You wrong, RD-180 based on RD-170 from Energia rocket. In N1 used NK-33 engines. Some of thems was sold to Aerojet and then renames into Aerojet AJ26s
F.or you all - you'll be surprised,but don't you know that the First Man in Space was,....was,.....was,-oh,yeah!! - Russian ! Right! FYA ))))))))))))))
@CREGGYAS, the first stage of the Saturn 5 ran on RP-1, which is nothing more than refined Kerosene. The Russian versions of rocket grade kerosene are extremely similar, just slightly denser
@pcvideogamer actually they started this to compete with President Kennedy's goal, so they were both set for the same time period. America just got it right first and the n1 was a spectacular failure
Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
goodammit..there are some ignorant americans here, usually y'all smart..did you know that the family of rockets Saturn were initially designed and built by German Rocket Engineers..and thats why americans are so dangerous...cuz they just dont know shit...rocket built by germans but it says USA on the rocket...pretty smart:) Love USA..peace to all ignorants out there. is there sth that y'all built not involving foreign specialists? but USSR aftter terrible war were still good in space!
LOL@ "initially designed" by Germans....yes, and the Saturn V was designed completely by one man, all by himself, and no Americans were involved, typical russian fuckshit claims. .
@crazy3641 It's called radiation shielding, and a short exposure length, not like they spent days in what is a considerably narrow band of radiation. Also high radiation does not mean deadly it just mean more concentrated relative to the area around it. I really hope you were not trying to imply that the apollo missions did not go to the moon.
So secretly done they launched at night for both reasons: to conseal any development they may had at the time and to prevent the world to see any possible accident that could arise during the risky launch. In other words, it was a looooooong shot in case the numbers and the sheer luck could have favored the into landing a hit when everybody was specting the mother of all space triumphs with the US moon landing. It was like "lets crash their party with this media bomb".
@pixelsilva They didn´t launch at night to conceal the rocket. First of all the rocket was on the launch pad for weeks prior to launch so it couldn´t have been hidden. Second, a rocket launch is pretty bright so it is impossible to hide at night. Third, the launch times were dictated by orbital considerations regarding the moon and the test payload. Off course, in keeping with Soviet tradition, as soon as the test (all of them) failed they denied everything.
@dhbiza :/ they will in like 2015 or something lol just one mistake either it will explode on the ground or loose contact and just float away in space
@TheUnPlayable meh Russia went to space first so it beats going to the moon..if you cant go to space you cant go to the moon but i gotta admit going on the moon is fun
@thekorgboy98 "if we don't go to another planet soon everybody on earth will be standing shoulder to shoulder."
Nonsense. Everyone on earth could be put into an area the size of Texas with room to spare yet. Then, you can exponentially increase capacity by building multi-story apartments, or underground living complexes. Factor in people's reproduction habits (smaller families, birth control, etc) and you have nothing to worry about regarding number of people anytime soon.
@Membrane556 Nope. The human factor is what will prevent it from ever happening. Look at what happens at winter-overs in Antarctica, and that is ioly 3 months. Imagine a 3 year round trip flight. it will NEVER happen. Better to spend the money on the Lunar missions.
@Membrane556 do you know how to keep multiple astronauts healthy and sane for 3 years? do you know how to keep them from losing enough bone that when they step onto mars they break their leg? if you do, please tell NASA.
@Membrane556 it takes about 8 months to get to mars. do your research please. and ok 3 years is probably a stretch, but the mission would still take a very long time, definitly over a year, unless you hitch a ride on the millennium falcon. combined zero g time would also, be about 14-16 months, and im aware of the record breaking stay, which is still not longer than what it would take to get to mars. and remember, he was sent regular supplies, unless we devise a system of supply stops along
@velocity896 the way to mars. also, its a lot easier to go "crazy" when you are 35 million miles away from home. EDIT from my last post, his stay might be on par with the inbound and outbound trips, depending on how long it takes.
I did my home work the numbers are from real mission studies.
The long stay are from the Mars DRA 5.0 study.
The short stay mission is from the 1987 Ride report by Sally Ride.
You don't send the crew on a Hohman trajectory as it would put 4 extra months of zero g time on them and increases the mass of the MTV instead you use a 5 to 6 month sprint trajectory.
As for supplies you just send them ahead of time before the crew is sent.
Mars Direct does this with the habitation module and ERV.
ya americunt asses never went to the moon, how i allready said. its just a big fucking americunt lie! u even couldnt proove u have original PROBES OF MOON GROUND! stupid yank assholes!
and whenever your doing something as crazy as trying to launch a rocket into space, something is bound to happen sooner or later.
afterall it is just a device that a bunch of humans made. and we mess up all the time, hell watch the road in front of you next time you drive your car and you'll see boundless examples of humans making errors while piloting something
It's a shame the Soviets never made it to the moon. Their data would have been that much more we know about our solar system, planet and it's neighbor.
The soviets were all bastards i tell u they made nothing but useless bullshit, launched a frickin pooch in space only 2 find out that they cooked it because that ship's AC didn't work >_<, Secondly the inventor of sputnik was had the brain the size of a protozoan.
The Soviet lunar program was a failure. Though the lunar lander module worked well, the launch vehicle never did. And so it was wise of them to put all their resources on the Soyuz space stations, which were very successful. I'm certainly no friend of the Soviet system, but there was nothing wrong with their space scientists.
