Soviet N1 Moon Rocket Documentary 

Russia is so weird, "destroy them." Protecting them is not weird. But the N1 is emblematic of the Russian psyche dating back to pre-revolution. There's a story of Russian royalty planning a royal scale shindig on a boat at the summer palace. But a few days before it the yacht capsized, lots of people drowned. The royals basically ordered to pretend it didn't happen and continue the celebration with no mention of the tragedy. These days when I say the US won the space race, folks say no, Gagarin. I say, true but the US didn't know it was in a race, same with Sputnik. The US published color glossy magazines detailing its space program, announcing goals, the launch details, etc. Lo and behold the Russians managed to just barely beat the US to goal after goal and usually with terrible risks. Of course Von Braun told Kennedy the Moon was a race we could win. Kennedy threw down a challenge. Russia outwardly ignored it... and here we are in the sixth decade after, watching a clip about another in a long line of Russian cover-ups. sorry if TLDR, tried to make it readable.

Those engineers spent all those years of hard work for everything to almost be flushed. The people who actually made that country work were kept secret. The party leaders were celebrated as being the heros. This is a story that has happened many times in history and in every country. There's always someone taking credit for someone else's work.

Probably at great personal risk, also. Remarkable technology. Remove the politics and everyone benefits.

@@Jonathan.D Pee poo pot pot poo pee pee poo pot poo pot pee poo pot pot pee pee poo pee poo pot poo pee poo pot

It's unfortunate they had to work under the system they did.

Agree ... as a non american but westerner i have always been so amazed how intelligent the russian engineers were at this time ... the moon landing couldn't have been achieved without this technology and unfortunately 99.9% of americans are ignorant to this fact!!

Oh for sure, if the engineers were given the support and facilities Nasa provided, they easily could have made the moon. Soviet politics ruined their chances

Well sed, not too many can admite the hard work on the other side!

@@PS-Straya_M8"... how intelligent the Russian engineers were at this time." Lol They weren't only Russian, they were from different countries. P. S: Without Ukrainian rocket scientists/engineers (like Valentin Glushko and his RD engines), Russia (Soviet Union) wouldn't have achieved these things.

Good luck comes in many forms.

and this book ?

@@nobody6803 It’s called “N-1 For the Moon and Mars: The Soviet Superbooster” It’s not cheap…

Great idea! Then they could combine multiple different male characters and build another bullshit Mary Sue! Just like they did with Chernobyl.

@Heisenberg They combined a number of real life Men, and built a Mary Sue female character out of them in order to sell a woke agenda.

There was a documentary, i forggrt the name, about both Von Brawn and Sirgey Koreliov, it could easilly be adapted, showing the perspective of both lead dessigners, and their struggles

​@@jesusramirezromo2037 Space Race

Not everything needs a mini series. Just enjoy the documentary

With all of the tidbits of our fingertips it is rare to get a Russian scientist

Travel make you wiser. It should be compulsory for young Americans to spend a year in Europe. Any country in Europe. You'll mould a better nation for yourselves.

@Tadano SpaceX wants you to hold it's beer..

@@dynamic1385 Try the RS-25

That's no longer the case thanks to the blunder in Ukraine. The new engines will be entirely made in the USA.

Then please go to Mars yourself. I say no thank you. I do not like cancer. Do you?! Read something about radiation and Mars. It is not fun, over there. And they offer you a one way ticket for a reason.

@@voornaam3191 For some reason UR comment is shadow banned. So it can only be seen as a highlighted reply by the few people who already commented. Maybe it's because U mentioned the big C. It's the only thing I can imagine. Most people don't understand the realities of colonizing a planet. The radiation from the sun makes it impossible to carry out terraforming on Mars. Because of Mars' small size it doesn't have a magnetosphere strong enough to protect it from the sun's solar winds. That means any atmosphere generated would be quickly swept away. It's like trying to put air in a tire that has no rim. Pfffffft! Mars' small size also means less gravity acting on anyone and anything living on the surface. That might not sound like a big deal but it is and would cause more than a few issues with the human body. Some genius will say, "People can live under ground and in containment pods" and "Astronauts live in zero gravity." For humans to successfully colonize Mars they need to thrive and not just simply survive. That can't happen if everyone is forced to live in what is considered as quarantine conditions. The last few years is proof of that. Astronauts who are trained and selected for space missions only survive in those conditions for very short periods of time. That little time has a huge impact on them physically and mentally. None of that compares to the biggest issue of all, supplies. To set up a small scale colony the amount of time, money, and effort would be more than what is required to restore the Earth. Imagine restoring a car, the Earth just needs paint, tires, oil change, and a thorough detailing. Mars is a car that is little more than a pile of rust and remnants, with no hope of being restored into a home for human habitation. So why does the gov and so called "genius" billionaires keep pushing this agenda if it's not feasible. 1: It generates money for the rich investors, more tax dollars will be taken in than those spent, creates new jobs, and stimulates the economy. 2: It's used as a way to distract people from the destruction of the Earth by the gov and the "genius" billionaires. If you are too busy looking up at the stars, you won't notice what's happening to the ground under your feet. (Cue the music: Metallica, Sad But True.)

