. Is 4 much more badly than 3? It is not, it is the same.

[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. Closure of the N1 program was a stupid, ideological mistake of the Russian government.

[juancarlosbascu]

the money was the cause for the closure of the N1 program :/ and of course the politic inside the soviet union, maybe with 1 more testing, the N1 can be the best rocket in history together Saturn V

[Silmacar]

@juancarlosbascu The Energia is way better. It's simpler than the N1 - and it was N1's complexity that spelt its doom.

[stellaruniversexmpls]

@juancarlosbascu Yes, the money was cause for the closure of N1 Lunar program.

And also, the Soviet Union exploded into post-Soviet states in 1991, which destroyed

the post-American program which rocket was Saturn V.

[fusionstar916]

that thing is a massive failure.

[ricardas83]

Well, soviets by itself is a big failure :D

[stev1212]

Thats why were in a recession and capitalism has failed, and china is just fine being communist?

[ricardas83]

China has communism? Well, it's not engouht to call yourself communist to be one. Your action are important. Look at China and tell me sincere that there is a communism... Come on :D!

I don't say that raw capitalism is good too. I always expect that people will accuse me to be greedy capitalist who eats hes babies, but at least you didn't called me fascist :D.

[MightyJustas]

Man says "that guy broke that bottle not on that rocket, but on rocket holding..thing..' Lol, thats why it failed

[Blookiev123]

And because it was a guy who broke the bottle not a woman lol

[amsedelm]

Damn, that was a big rocket. Great video.

[Roncace]

It was as big as the saturn V

[Plasmafox]

Saturn didn't have 30 motors lol

[Roncace]

I didn't say that

I just meant it was as tall as the Saturn

[astrorider]

Oh this is interesting. Thanks for posting