@cannedboyz actually the soviets had many smaller space stations before MIR. there was Salyut back in the 70s/80s and before that was a heard of almaz military space stations. These were more single use experimental labs in orbit. Skylab was way bigger than all these except MIR.
The Soviet lunar program was a failure. Though the lunar lander module worked, the launch vehicle never did. And so it was wise of them to put al their efforts on the Soyuz space station which was very successful, and interplanetary space probe exploration programs for Venus and Mars.
@MowgliX I'm pretty sure that the Soyuz capsule -- a version of which is still in use today -- was developed for their lunar program. They've flown many of them with a pretty good safety record compared to the Shuttle.
I hardly consider that a failure, even though they never did send a man to the moon.
@disorganizedorg And I agree: it wasn't a failure. It's just that the Americans got to the moon before the Soyuz was ready to go. And the Russians kept working on it, despite the political climate in that country at the time, and built a space station that was far greater than Spacelab. There is some pretty interesting stuff over at Wikipedia: do a search for Soviet Moonshot and Soyuz 7K-L3!
@MowgliX The N1 was underfunded, underdeveloped, and rushed together. Had they started development in '61 like with the Saturn Korolev could have made it work.
@tlages unlikely. There was bigger problems. If they followed the clustering of the R7 they may have made it. But they just didnt use Liquid H2 engines and that was the biggest problem. Alcohol fueled upperstages would never lift enough mass to the moon. The N1 even if it worked would probably never have lifted a meaningful lander. They had an uprated N1 in 73 to do the job, but the whole program got pulled then.
@disorganizedorg actually the russians have lost two manned soyuz missions, the same number as the shuttle. The difference is the soyuz in question was carrying one man the first time and 3 the second time. The Shuttle was carrying 7 each time. There have also been some very narrow calls with soyuz as well, some in the last few years. In one they had to abort on the pad when it all caught on fire. The second was where the launch screwed up and the crew almost wound up in china instead in the 70s
@DumbYankies All very true, but I think that the sheer number of Soyuz launches (over 200?) compared to the 130-odd Shuttle launches says much. Your point about close calls is spot-on, but we had a number too -- once or twice SSME shutdowns on the pad, and one in-flight SSME failure with an abort to orbit (STS-82? something like that). Not to mention both Apollo 12 (lightning strikes during ascent) and Apollo 13 (SM LOX tank explosion).
I don't think the US ever had to use an escape tower tho.
@disorganizedorg ... and there was Apollo 1 fire on the pad. But there was some cosmonaut early on (pre-soyuz) who was killed in pure oxygen fire as well! A bigger scary moment was actually in I think it was apollo 15 or 16. After LM has undocked for descent, houston found the SPS (main engine on the CSM) was going haywire. They held of the landing for several orbits to get it fixed, and eventually brought the return forward. If it had gone mad during the burn, fini. Almost unknown though...
@DumbYankies Absolutely. Not to mention the T-38 crash at Lambert Field that took out See and Bassett. and I think there were a few other training fatalities, both aircraft related and not. It comes down to where you draw the line in calling a fatality "spaceflight related"
@disorganizedorg yep but i think all up the shuttle has taken way way more folks into space than all of soyuz (and I think everything else) combined. At 7 folks at a go and also very few russian launches in 90's i think the total number of folks lifted is still way on the shuttle side of the ledger. Soyuz will now slowly catch up i guess. Pity they never built the MD passenger module for the shuttle to take up 40+ people at a time! was a design in the mid 70s.
@youngdones Because Americans were on real testing not race, they build Gemini to test further expansion and development of moon capable capsule, while soviets were pimping and recycling items from vostok program to voskhod. In that way Soviet space program was cheaper and faster, but with little future prospect .Saturn was outcome of Gemini.Saturn was not working 100 percent, one burned on ground another one did not managed to deliver payload, thought it was recovered.
@youngdones Depends on what you mean by spotless. None ever killed a crew in flight, and the Apollo 1 tragedy wasn't the Saturn launch vehicle, it was the Command Module. Not that Saturn V performance was flawless; there was a case where two of the J-2's on the S-II stage shut down prematurely, and I think something similar happened with an F-1 on the first stage. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and the IU went haywire for a time, IIRC. Apollo 13 was the Service Module, not the launch vehicle.
@Tundraboy05 you do both, you ignite them. have you ever seen the videos of the space shuttles main engines igniting? they throw sparks into the mixture of gas that comes out of the nozzle. You cant just start a rocket engine like a car, you might be able to restart it after a few seconds of being shut down, but generally you need a seperate ignition source every time you start it.
@Adrenalin844 Idiotic would be a wrong term, Soviet was leading the entire space till America got the first man on the moon, they put more money into the space program and had better results allway through, the only large failure was in the N1 rocket.
USA had many, and I mean many failed launches compared to Soviet, prior to the Apollo program.
It's just luck that the Western world took over by the end of the space race.
@Adrenalin844 Soviet put way more money into the projects too, lol. America only made small ballistic missiles in the beginning, soviet started to design transpacific missiles as early as 1952, the same rocket that carried the first, satellite, animal and human into space.
@BrooneyH2V seems like USA and Russia are always fighting, even if not in a physical war, warring for who-is-the-smartest way. As much as i know America is currently winning with warfare technology and space travel.