+2000Betelgeuse Cheers, completely agree. Time pressure and the lack of exchange to other more educated countries, including the government and communism, many soviet projects were sadly doomed. Buran being one of the (in my opinion) biggest highlights in the many Soviet space programs also had great potential, if the CCCP didn't fall down, but it had to happen at some point though.

+Ozon ' it had to happen...'? Why?

+Ozon You forgot to mention the most important factor.....money. Before the revolution Russia was a backward country full of serfs. WW1 was very hard on tsarist Russia.....then came the revolution and civil war which was equally devastating as WW!. From 1924 to 41 Russia put everything into industrialization and the military but then came WW2 and the utter destruction of much of the country. Compared to Russia the USA hasn't had a war on it's soil since the civil war. Russia just didn't have the funds to compete in the cold war, provide for the population and run a space program. Serge Korolov never got more than 50% of the funds he asked for Kennedy gave Von Braun billions.

+2000Betelgeuse The final outcomes of the "finished designs" must have been a long sought after vindication for all those engineers & their prized ideas for "the best" rocket engine. Kudos, & the World thanks you for your efforts.

***** Killing and oppression has been pretty steady in Russia since the dark ages. First there were the invasions by the Mongols, the Turks and the Vikings hired by the Russians to protect them from the above. Then there were the Tsar and boyers who ruled with an iron fist. Then came the Okhrana who oppressed any dissent against the Tsar and who set up the system of gulags the bolsheviks inherited. This force wasn't used against Russian citizens but Russian peasants and workers who were owned by the Tsar's nobelmen. Then after WW1, revolution ,the civil war, famine and extreme poverty. The Russians had to develop the country with no outside capital from the west because the likes of Winston Churchill were angry at the commies for deposing and killing his cousins. Stalin was a brute and a criminal like all the other Russian leaders before him. He developed the USSR with the only capital they had, human capital. When all you have is a hammer every solution looks like a nail.

The R7 didn't have 20 engines it had 5!!! Each engine had 4 main nozzles (plus 2 or 4 smaller steering ones).

It just had to wait for 20 years to have its day but when it did it was spectacular.

Don't forget the main proof: the mirror, placed on the moon and targeted on a daily basis with lasers, for measuring the distance between Earth and Moon.

Thanks for that additional bit of proof, Player101. I forgot about that.

Yes same in the UK. We were never told it was the Russian people responsible for the Cold War.

As far as I know there are no photographs taken from Earth or Earth orvit that show the moons surface with enough detail to show any trace of moon landings. I don't believe it was a hoax, but optically it is impossible to photograph from this far or through the atmosphere. Just some info. Thanks.

The N1 was a reckless design and nothing ever compares to the Saturn 5 and the F 1 engine.

It was a terrible design. I wish people would stop daydreaming. They did the best with what they had... To be sure. And some really innovative ideas came from it. But it was still a terrible design. And suffered from it. Instead of admitting this, and listening to others, he forced the program forward. The Saturn program originally looked very similar. But Van Braun listened to his staff, engineers... And changed and adapted. And this is why Americans space program prospered and succeeded. Because they didn't try to hide anything. Failure or success. Everyone had input. The F1 engineers alone changed the engines on the fly... Custom building each one to work. Making the changes they "felt" needrd to be made.

"The N1 is still a high water mark in rocket design," lol, what were they.. 0 for 3? After I read that I assume everything else you wrote was equally suspect.

I disagree Germans were very much ahead of Russians. Wernher von Braun

The F1 engine was a terrible design from every perspective.

It was a fantastic time to be a child there has been nothing close to a Saturn 5 launch since rockets are as cool as they ever where but just doing donuts around the earth just does not do it for me.

Moar Boosters

Fascinating video Jon, thanks. I don't agree with some of the conclusions made by the narrator. They don't tell the whole story from a design choices standpoint; why the US went the direction that they did. But it shows the effort the Russians made and the amazing technology that came out of it. Pity the ideologies that drove the programs prevented them from learning from each other.

Glad you enjoyed it John.

Jon Preston The space was pure competition. It sparked top performance on both sides. I doubt that there would even be a sattelite today without it. I believe, if you want a Mars colony, you need some serious competition again.

+Dieter Himmel I agree. The whole thing started because of the competition between the two countries. I celebrate the Space Race as one of the few really good things to come out of the Cold War.

Jon Preston u

It was us vs them. Now it's SpaceX vs Blue Origin, with maybe China in the mix. Russia is stuck in a fifty year old paradigm which works for them, but fundamentally just keeps putting them further and further behind. Soon the United States will once again have a manned space capability, at least two, maybe three or four platforms. None of them as good as the Space Shuttle, but all far superior to the Soyuz. In four or five years we will have true spaceships again, with SpaceX's BFRs that will be far beyond the Space Shuttles. By the mid 2020s we will be back on the Moon, perhaps the Chinese will too, and the Russians will still be flying their Soyuz's, only without us as a customer. If they want to put a cosmonaut on the Moon, they will have to buy a ticket on a BFR, or whatever the Chinese might be flying. It's unfortunate, but that is the case because Putin is playing a game that does not involve advancing Russian spaceflight capability.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that russia was still the main supply train to the ISS.