@youngdones In this case it is rocket science LOL. But both sides had a lot of rockets explode on take off, U.S. actually had more then they did, we just had more of them to use.
@youngdones If you look at the N1, it had a total of 30 rocket engines that each required separate fuel feeding, these fuel systems were fragile and prone to error. Also, the N1 had to be disassembled for transport and reassembled at the site before take-off, making it hard to seal the sections together properly and prevent destructive vibrations during flight.
@NeuesZiel even the Saturn V was prone to those vibrations they are known as pogo oscillation which was responsible for the shutdown of engine #5 of apollo 13 and was also resposible for several other US launch explosions
@youngdones they build this monster rocket out of the design of much smaller rockets. so instead of designing one big system like the american rockets, they put like 30 small rockets in there - and if just one failed, the complete system exploded!
@youngdones There were rocket explosions on both sides, but yeah, the Soviets had the lead on that.
The N1 rocket was horrible. This may have been because it wasn't given the time to be properly designed or tested, because too many competent people had been shoved aside or incinerated, or because it was a dud to begin with. See those thirty engines? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong. Saturn V had 5.
Some rockets are exploded deliberately if they're off-course and may hit someone.
I couldn't agree more. I think the problem lay in them going cheap and fishing for engines in the parts bin instead of investing in fewer (i.e. less plumbing nightmares) but more powerful engines. Enough problems were experienced using just five F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V so with thirty on the first stage of the N1, the Soviets were asking for a disaster.
@Kizor a number of problems with the N1 were due to problems with design but a major problem is that the head designer died in 1966 (the design process began in 1965) and a lot of the issues were due to design oversight or things that had not been accounted for yet (such as pogo oscillation a problem that lead to the burnout of the #5 engine of Apollo 13) the design was plagued with problems and flawed from the start but the engines are licensed for production by Areojet due to how sturdy they r
Actually, the Soviet program was not doomed by Korolev's death but by the Soviet leadership and Korolev's engine designer, Valentin Glushko. He was the best rocket engine designer in the entire country, but he had an argument with Korolev over whether to use cyrogenic or hypergolic fuel and refused to design the engines for the N-1. And the Soviet leadership didn't provide enough funds, which meant that the engines couldn't be tested properly.
@Kizor yes the rocket was horrible because the soviets lacked the complex high-speed control system needed
to control the fuel-oxidizer balance to each engine. The N1's engines were marvels of engineering because lb 4 lb , they had a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F1's on Sat V. Sealaunch uses an update version of N1's in their launch packages.
@rawhemi You fucking Brits are just jealous that the USA is better than you in every way nowadays. You aren't the glorious empire covering 25% of the Earth's landmass now, you're nothing but a pathetic waste of space.
@LiNaK37 LOL. Still can't tell us why communism is a bad thing? I didn't think so. Childish idiot. Your country isn't so great either though is it? Moron. China is becoming far stronger than the US, how does it feel to be inferior?
@rawhemi you think communism's a good thing?!?!? wow. way to not be a student of recent economic and sociopolitical history. if you don't know why communism's a bad thing, it's just cuz you hide your head in the sand and refuse to hear the truth, because it's pretty much a consensus among experts that communism as an economic (and political!) system is woefully inadequate compared to free markets.
China is a disaster waiting to happen, that's all i'll say about that.
In Soviet Russia, rocket explodes you!
MrBennetzen 2 days ago
clearly, they didnt have enough duct tape to sustain the launch
GenericAsianBoyLTD 6 days ago 2
Dumbass russians....
BeatlesAnthology 1 week ago
Nyet, Rocket make boomski.
Bellerspitts 2 weeks ago
Just a few more years of engineering and that thing could of been perfect..
SomeoneNamedChipy 2 weeks ago
another russian success!..with the language they spoke is understandably...
TheGratziani 2 weeks ago
Hmmm, no Black Ops jokes here? Better fix that, THE NUMBERS MASON!!
Raven0051 1 month ago
@Raven0051 Fucking retard.
Brogers28x 4 weeks ago
@Brogers28x WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!?!
Raven0051 4 weeks ago
in Soviet Russia, rocket lifts on.
ThomasHaberkorn 1 month ago
Comment removed
Aradian6 1 month ago
The next will be chinese...
sdcarloseduardo 1 month ago
this rocket's engines RD 180 are now used on Atlas V,the engines are famous
TheHotelMoxa 1 month ago
@TheHotelMoxa
You wrong, RD-180 based on RD-170 from Energia rocket. In N1 used NK-33 engines. Some of thems was sold to Aerojet and then renames into Aerojet AJ26s
aimmlegate 2 weeks ago
F.or you all - you'll be surprised,but don't you know that the First Man in Space was,....was,.....was,-oh,yeah!! - Russian ! Right! FYA ))))))))))))))
LaVadoRos1 1 month ago
@LaVadoRos1 I'm in the US (Illinois) -- I know it was Yuri Gagarin and he WAS absolutely BAD ASS! Plenty of people in the US know about him.
ChristopherSaindon 1 month ago
Launch at night so you can see the EXPLOSION better
matrix49A 1 month ago
the thing ran on kerosene, what did you expect?
CREGGYAS 1 month ago
@CREGGYAS, the first stage of the Saturn 5 ran on RP-1, which is nothing more than refined Kerosene. The Russian versions of rocket grade kerosene are extremely similar, just slightly denser
jeffdlittle2 1 month ago
@CREGGYAS Saturn first stage was Kerosine / LOX what is your point?
acerkiwi 6 days ago
pasiviheraho
Lohkoperuna1 2 months ago 6
if successful they would have beaten the Americans to the moon?
pcvideogamer 2 months ago
@pcvideogamer actually they started this to compete with President Kennedy's goal, so they were both set for the same time period. America just got it right first and the n1 was a spectacular failure
CREGGYAS 1 month ago
yea,but it's better than this kulu would were falling on to america ))))) check this
LaVadoRos1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
RhythmTruth 2 months ago
Communist made junk
cbohar84 2 months ago
@cbohar84 now google RD-180, all the US rockets couldn't lift off without Russian made parts (ROFL)
foxsux6000 2 months ago
@foxsux6000
That's because we now got the Russians working cheap for us.
Blahblobify 2 months ago
in soviet russia rocket launches you
surfthecentre 2 months ago
The scientists probably cried then were killed.
atariman72 2 months ago
Best looking rocket of all time, no doubt.
Fantomas24ARM 2 months ago
goodammit..there are some ignorant americans here, usually y'all smart..did you know that the family of rockets Saturn were initially designed and built by German Rocket Engineers..and thats why americans are so dangerous...cuz they just dont know shit...rocket built by germans but it says USA on the rocket...pretty smart:) Love USA..peace to all ignorants out there. is there sth that y'all built not involving foreign specialists? but USSR aftter terrible war were still good in space!
MyGrancanaria 2 months ago
@MyGrancanaria
LOL@ "initially designed" by Germans....yes, and the Saturn V was designed completely by one man, all by himself, and no Americans were involved, typical russian fuckshit claims. .
Blahblobify 2 months ago
'
i like american saturn V rocket is the best great wonderful rocket than ussr russia N1
bestamerica 2 months ago
How did the apollo manned missions get passed the van Allen belts?
crazy3641 3 months ago
@crazy3641 It's called radiation shielding, and a short exposure length, not like they spent days in what is a considerably narrow band of radiation. Also high radiation does not mean deadly it just mean more concentrated relative to the area around it. I really hope you were not trying to imply that the apollo missions did not go to the moon.
drew213213 2 months ago
in soviet russia, rocket launch you
Erik0072 3 months ago
That is one big mother fucking rocket.
NotSoOldHippy 3 months ago
@ProjectAnnihilation There were no cosmonauts aboard. The rocket was under remote control.
Rarius 3 months ago
@cooi1001
You are a retard. Would you say that if your brother/son/dad was on that rocket?
No.
So respect the dead.
ProjectAnnihalation 3 months ago
5 kilotons explosive power 1/3 of Hiroshima
aleks070777 3 months ago
ach du scheisse
acrulex 3 months ago
don't ply with fire you will pee in your bed
eb62224 3 months ago
omnipotent bertha, anyone?
ghostalin 3 months ago
They put too much Vodka in that Rocket
Cooi1001 3 months ago 30
@Cooi1001
better so than never went to moon. yes americunts never went there :)) just a big fucking lie.
look at moon landing videos, they all are faked by hollywood.
and btw. u can read Bill Kaysing - "We never went to the moon" stupid americunt vasall!
Russia2010 3 months ago
@Russia2010 -- If you're going to make a point, you'll need to do better than whining like a 6-year-old.
And the only people who could possibly believe Bill Kaysing are those who can't do simple arithmetic and who know nothing at all about space.
His "blast crater" argument is a joke. And to prove it, you only need to know 7th grade geometry and be able to divide.
And "there should be dust on the LM's foot pads"?? No. There's no way there could be. I'll leave you to figure that out, too.
prosperomage 3 months ago
@Cooi1001I believe that vodka is a quite good propellant, with an oxygen as oxidizer of course.
gray272705 3 months ago
@Cooi1001 You vulgarian...
Bruno47602 2 months ago
@Cooi1001 You put too many Capitalized words in that Sentence.
meiaxx 1 month ago
Soviet N1 rockets are same purpose as US Saturn V, both are moon rockets but Saturn V never fail and to be the greatest rocket to me.
dvh065 3 months ago
miniaturized BIG BANG!!!
kuki5050 4 months ago
Mexican space flight?
fuck it just build it out of wood and strong glass
mercanaries3 4 months ago
@mercanaries3
What's all these anti-mexican comments i read everyday?
What's going on over the pond?
bertyUK 4 months ago
@bertyUK
have you been to the part of Mexico where it is just to the point of "wanting to kill everyone"???
god its filled with a bucnh of retarded imbreds who cant keep track of society
mercanaries3 4 months ago
So secretly done they launched at night for both reasons: to conseal any development they may had at the time and to prevent the world to see any possible accident that could arise during the risky launch. In other words, it was a looooooong shot in case the numbers and the sheer luck could have favored the into landing a hit when everybody was specting the mother of all space triumphs with the US moon landing. It was like "lets crash their party with this media bomb".
pixelsilva 4 months ago
@pixelsilva They didn´t launch at night to conceal the rocket. First of all the rocket was on the launch pad for weeks prior to launch so it couldn´t have been hidden. Second, a rocket launch is pretty bright so it is impossible to hide at night. Third, the launch times were dictated by orbital considerations regarding the moon and the test payload. Off course, in keeping with Soviet tradition, as soon as the test (all of them) failed they denied everything.
schr75 3 months ago
POYEHALI!