If there was a new race to the moon I wonder who would get there first since the Americans say they don't have the skills to re-engineer (or reverse engineer their own old tech) and the US would have to start from scratch.. ARCA's revolutionary aerospike engine completed and ready for testing.. newatlas.com/arc-aerospike-linear-engine-complete/51431/ PLUS The Biggest Rocket ever Designed? - The Sea Dragon. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6e5B7EKVg48.html Sea Dragon Rocket: Worlds Largest Reusable Rocket Concept. Sea Dragon was a 1962 concept for a reusable, two-stage, sea-launched carrier rocket. The project never materialised as NASA's Future Projects Branch was shut down in 1965. It would have been the largest rocket ever built. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hHG3Z0O9Xzo.html

Technology stolen from the Nazi s

Dorian Lindberg, You are correct! The only way for humans to get there. Correct if I am wrong, I believe they have unmanned supply ships. The Germans started it all, to bad they had a mad man for a leader. Humm, sound familiar?

That's some good thinkin Ricky, you must've got your grade 11

orange70383 Your rude, if have no positive input on the subject, keep quiet. Learn more about the world around you. The past history is a good teacher! I looked at your site. It is not worth the time I wrote this reply. Learn all you can. Then you can play with other people minds...

Sunnyvale877 Did you miss the Trailer park Boys ref. in his reply? fucking dirty mustard tiger.

euroaaRON1 the original videos are on eBay right now. Check out Putin’s personal eBay account.

Maybe they are the only surviving clips of that explosion, or maybe you are right they might still be classified, who can tell really this was just another guess

Also watch this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U9fkYIrRwbo.html

Name me Russian tech that put men in the moon or shut the fuck up?

@@slyguythreeonetwonine3172 you moron it was German tech not American that made you go up. Since then you haven't gone back- 90% of inner close circles of Von Brauns team were nazis..look up operation paperclip. At least Korolev used Russians in their space program and treated nazis as they should be treated in addition giving them not much in the way of being crucial part of Russian space achievements. Simple basic look at v1 rocket and after that Vostok and Soyuz was a Russian design with Russian engines and later n1 with nk15 again Russian engines to be used on American rockets. Now go shove it somewhere else.

Pot pot pee pee poo poo pot pee pee? Poo pot pee pot poo poo pee pot pot poo?

Not exactly true, but it’s complicated

Why its not true​?@@sc1338

The real irony is С. П. Королёв's jaw was broken by guard in the gulag, and then set improperly, causing the oksydzen mask used during his surdzery to fit badly, contributing to his death.

CSM101 = A pile of rotting shit not worth another comment

And added to that, Glushko, the rocket engineer that wanted to use hypergolic fuel- something Korolev was against- was one of the people who denounced Korolev, helping to send him to the gulag.

This is a very interesting piece of information. Do you have a source to back that up?

Dorian Lindburg. Was your reply meant for me or the top comment? Either way the answers are all in the BBC mini series, The Space Race- think that's it's name anyway. Korolev was sent to the gulags, his jaw was broken plus all of his teeth and Glushko was one of the many who denounced Korolev in the purges of the mid thirties- though if he hadn't he'd have probably been sent to the gulags himself. There's well known footage of a hypergolic disaster you can find on youtube were they worked on a rocket stupidly when it was full of this corrosive fuel.

Xteve Tyler, Yes, now we are all going to be in a race together to save ourselves from cooking, on our own planet.

lets hope we can all pull together forget our differences and win one for a change, they know how now lets do it chaps, the rewards are life vs death.

Excuse me, but let me say one thing to your statement Space X .

TruthB Told Space X is still in development. Does Space X of 2017 get humans to the International Space Station? No. It gets supplies to the ISS, and that's all. We're currently developing Orion, but it won't be ready for a few years. Dragon delivers our supplies to the ISS, and the Roscosmos Soyuz gets our people there and back.

Do the Russians (or anyone else besides Blue Origin) have booster rockets that are self landing? No. Space X will have their crew ready Dragon capsule ready next year. Their Falcon heavy is scheduled for it's first test launch shortly. It will have the greatest thrust at liftoff of any existing rocket (second only to the Saturn 5). Thank God that Space X is an American company. They are planning to go to the moon and on to Mars. I feel fortunate to be still alive (70) to witness this new revival in the ongoing manned exploration of space ("The Final Frontier").

for now space x is just going in the footsteps of NASA, the know how they collected thru the decades...and its a private company thez want to do money not risk it on unknown ....

Only because ODumass cancelled funding for the US space program....

And in the end, the Russians sat in a puddle, and the N-1 never flew. What conclusion? You're stupid.

brinbrin62 62200 NASA in 4 days will show us astronauts who will fly to the ISS on the Dragon V2 Falcon9. In December or January. > "Angara looks great." LOL, why? This missile has been under construction for a quarter of a century. It is obsolete a decade ago. 1). It is disposable. 2). Obsolete RD-191 engines, which have a poor ratio of thrust to mass. 3). Huge weight of dry stages (in comparison with the maximum weight of the payload delivered to orbit). This, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that composite materials are not used in this rocket.