(not quite)
monsterzeroJr 4 months ago
I heard this was the most powerful machine man has ever built regardless of its success.
drchen054 4 months ago
they tried to steal the saturn lol
MrTitanicfanatic2 4 months ago
@velocity896 It is 4-6 months.
Scruceful 4 months ago
I give respect to the engineers, and technicians that worked for the name of science. In my perspective, I have to thank them.
But, HAHA.
sudoLinux666 4 months ago
Good job woods and mason
Untchabll 5 months ago 9
Wow..they sucked...
CamiloSanchez1979 5 months ago
ice cream cone...
yasu3japan 5 months ago
up it goe.... down it comes....
lexichronicle2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOLY FUCKING CHRIST
1Nekit1 5 months ago
this video have bad graph/cuality (sorry i don't know the words because i from indonesia)
12zaim 5 months ago
@12zaim itu pake bahasa russia, wajar aja elu gak ngerti
declaration963 5 months ago
the launch looks like a fucking clay mation
shipwreck911 5 months ago
HAHAHA WE won the moon race!!!! USA #1
dhbiza 5 months ago
@dhbiza you gonna loose the mars race HAHAHA
pnitro3 5 months ago
@pnitro3 mark my words. NO ONE will go to mars.
dhbiza 5 months ago
@dhbiza :/ they will in like 2015 or something lol just one mistake either it will explode on the ground or loose contact and just float away in space
pnitro3 5 months ago
@pnitro3 2015 ? LOL you're funny... Not before 2050 dude... And it will be the chinese not the american or russian.
TheUnPlayable 5 months ago
@TheUnPlayable meh Russia went to space first so it beats going to the moon..if you cant go to space you cant go to the moon but i gotta admit going on the moon is fun
pnitro3 5 months ago
@pnitro3 this is an epic fail of a post...mars is like 2030+, moon is supposed to be 10 years away
velocity896 4 months ago
@dhbiza if we don't go to another planet soon everybody on earth will be standing shoulder to shoulder.
thekorgboy98 5 months ago
@thekorgboy98
The biosphere would collapse long before human populations even reach suburban densities globally.
Membrane556 5 months ago
@thekorgboy98 "if we don't go to another planet soon everybody on earth will be standing shoulder to shoulder."
Nonsense. Everyone on earth could be put into an area the size of Texas with room to spare yet. Then, you can exponentially increase capacity by building multi-story apartments, or underground living complexes. Factor in people's reproduction habits (smaller families, birth control, etc) and you have nothing to worry about regarding number of people anytime soon.
cadmus98 5 months ago
@dhbiza
Going to Mars today would be far easier then going to the moon was in 1961.
All the technology needed to not only go to Mars but colonize it already exists funding is the only obstacle.
Membrane556 5 months ago
@Membrane556 Nope. The human factor is what will prevent it from ever happening. Look at what happens at winter-overs in Antarctica, and that is ioly 3 months. Imagine a 3 year round trip flight. it will NEVER happen. Better to spend the money on the Lunar missions.
dhbiza 5 months ago
@Membrane556 do you know how to keep multiple astronauts healthy and sane for 3 years? do you know how to keep them from losing enough bone that when they step onto mars they break their leg? if you do, please tell NASA.
velocity896 4 months ago
@velocity896
It does not take 3 years to get to Mars it only takes four to six months.
Round trip is 2.5 years if you spend 500 days on Mars this type of mission still keeps the zero g time under 6 months at a stretch.
A short stay sprint class mission can be done in 12 to 14 months round trip but only gives you just about a month to explore Mars.
Valeri Polyakov spent 437 days in space which is longer then the inbound and out bound legs of a Mars mission.
Membrane556 4 months ago
@Membrane556 it takes about 8 months to get to mars. do your research please. and ok 3 years is probably a stretch, but the mission would still take a very long time, definitly over a year, unless you hitch a ride on the millennium falcon. combined zero g time would also, be about 14-16 months, and im aware of the record breaking stay, which is still not longer than what it would take to get to mars. and remember, he was sent regular supplies, unless we devise a system of supply stops along
velocity896 4 months ago
@velocity896 the way to mars. also, its a lot easier to go "crazy" when you are 35 million miles away from home. EDIT from my last post, his stay might be on par with the inbound and outbound trips, depending on how long it takes.
velocity896 4 months ago
Comment removed
Membrane556 4 months ago
I did my home work the numbers are from real mission studies.
The long stay are from the Mars DRA 5.0 study.
The short stay mission is from the 1987 Ride report by Sally Ride.
You don't send the crew on a Hohman trajectory as it would put 4 extra months of zero g time on them and increases the mass of the MTV instead you use a 5 to 6 month sprint trajectory.
As for supplies you just send them ahead of time before the crew is sent.
Mars Direct does this with the habitation module and ERV.
Membrane556 4 months ago
@Membrane556 -- We have the technology to colonize Mars?
Um ... I'm not sure about that.
Do we even have the technology to land on the thing?
The moon is a hell of a lot easier than Mars.
prosperomage 3 months ago
@prosperomage
ya americunt asses never went to the moon, how i allready said. its just a big fucking americunt lie! u even couldnt proove u have original PROBES OF MOON GROUND! stupid yank assholes!
Russia2010 3 months ago
Moscow, we have a problem.
decemberdazzle 5 months ago
CIA
WELLBRAN 6 months ago
asencion
hazael222 6 months ago
errm now what
PerryStJean 6 months ago
omg too many noobs added TNT to the exploding N-1 rocket
stellaruniversexmpls 6 months ago
Oh snap.
baoap 6 months ago
Um, i think they used more fuel than they needed.
LegoMovieMan44 6 months ago
jesus christ i bet that was loud.
and whenever your doing something as crazy as trying to launch a rocket into space, something is bound to happen sooner or later.
afterall it is just a device that a bunch of humans made. and we mess up all the time, hell watch the road in front of you next time you drive your car and you'll see boundless examples of humans making errors while piloting something
ganymedeIV4 6 months ago
kaboomski, now which general gets the firing squad for this event
datzfast 7 months ago
people, quality over quantity...or both at the same time.
dahousebeats 7 months ago
It's a shame the Soviets never made it to the moon. Their data would have been that much more we know about our solar system, planet and it's neighbor.
flybywire09 7 months ago
@flybywire09 kinda but america got alot of information on its apollo missions
liamthespaceman 7 months ago
Man and it looked so badass!
Ironside451 7 months ago
The soviets were all bastards i tell u they made nothing but useless bullshit, launched a frickin pooch in space only 2 find out that they cooked it because that ship's AC didn't work >_<, Secondly the inventor of sputnik was had the brain the size of a protozoan.
kontrahylian 7 months ago
@kontrahylian try making air conditioning work in outer space...then come back and criticize them.
velocity896 4 months ago
The Soviet lunar program was a failure. Though the lunar lander module worked well, the launch vehicle never did. And so it was wise of them to put all their resources on the Soyuz space stations, which were very successful. I'm certainly no friend of the Soviet system, but there was nothing wrong with their space scientists.
MowgliX 7 months ago
@MowgliX The Soyuz is not a space station, it is a shuttle.
And the soviets only had one space station: MIR
cannedboyz 7 months ago
@cannedboyz Right you are! Remember when the Soyuz docked with an Apollo?
MowgliX 7 months ago
@cannedboyz actually the soviets had many smaller space stations before MIR. there was Salyut back in the 70s/80s and before that was a heard of almaz military space stations. These were more single use experimental labs in orbit. Skylab was way bigger than all these except MIR.
DumbYankies 7 months ago
@cannedboyz I guess you could call the soyuz a shuttle, but it looks kinda like the apollo LM and CM docked together...
velocity896 4 months ago
The Soviet lunar program was a failure. Though the lunar lander module worked, the launch vehicle never did. And so it was wise of them to put al their efforts on the Soyuz space station which was very successful, and interplanetary space probe exploration programs for Venus and Mars.
MowgliX 7 months ago
@MowgliX I'm pretty sure that the Soyuz capsule -- a version of which is still in use today -- was developed for their lunar program. They've flown many of them with a pretty good safety record compared to the Shuttle.
I hardly consider that a failure, even though they never did send a man to the moon.
disorganizedorg 7 months ago
@disorganizedorg And I agree: it wasn't a failure. It's just that the Americans got to the moon before the Soyuz was ready to go. And the Russians kept working on it, despite the political climate in that country at the time, and built a space station that was far greater than Spacelab. There is some pretty interesting stuff over at Wikipedia: do a search for Soviet Moonshot and Soyuz 7K-L3!
MowgliX 7 months ago
@MowgliX The N1 was underfunded, underdeveloped, and rushed together. Had they started development in '61 like with the Saturn Korolev could have made it work.
tlages 7 months ago
@tlages unlikely. There was bigger problems. If they followed the clustering of the R7 they may have made it. But they just didnt use Liquid H2 engines and that was the biggest problem. Alcohol fueled upperstages would never lift enough mass to the moon. The N1 even if it worked would probably never have lifted a meaningful lander. They had an uprated N1 in 73 to do the job, but the whole program got pulled then.
DumbYankies 7 months ago
@disorganizedorg actually the russians have lost two manned soyuz missions, the same number as the shuttle. The difference is the soyuz in question was carrying one man the first time and 3 the second time. The Shuttle was carrying 7 each time. There have also been some very narrow calls with soyuz as well, some in the last few years. In one they had to abort on the pad when it all caught on fire. The second was where the launch screwed up and the crew almost wound up in china instead in the 70s
DumbYankies 7 months ago
@DumbYankies All very true, but I think that the sheer number of Soyuz launches (over 200?) compared to the 130-odd Shuttle launches says much. Your point about close calls is spot-on, but we had a number too -- once or twice SSME shutdowns on the pad, and one in-flight SSME failure with an abort to orbit (STS-82? something like that). Not to mention both Apollo 12 (lightning strikes during ascent) and Apollo 13 (SM LOX tank explosion).