> "Reusable rockets may well reusable element be ever reused?" Where did you spend the last few years? SpaceX re-uses the first stage of its Falcon9 rocket. The return of the pen stage costs $ 10 million and preparation for its re-launch takes 2 months, while the production of the new first stage costs $ 26 million and takes 6 months. So no, reusability is an advanced idea now. That's why reusable Falcon9 occupies 60% of the world market of commercial satellite launches.

brinbrin62 62200 "Oh, and now the American astronauts use a Russian Soyuz rocket to go to space." Quite true but also as much a circumstance due to timing of the politics and changing goals of space. If the US had kept its Saturn V infrastructure we could be producing rockets with incredible lift for decades just like the Soviets are with the tried and true Soyuz rockets. So we have the technology if needed, just not the political desire etc, which sucks.

The space shuttle really shot crewed rocket, and heavy lift rocket development in the foot. The Soviets had a better concept for a reusable space plane with less downtime, lower launch costs, and heavier payload, but largely because they were able to learn from the mistakes made in the US shuttles. NASA had spent too much time and money developing the shuttles, so they HAD to be used. And simply using them took up a significant amount of budget. So the reason astronauts were using the soyuz to get to the ISS was because NASA put all their resources into the space shuttle, and Russia having already built a space shuttle decided it was more cost effective to simply keep using the soyuz rockets instead of spending millions more on political icons. The US had a few working, reliable rockets at the time the shuttles were discontinued in 2011, but none of them were rated for crewed missions. Whereas the soyuz had been performing crewed missions for decades. To put it in perspective; the design, prototyping, and launch of the first falcon 9 cost less than a single space shuttle launch.

They didn't need much assembly, the orignal purpose of the N1 was a Mars flyby using a moddified Soyuz

​@@jesusramirezromo2037 Stuck in a Soyuz for 3 years, sounds fun...Tbf, the US had the same proposal with Saturn V.

@@TheNavalAviator Yhea, at least it was a 2 person Soyuz, not a 3 person Soyuz

The Shuttle fleet lost two orbiters and 14 astronauts in two disasters: Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003

+rcpmac duh! And Apollo I on the pad in a training exercise. And each time someone dies, there are calls to end the space program, because it's "too risky."

Who knows how many lives would have been lost if Buran had survived? There is no other flying spacecraft to compare the shuttle to.

The USA never turned one of their astronauts into a lawn dart (cough-Komarov-cough...). And how many successful manned missions did the Soviet shuttle fly? What's that? Zero? Hmmmm.... With bigger successes come bigger failures, hence more American lives lost...Live with that.

i find it amazing, that the soviets didn't test the Soviet shuttle manned but automated. NASA decided to fly the maiden flight fo the shuttle manned! think about that and about the chances that something goes wrong with an untested spacecraft without escape system (the russian shuttle had one for the pilots). you're probabily not completly wrong however the usa took many risks too. if you'd asked an astronaut of the mercuy or gemini program they would say you that they believed to have a 80% chance to survive.

***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job. they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing. instead, piggies got a nice, large home.

***** not for that one, it's stubbornness, proper to the communist regime and bureaucracy that kept them going on the wrong direction, with a flawed rocket three consecutive times. you can sabotage something once, but not three times. or at this point blame the fucking security services and KGB not doing its job. they fucked up on their own, would be better like this, there could be astronauts on this thing. and now, piggies got a nice, large home. now, the other version of the engines are still used today. Proton rockets still send satellites in space and they're nearly flawless.

Jamie Godman The development of the N1 engine was close to not having it blow up before the program got shut down, and the refabricated version served the American launches faithfully until very recently. So no, these engines don't "always blow up".

They actually has several failures during testing of the re-fabrication of these engines. It should have been obvious enough that running them at 108% being as old as they are and being a closed cycle system that they should not have been used for the Antares. But in order to close the COTS deal with NASA orbital needed a launch vehicle so this was rushed together. And I think the fact it failed due to the engine proves my point. So you believe what you want to believe, I'll stick with facts.

maksphoto78 Indeed, t'was oot the engine, but the rocket, its design and conception, from what I read. So, when are humlans going back to the moon?

David Vermillion. Seems a good idea especially as they had the Proton available.

Imp5011 Unfortunately, Proton at it’s early days was extremely unreliable.. However they could of used the R-7 booster, it could bring a lander into low earth orbit on it’s own.. then a second R-7 could bring a manned Soyuz to dock with lander in low earth orbit.. however it still wouldn’t be a enough to get to the moon..

Pretightening

player101player101 could be true but what if the non torque wrench went too far in the first place,because then, backing off on the torque would be too late, just saying.

starview1 Im sure these guys know how to handle wrenches. After all... they are rocket scientists ;)

player101player101 LOL.Yeah,I only mentioned the torque wrench thing, because russia has has serious quality control issues, even to this day. well time for some KFC have a great day

starview1 U have a good one too :)

+Condor1970 You are forgetting about operation Overcast in which the Americans evacuated 500 german engineers, more than 14 TONS of technical documentation and almost the whole Nordhausen rocket building factory. In 9 days they managed to load 341 railcars with more than 100 complete V2 rockets and hundreds of tons of spare and other parts. The loot was enough to fill up 16 Liberty ships. All this right under the nose of the Russians which had to gain control over the area by june 1 1945. The Americans managed to finish the job at may 31.