I don't think the US ever had to use an escape tower tho.
disorganizedorg 7 months ago
@disorganizedorg ... and there was Apollo 1 fire on the pad. But there was some cosmonaut early on (pre-soyuz) who was killed in pure oxygen fire as well! A bigger scary moment was actually in I think it was apollo 15 or 16. After LM has undocked for descent, houston found the SPS (main engine on the CSM) was going haywire. They held of the landing for several orbits to get it fixed, and eventually brought the return forward. If it had gone mad during the burn, fini. Almost unknown though...
DumbYankies 7 months ago
@DumbYankies Absolutely. Not to mention the T-38 crash at Lambert Field that took out See and Bassett. and I think there were a few other training fatalities, both aircraft related and not. It comes down to where you draw the line in calling a fatality "spaceflight related"
disorganizedorg 7 months ago
@disorganizedorg yep but i think all up the shuttle has taken way way more folks into space than all of soyuz (and I think everything else) combined. At 7 folks at a go and also very few russian launches in 90's i think the total number of folks lifted is still way on the shuttle side of the ledger. Soyuz will now slowly catch up i guess. Pity they never built the MD passenger module for the shuttle to take up 40+ people at a time! was a design in the mid 70s.
DumbYankies 2 months ago
@DumbYankies you gotta remember, the soyuz was also around quite a bit longer than the space shuttle
velocity896 4 months ago
Байконур у нас есть проблемы.
Baïkonour, we've got a problem.
Rosapilin 7 months ago 5
Reznov didnt approve
TheKoolvid 8 months ago
they can make nuclear bombs like no one else but the fail on this lol
mxmemx 8 months ago
too much vodka.
EndeavourLaunch 8 months ago 2
in soviet rocket, BOOM goes you :3
alex507123 8 months ago
If this test had been a success, they might have actually tried to send Alexei Leonov to the moon in one!
TheFunkadelicFan 8 months ago
Which one of the American-made "Saturn" series rockets had a 100% spotless track record?
youngdones 8 months ago
@youngdones Because Americans were on real testing not race, they build Gemini to test further expansion and development of moon capable capsule, while soviets were pimping and recycling items from vostok program to voskhod. In that way Soviet space program was cheaper and faster, but with little future prospect .Saturn was outcome of Gemini.Saturn was not working 100 percent, one burned on ground another one did not managed to deliver payload, thought it was recovered.
chronius9 8 months ago
@youngdones Depends on what you mean by spotless. None ever killed a crew in flight, and the Apollo 1 tragedy wasn't the Saturn launch vehicle, it was the Command Module. Not that Saturn V performance was flawless; there was a case where two of the J-2's on the S-II stage shut down prematurely, and I think something similar happened with an F-1 on the first stage. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and the IU went haywire for a time, IIRC. Apollo 13 was the Service Module, not the launch vehicle.
disorganizedorg 7 months ago
The N1 has 30 first stage engines they're trying to light them all simotaniausly
without a BOOOOMMMM!
SilverRedix1 8 months ago
@SilverRedix1 you don't 'light' engines, you 'start' them.
and it's 'simultaneously.'
Tundraboy05 8 months ago
@Tundraboy05 you do both, you ignite them. have you ever seen the videos of the space shuttles main engines igniting? they throw sparks into the mixture of gas that comes out of the nozzle. You cant just start a rocket engine like a car, you might be able to restart it after a few seconds of being shut down, but generally you need a seperate ignition source every time you start it.
velocity896 4 months ago
@velocity896 What comment did I post?
FullofFocus 4 months ago
@FullofFocus what are you talking about..
velocity896 4 months ago
@BrooneyH2V But do we know forsure the extent of their rocket failures?
janmadytay 8 months ago
Communists fail! Again! I'm so happy my country and people stood up all together and broke out of those idiotic imperialists soviets
Adrenalin844 8 months ago
@Adrenalin844 Idiotic would be a wrong term, Soviet was leading the entire space till America got the first man on the moon, they put more money into the space program and had better results allway through, the only large failure was in the N1 rocket.
USA had many, and I mean many failed launches compared to Soviet, prior to the Apollo program.
It's just luck that the Western world took over by the end of the space race.
BrooneyH2V 8 months ago
@BrooneyH2V It's not luck, it's all money
Adrenalin844 8 months ago
@Adrenalin844 Soviet put way more money into the projects too, lol. America only made small ballistic missiles in the beginning, soviet started to design transpacific missiles as early as 1952, the same rocket that carried the first, satellite, animal and human into space.
BrooneyH2V 8 months ago
@BrooneyH2V seems like USA and Russia are always fighting, even if not in a physical war, warring for who-is-the-smartest way. As much as i know America is currently winning with warfare technology and space travel.
Adrenalin844 8 months ago
@BrooneyH2V So what was on board said N1 moon rocket??
carmium 8 months ago
@carmium uh...i dont think anything, it was a test...you test motors out before putting them into cars amiright?
velocity896 4 months ago
The engines themselves were good on the N1. The problem was with its plumbing. They did not have the money needed get to work out the bugs.
ti994apc 8 months ago
if they only had tested the first stage they could have beat us to the moon...
pyromcr 8 months ago
Russias rocketshave always suck.
metallica0822 9 months ago
Why did so many Russian rockets explode shortly after takeoff?
youngdones 9 months ago
@youngdones In this case it is rocket science LOL. But both sides had a lot of rockets explode on take off, U.S. actually had more then they did, we just had more of them to use.
candr 9 months ago
@youngdones If you look at the N1, it had a total of 30 rocket engines that each required separate fuel feeding, these fuel systems were fragile and prone to error. Also, the N1 had to be disassembled for transport and reassembled at the site before take-off, making it hard to seal the sections together properly and prevent destructive vibrations during flight.
NeuesZiel 8 months ago in playlist Videos
@NeuesZiel even the Saturn V was prone to those vibrations they are known as pogo oscillation which was responsible for the shutdown of engine #5 of apollo 13 and was also resposible for several other US launch explosions
TheKillerkille 5 months ago
@youngdones they build this monster rocket out of the design of much smaller rockets. so instead of designing one big system like the american rockets, they put like 30 small rockets in there - and if just one failed, the complete system exploded!
Wolf9656 8 months ago
@youngdones
wrong fuel
arno1333 8 months ago
@youngdones
wrong
Soyuz is the most reliable launch system in the WORLD. and its russian.
psq007 8 months ago
@youngdones There were rocket explosions on both sides, but yeah, the Soviets had the lead on that.
The N1 rocket was horrible. This may have been because it wasn't given the time to be properly designed or tested, because too many competent people had been shoved aside or incinerated, or because it was a dud to begin with. See those thirty engines? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong. Saturn V had 5.
Some rockets are exploded deliberately if they're off-course and may hit someone.
Kizor 8 months ago 10
@Kizor
I couldn't agree more. I think the problem lay in them going cheap and fishing for engines in the parts bin instead of investing in fewer (i.e. less plumbing nightmares) but more powerful engines. Enough problems were experienced using just five F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V so with thirty on the first stage of the N1, the Soviets were asking for a disaster.
GetOverHere83 8 months ago
@Kizor a number of problems with the N1 were due to problems with design but a major problem is that the head designer died in 1966 (the design process began in 1965) and a lot of the issues were due to design oversight or things that had not been accounted for yet (such as pogo oscillation a problem that lead to the burnout of the #5 engine of Apollo 13) the design was plagued with problems and flawed from the start but the engines are licensed for production by Areojet due to how sturdy they r
TheKillerkille 5 months ago
@Kizor If Korolev would have been alive this wouldn't have happened.
luiskov 4 months ago
@luiskov
Actually, the Soviet program was not doomed by Korolev's death but by the Soviet leadership and Korolev's engine designer, Valentin Glushko. He was the best rocket engine designer in the entire country, but he had an argument with Korolev over whether to use cyrogenic or hypergolic fuel and refused to design the engines for the N-1. And the Soviet leadership didn't provide enough funds, which meant that the engines couldn't be tested properly.
EEEL123 4 months ago
@Kizor yes the rocket was horrible because the soviets lacked the complex high-speed control system needed
to control the fuel-oxidizer balance to each engine. The N1's engines were marvels of engineering because lb 4 lb , they had a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F1's on Sat V. Sealaunch uses an update version of N1's in their launch packages.
revcletis 4 months ago
@youngdones US sabotage :P
itisme235 8 months ago 45
@itisme235 US Bastars ... Russian are first in Moon
Alexei55555 8 months ago
@itisme235 Russian engineering.
SCE2AUX 5 months ago
Those fucking Russian commies deserved it.
LiNaK37 9 months ago
@LiNaK37 they deserve it for not raping and eradicating the whole american nation.. ,yet it is close..
meglorious1 9 months ago
@meglorious1 Lol, like Russia could even dream of taking out the U.S.A.
LiNaK37 9 months ago
@LiNaK37 You're an idiot. I bet you don't even know what communism is. Typical ignorant American.
rawhemi 9 months ago
@rawhemi You fucking Brits are just jealous that the USA is better than you in every way nowadays. You aren't the glorious empire covering 25% of the Earth's landmass now, you're nothing but a pathetic waste of space.
LiNaK37 9 months ago
@LiNaK37 LOL. Still can't tell us why communism is a bad thing? I didn't think so. Childish idiot. Your country isn't so great either though is it? Moron. China is becoming far stronger than the US, how does it feel to be inferior?
rawhemi 9 months ago
@rawhemi you think communism's a good thing?!?!? wow. way to not be a student of recent economic and sociopolitical history. if you don't know why communism's a bad thing, it's just cuz you hide your head in the sand and refuse to hear the truth, because it's pretty much a consensus among experts that communism as an economic (and political!) system is woefully inadequate compared to free markets.
China is a disaster waiting to happen, that's all i'll say about that.
oldfrend 9 months ago
@rawhemi Pffft fuck those Chinks one of our soldiers could take out a battalion of those gook fuckers.
LiNaK37 9 months ago
this thing could probably take out the death star
contractki11er 9 months ago
@contractki11er
meh........it was smaller than the Saturn V and every time they launched one it blew up, so this rocket is nothing to brag about.
TheJomogogo 9 months ago
@TheJomogogo haha, I know, just looks like it though
contractki11er 9 months ago
Silly Russians! The moon is for UHMAREIKUH!
Roflzmahwoflz 9 months ago
No it was a test rocket with no one in it
TheFunnelcakeman 10 months ago
@TheFunnelcakeman Say the Soviets...
sykop8ntballer 10 months ago
Comment removed
PermgunCa 10 months ago
Was this rocket to go to the moon??
McChuugy