+player101player101 You can bet the remnant German forces and civilian scientists and workers were quite eager to assist in making that happen. Especially when they knew exactly what would happen if they were still around when the Russians got there. The Germans deserved what they got, as far as losing the war goes. However, after the Russians had control, the atrocities they committed against the German people were just horrible. It's estimated that over 50% of the women in Berlin had been raped at one time or another by Russian soldiers, some as many as 60 times. Many of them killed afterward. So, yes, I can see why the Germans would be quite eager to help the Americans load up everything, and haul it off ASAP!!!

Condor1970 Which confirms that your statement about the Russians being ahead of US just because they captured over a dozen engineers is not exactly right. As you have said it yourself, most of them fled to west. I personally think that the reason giving a headstart to the Russians is their lack of strategic aviation, i.e. the means to deliver weapons to US soil efectively. So probably they took the idea of space rockets more seriously, seeing the potential of those vehicles to deliver their payload anywhere arround the globe. Sending satelites and people in space was just a bonus. At least in the beginning. Who knows...

+player101player101 No, the Russians really did have a head start on rocket technology because they really did have more German scientists working in the field,. As you said, they probably took it more seriously, so they allocated their captured scientists more effectively in rocket engineering. Also keep in mind, the Russians were no dummies either. Many Russian scientists picked up the engineering and advanced on it very quickly as well. We had a few scientists, but mainly it was Von Braun and American scientists from the Goddard foundation. All the other German scientists that fled west primarily went into other fields, like nuclear technology, chemical and materials engineering, and aviation.

My take on it is this: The US had political reasons for not utilizing the GRS (German Rocket Scientists) fully in the pre-Sputnik days. Vanguard was a Navy program if I remember correctly, while the ABMA headed by Von Braun was an ARMY resource. The inter-service rivalry and political machinations with the Eisenhower administration handicapped the GRS in the USA. Furthermore, the resources put into bigger engines in Russia was primarily (if I recall correctly) because the guidance capability of the Russian systems was much lower than that of the USA. They had to have bigger warheads to assure the warheads would hit the target. Bigger warheads = bigger rocket. Make no mistake: The Russian engineering was awesome. The USA engineering was awesome. Their focus was different. Pure and simple, the engineers have to work on the critical problem of the day - and for the USA the efforts were guided by different principles.

Who cares about Musk? Find a different video you can kiss him with.

Isukaman yea exactly, american rocketry and nuclear technology is mostly because of german engineers

Isukaman Or if Sergei Korolev had died in the Gulag. There probably would never have been a space race or moon landings.

Isukaman Hate to be the one to burst your bubble but von braun didnt do JACK SHIT! for the American space program. If you every read the book from the earth to the moon in it the author writes how many of the astronauts and scientists always complained how von braun was always getting in the way of things. Von braun was a know nothing dumb fucking nazi scumbag who was simply trying to save his own worthless hide from being prosecuted for war crimes. The Russians put the first man in space, the first woman in space the first vehicular activity in space. Going to the moon was something the Russians had no interest in and the only reasons the Americans did it was because they wanted to do something 'first' that the Russians didnt do. So fuck von braun and I shit on the grave of that fucking lying kraut.

ThunderAppeal The Russians wanted to get to the moon even after Apollo 11. And Mars,,,And Pluto. But as of today they cannot. If Russia wants to get to Mars before the US let them give Boeing and Space X the money and they'll get them there.

+Isukaman And remember that von Braun's team was pretty much held hostage at Texas for 5 years before actually working with the Americans. So, if Dr. von Braun were in Russia, the moon landing would have occurred on 1950's

Be quiet

You might be right. But invasions and repeated genocides against the populace ensures at best the country will be authoritarian.

about 2800 tons, rather

That is just hypothetical. To say "the Russians would have landed on the moon if.." no one really knows. USA was the first to dock in space, leave earth orbit and to land on the moon. Get over it. The Russians did great things and many firsts, no doubt ofcourse.

Igor Flexus Check this out, and compare Soviet firsts "cut off" with the year in which Korolev died: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_exploration_milestones,_1957%E2%80%931969 Also, for at least 1,5 years after his death the Soviets were so shocked that they haven't launched anything. And the first several Soyuz launches which happened afterwards were an utter, utter disaster. So yes, if Korolev was alive it would be neck-to-neck to the moon. Who would won I don't know, but it sure wouldn't be a clear lead by the US as it was.

I could be wrong but the documentary said 2 weeks after the second N1 explosion America launched apollo 11. If thats true then there is no way they would have been first. They still had 9 unmanned launches planned.

Bozo Juretic Well, both sides, USA and Russia had and has brilliant people on that field. Now, communism is a bad form of politics and is doomed. In my dreams, I wish the Russians landed just half an hour after the eagle. Then they would have maybe said: "we have to go to Mars". But after the landing, no one in the senate would write those checks, bechause they had no threat and competition. Sad for humanity. And in a way, humanity lost when the race was over.

Not with the N1. It was fatally flawed.

But the US chooses to use the design now. Ironic huh. You literally turned that frown upside down didn't you! I'm sure if we kept the same story and swapped the nationalities around, either you or another American would be boasting about how crap the Russians were and how bold and fantastic the US was for taking the risk to further the technology. Also, you fail to mention that the US have now started to design and build a staged combustion engine (Raptor sounds cool doesn't it! murica!) along with India, China and Japan to name a few. Could it be because they were proved wrong and that it was possible by the Russians(damn those pesky commies). You also fail to mention the metallurgy they developed to combat the problem of corrosion, which was one of the main reasons why the US didn't think it was feasible. Also your example in your regard to shielding on Russian submarines, I don't know if what you said about less shielding is true or not, but the weight of a submarine does not affect its top speed only its acceleration. Just like a LSR cars top speed is influenced by drag, gearing and HP, added weight only means it will take longer to get there but will not alter its top speed. So all that means is, if your statement is true, then a Russian sub will accelerate faster but will not have a higher top speed. Great for them undersea 1/4 races. So why don't you give credit where credit is due? They developed the technology and designed and built something that the US deemed virtually impossible. So well in fact, that now the rest of the world is following their example, including the US. Not too hard is it?

Firstly, saying that the US "chooses" to use the Russian rocket design now, isn't quite accurate. Because of the deep and ridiculous cuts made to NASA's R&D budget, US scientists were FORCED to find a less expensive alternative to advancing the state of the art in rocket engines. If you ask THEM (not the ones "paid off" by the Russian filmmakers they show in this film to say what the Russians WANTED them to say) the US scientists will tell you that their decision to do so was based on being FORCED to find a less expensive, but less capable system because of purely POLITICAL reasons which were pushed through by the current administration. Going to the Russian design was an out and out BACKWARDS step. That being said (and you may not be aware of this as it is not widely known), new funding has recently been approved for continued development of a US design which had been kept in "cold storage" since the Obama administration began its anti-science, anti-exploration, anti-research blitzkrieg. This new funding has been largely the result of the "cooling" in relations between Russia and the US, and has had the HAPPY result of forcing our politicians to reevaluate the "I'm ok, you're ok" stance which has pervaded the US space program for too long and kept us stagnant, just like the Russians, who, except for the ISS (which the US is largely responsible for building), are still stuck in the late 60's, space technology wise. Not so much "state of the art" as "state of the ark". On the issue of Russia developing "metallurgy to combat corrosion", well, the fact is, we don't consider that very important since we take better care of our equipment than the Russians do as well as using higher quality materials from the start, and all parts which show any corrosion or mechanical stress after a flight are replaced before being re-flown ANYWAY. If that is something that is important to Russian scientists, that is wonderful, but that has to do with a different approach to the business and using lower grade materials to build with. As far as your comments regarding submarines and whether weight affects "top speed" or not, are concerned, they clearly indicate that you have NO knowledge of the subject and it would be a pointless exercise to debate you on it. I will give you ONE clue. Water ISN'T air and they don't have the same coefficient of drag. Your analogy of dry, land based race cars is just not applicable when referring to something in salt water, sorry. As we ENGINEERS like to say, you can make a BRICK supersonic if you put a powerful enough engine on it. Again, the US isn't following Russia's "lead" because they made a "better" engine, it was a desperate attempt to find something which, while less capable than US designs, was cheaper to produce. Well, cheaper is RARELY better when it comes to high performance technology. Also, the only reason that the countries you named are CONSIDERING the Russian design is for the same reason, its cheaper, not better. The heavy lift capability requirements of India, China and Japan, thus far, doesn't need to be anywhere NEAR what the US requires of its systems. Those countries are just taking their first baby steps into space on their own. We in the US didn't consider the Russian approach "impossible", as you and this film claim, we simply consider it a lesser design. I mean, if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO. US commercial space companies will fly with what engine they can afford, which means they will have to sacrifice capability for cost. Most NASA and US contractors performing heavy lift launches are still using the proven and more capable US designs, such as Titan and Atlas, etc...The new "Saturn Class" vehicle called the Space Launch System (SLS) slated for its first launch soon uses four RS-25 engines in its Core Stage. The RS-25 is a US design originally used as the main engines for the Space Shuttle and has the highest thrust to weight ratio of ANY rocket engine in the world. It is also the most reliable rocket engine in the world. SO, after all your claims that the US is somehow "coming over" to the Russian way of thinking, the FACT is is that we are powering our newest heavy lift vehicle with a US designed, tried and true powerplant, NOT some Russian designed cheapy stopgap engine. Russia's new spacecraft, the...OH, that's right, Russia is still flying the same limited capability Soyuz capsule that it has been flying since 1967. They tried to build a space shuttle, Buran, which looked EXACTLY like the US Space Shuttle, only it wasn't powered and was only ever flown ONCE on a remote mission and then was quickly retired because the Russian copy didn't work. I think one of them is a theme restaurant now, in Gorky Park? Russia STILL has never landed a MAN on the moon, or anywhere ELSE, for that matter. Russia is HARDLY on the red hot edge of technology, are they? Does that turn that frown upside down, COMRADE? Not too hard is it?

Chris Cline Ok, now we know you are a condescending arrogant fanboy of US technology (with the attitude if the US didn't design it then it must be shit) that assumes that you know everything and the rest of us know nothing. What a refreshing change! I don't care about your political situation or who was voted in and cut spending. The Russians space program deals with the same factors but you bag it for not having done much and then proceed to defend and make excuses as to why the US program hasn't progressed under the same circumstances. The FACT is your space program has stalled and that it has dropped the ball is no fault of anyone but the US alone. So don't cry about it. I am fully aware that funding has been released only due to the fact the sanctions the Russians put on the US after the US did it to them meant that you had no way of getting your own rockets up into space without the Russian RD-180 and NK-33 engines. You know the ones that are so shit that most of your main launch vehicles use them and now you can't get them you are left in a bit of a pickle. It seems around 4 years is the estimate. aviationweek.com/space/replacing-russian-made-atlas-antares-engines-would-take-four-years Tell me how does the US currently get its astronauts up the the ISS? The very Soyouz that you reckon is shit, but you have to pay them for a ride cause you don't have anything to do the job. The Soyouz may be old and "limited tech" but the US has nothing to do the same job. It could be a flying turd but its still better than what the US has today. How can you even talk half the shit you have when that is the truth, geez it must grate on you lmfao. Here it is from Time.com itself with a nice video of them doing something the US can't do. time.com/132946/watch-russian-soyuz-rocket-launch/ How old is the Atlas (discontinued 2005) and Titan? Both 1950's, so according to your reasoning older than the "state of the ark" Soyouz, yet somehow they are "proven" so it makes it all ok. The only recent rocket the US has that could be said to be totally US is the Delta IV as the Antares was designed with Russian help and has, wait for it, Russian engines. Please refer to the Aviation Week link for proof. As for the SLS until one is actually made and launched the US has nothing new either so I wouldn't boast about it. You can't even launch a Astronaut atm. As for the metallurgy argument, you did not address the point being made instead you decided to go on about the quality of metals used which was irrelevant or you are stupid or maybe both. It had nothing to do with the quality of metal being used but to do with the types of metal being used. Due to the corrosive effect of the fuels the normal metals used in engines were not up to the task. So using your awesome made in the USA metals would not have made a iota of difference because they were not the type needed. Thats why they developed new alloys to combat the problem. Also seeing as they were designed for single use, there is no need to make it last for more than one trip, just like the SLS does with its main engines. So if you can't bring a rational counter to that point or just plain don't understand the point I am making then don't bother. Quick point here. Oh how I laughed when you said ", if you are looking for a high performance car and can afford to buy a Ferrari, you DON'T SETTLE for a YUGO." notice how you did not use as American car like a Corvette or Mustang. That would be because in the supercar world they are kind like a Yugo as well. And to finish it off, back to the submarine side of things. I don't know what sort of engineer you are but Fluid Dynamics is all about the movement of solids through all liquids and gases and therefore pertains to your inaccurate statement. Just in case you can't be bothered to read it here is the answer to the question. And I quote " Now to your actual question, if both submarines had exactly the same shape, and size and were in the same medium, they would in theory hit the same equilibrium if they had some sort of magical engine that produced a 10N thrust constantly, the equilibrium for the heavier submarine would take slightly longer to reach as its acceleration is lower (and the derivative of its drag is therefore lower) but they should reach a point where Fe=Fd and Fe=10N constantly" www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182815 So in simple speak for your "engineering" mind, two identical objects (ie the same shape and size) with the same thrust but different weight will have the same top speed. The only difference is the heavier sub will take longer to get to that speed. And finally I am not a Commie nor a Russian, I'm Australian and just believe respecting all forms of technology regardless of where it was made or designed. I also get sick of seeing arrogant Americans always putting shit on anything that anyone else had made without a decent argument to back it up. You know shit excuses like "it's Obama's fault" or bagging something for its age then saying your older designs are "proven" you fucking hypocrite. Your argument is so full of holes and contradictions its almost funny. Don't bother answering because I don't care because I've proved my point and anyone rational will see all the holes in your biased argument. And as us Aussies say, get a big black one up ya, ya wanker.

yobgow My my, temper, temper. Who's "WE" here? I don't need to be a "fanboy" of US Technology. I'm the REAL deal and help other scientists further advance US technology while the Russians sit there, stuck in the 60's, both technologically and socially. So, go back to the cave you crawled out of to stomp your foot and try to insult the United States, the single GREATEST entity ever devised. We've heard it all before. I don't have the time to consider your feelings while I explain the errors in your thinking and the flaws in your "logic". We have a saying, don't know if use it too in Australia..."If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". Well, you sure TALK like a commie and seem to be a big fan of that wonderful, free nation. SO, I say Commie Down Under. I have several Aussie friends and I am VERY HAPPY not to count you amongst them. I have really important things to do now, so I am going to leave you to your own devices and maybe see if you are going to waste more of your time in a futile effort to strain your brain trying to rise to my level, or will you simply resort to puerile name calling because you can't master your emotions? By the way, the internet isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. Try reading a book with more than pictures in it sometime. Quoting and linking to physics websites...Jeez! You don't know the FIRST THING about ACTUAL physics and have proven that throughout your inane scribble. I think you might be happier in the kiddies classes than up here with the big boys. I don't feel it necessary to use profanity or cast graphic insults, which are the province of the uneducated, so as we American's say "I'm sorry, did you say something. Well, whatever it was wasn't important". Fair Dinkum?! Have a Happy Day...;)

You couldn't even put a decent factual argument down in writing whether you are an engineer or not. Using links to prove my point is the only viable way of giving evidence on the internet because I can't grab you by your throat and ram a book into you face fool. You stupidly assume that only you have higher education, but you must realise that most people aren't pompous egotistical wankers that try and shove it down others throats as they let their argument do the talking. Actually the way you parrot on about how you're the "real deal" ect makes me wonder if you really are. Or maybe you're just insecure, probably a bit of both. You can't be a very good engineer because whether you like it or not your argument over a heavier submarine having a lower top speed is so wrong its laughable. The fact that you choose to try and question my background and education instead of refuting any of my points shows that you really have no valid counter points. You ridicule my education but can not give me a simple fact based answer to prove me wrong. Thats probably because your top shelf space program has to go to the Russians to get an astronaut into space. Bit hard to refute that gem. I think I'll take that as a win. As for you comments inferring that I am a commie, my grandfather was shot by communist partisans so, use your duck (which guess what, the rest of the us use but I'm sure you'll claim it as your own) analogy all you want it, it's far from the truth. But you are what we Aussies call a real wanker and thats fair dinkum. And in no way would I ever want such a close minded arrogant redneck as a friend either. Because I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire.End of story.

pepitheman i sincerely hope that's sarcasm i really do otherwise im sorry but that could be the dumbest youtube comment in the history of youtube (aside from saying i like trains in a random comment)

pepitheman Hahahaha!!!!!! In which chauvinistic, idiotic world do you live??? :D American industry and science is still built by minds from other country and especially from Eastern Europe. You use day by day dozens of Russian inventions wihout any knowledge and respect to Russian achievements. Why? Because your TV-brainwashing system didn't tell it to. Instead of this it drummed a lot of shit into your "brain".

pepitheman This is a list with some Russian inventors, which co-built American industry: 1. According to an American patent court, the modern type of the electric bulb wasn't invented by Edison, but by Russians Alexander Lodygin. 2. The first American helicopter (modern design) was designed by the Russian Igor Sikorsky, who also co-built the US aircraft industry, his compan still produces US helicopters. 3. Another very early US helicopter, the "flying octopus", was built by the Russian Gregory Bothezat. 4. Air-to-air refueling was invented for US airforce by the Russian Alexander Seversky. 5. The first video recorder was designed by the team of Alexander Poniatoff in his US company AMP. 6. The first television broadcast succeeded in Russia by Boris Rosing. His student, Vladimir Zworykin emigrated to the USA and invented there the iconoscope and kinescope, the main devices of the television. Philo Farnsworth tried to realize his own system, however Zworykin's ideas prevailed. 7. Even the Teddy bear was invented by a Russian Jewish emigrant Morris Michtom. 8. Google was mainly realized by the emigrant from Russia, Sergey Brin. 9. The stealth technology in US jets was developed by the Russian Pyotr Ufimtsev. Soviet militaries estimated it as not very practicable and allowed him to publish his results. Americans copied it, built jets for billions of $... which were shot down by Soviet radar systems from 1970ies in the Serbia war. :D Etc. Welcome to the reality!

pepitheman Next time I will tell you about Russian inventions, which British and Americans declared as their own. ;) And then I will tell you, why all British peoples called Russians (Scythians) founders of their nations.

+Alex De and I bet you think the earth is flat as well, right?

Sure. And the INTERNATIONAL Space Station is a hoax perpetrated by dozens of countries. For what reason? Oh, because they can! Please don't procreate.

+Alex De yes. And mankind never lived on Earth! Did you know that?

I suspect the reason is that when originally broadcast it would have had about 3 or 4 commercial breaks in it. It's not unusual for British programmes to briefly repeat the attention grabbing info after the break for those who only tuned in during the adverts.

+M1DHW lol I guess it shows the true agenda of the Documentary when after each commercial they must drop in the subject matter which is "America couldn't do this!" That should have been the title actually... Lolol.

+MrFang333333 Could the agenda be the truth?

Mate, I don't want to alarm you or anything, but, it's important you know : Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either. Americans - could - not - do - it

+Glenn V Love it: "Americans couldn't do it... There, I said it, not taking it back either. Americans - could - not - do - it." - Perhaps now we'll stop hearing US morons brag and we can explain why the US needs 16 TV channels + bragging 24-7, 365 days a year about the superiority of "american" "technology" and science....

... what about this one? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OYafPOPGElU.html

@@Texaca Many Thanks!