The Most Disastrous Space Mission Ever Executed 

I appreciate the fluctuation in tone in this video! Thank you for the extra effort. Great video with some awesome information!

No subtitle ? Even automatic ones ?

You never posted the link to the American sighting off the Moon, Whistle Boy.

It doesn't work I just tried it and it says that code has expired

You really gonna trust the soviet transcripts?

How strange, dark and mysterious…

@@DeliveredCarCare delivered in a story format!

Even though he was essentially pressed into a cookie? Damn. the poor wife though

@@KendrixTermina Yes, I know that was terrible for her but I think he wanted this for a few reasons. Maybe part was 'look what they did to me' but a lot of the reasoning was probably to get a message out to the rest of the world and maybe save other Cosmonauts. The Soviets would politically Not want a duplication of the embarrassment (even if they didn't care about the crew's safety) and thus be forced to try to make their space program safer. Ya'll Take Care and be safe, John

@@JohnDoe-pv2iu I didn't mean that as criticism, just as sympathy.

All of the early cosmonauts were beasts. Look up what Yuri Gagarin actually had to do to return to earth after the first manned flight. Seems utterly impossible. And that's just one example.

Laika likes this video.

History ruined fiction for me.

As soon as history includes alien sexy times I'll give up scifi for good.

Honest answer? Good sci-fi is based on history - you really can't make this up, just riff on it- but grants distance from the reality of the surrounding horrors of human indifference, and worse, but still acknowledgement of that horror & education of it. I like history, but a good fact based historical fantasy or sci fi is a far more enjoyable vehicle for learning facts & concepts that are then applicable to reality, and often counter to my core perspectives. It's very helpful for giving an in-head perspective of events in a way history can't without deep dives that require some interface, as they are impossible for the inexperienced. And in end, it's a great vehicle for stoking interest in history of this detail; I'm here in large part because of several series by a military history buff, who included an incredible array of historical fact & function in his books; thus I'm fascinated to find 200 years of real history that I have a personal association of.

Yeah, f*** the soviet union. So much damage done for the Baltic states...

@@mindaugasradavicius8007 Sveiki! Ironically, during the soviet times, all (ordinary) russians envied the quality of life in the baltic states. The soviet union did occupy the baltics, but the "internal" occupation of the whole ussr by the communists was monstrous. Stalin did kill lots of lithuanians, poles, koreans, tatars, chechens, etc., but he killed orders of magnitudes more russians. It is unbelievable how soviet nostalgia is on the rise in russia. By the way, are you aware that your last name is of old Belarusian origin?

@@jayspeidell They used the Soyuz capsule because the Shuttle had reached its shelf life, and was going to be replaced. Once it stopped flying, the astronauts had to get there somehow. They should have just stuck with Apollo, and upgraded the Command Module over time, like the Russians do with the Soyuz.

So as in any industry. It's not the conditions which kill people, it's people themselves.

Politicos and bureaucrats are no worse than the rest of us, and no better.# Greed, jealousy, ambition, fear, uncaring.

*cosmonaut

@@eduarddv00 Same thing.

@@benn454 so why didnt yall use cosmonaut instead?

I absolutely hate this thing where some people insist astronauts of different nationalities be referred to by naut (if you can call them people). Like bruh, we're speaking English here no? So just get over it and use the English name. We don't do this with any other profession; both Russian and American firemen are firemen, so why should Russians be "cosmonauts", Chinese be "taikonauts", etc? Frankly, ridiculous.

Indeed!

On the Renegade Cut channel the host tried to make the point the Soviet space program was superior to the US space program as the Soviets sent out probes to Mercury and Venus in the 70s while the manned moon missions were just propaganda. I wasn't too surprised as the host was fairly far to the left and the part about the probes was fair. But one thing got my blood boiling. He tried to make the US program look far unsafer by noting the higher astronaut deaths the US had compared to the Soviets. Not just ignoring the Soyuz disasters but also the Nedelin disaster which killed up to 300 support crew, engineers, and military officers. The way he rushed through that part seem to me an indication he knew he was reaching.

Yep. Mr Ballen

@@SEAZNDragon In *some* ways the Soviets had an edge, but absolutely not in safety.

@@SEAZNDragon Sounds from the description like someone taking a contrarian viewpoint for clicks, but I haven't actually seen the video.

the soviets only announced missions after they were completed and the cosmonauts were back on earth. The US televised them live. That should tell you all you need to know.

The coroner's name was Captain Obvious.

@@davidharrison7014 I know this may or may not be a joke but are you actually serious?

@@Yutyrannid8705 Yes, I was referring to the "no shit" in the previous poster's answer.

@@davidharrison7014 I understand thanks for the info

His remains were 12x31 inches in total.

Apollo 1 was exactly the same... when the mission commander is hanging lemons on the simulators and sending the company president building the spacecraft a picture with the three astronauts praying over the model of the spacecraft, it's pretty evident they think there's some BIG problems... BUT when you have upper management with "GO fever" and a "no circus stops because of a couple of missing monkeys" attitude (as a former A-hole boss of mine once put it) what are you going to do?? NASA astronauts were in much the same position, and Grissom, White, and Chaffee knew it. TO refuse to fly on Apollo 1 til the problems were solved would have been the end of their careers, and they knew it! Being "the face of the program" as it were, SUCH public figures, to refuse would have been scandalous, and NASA, the gubmint, and the entire power structure would NEVER have forgiven them... They would have found all the doors closed in their faces, all the opportunities dried up, and ended up completely washed out of anything space/aeronautical industry related for the rest of their lives, and they knew that. I was shocked and amazed that the two chief astronauts in turn of the current "Starliner" Boeing space capsule stepped down before flying it... which is virtually unheard of in the astronaut corps... Probably should be a BIG hint about the status of that vehicle and their confidence (or lack thereof) in it... which given its multitude of problems, shouldn't be surprising and seems pretty smart I bet... OL J R :)

@@lukestrawwalker and look at the problems uncovered a few weeks ago with Boeing's CST-100 Starlinger: Parachutes that may not work and flammable tape on wires. At least NASA and Boeing cancelled the launch date, and have left it TBA indefinitely.

I guess they would have made him say: "great maiden flight - without problems" anyway. But having him killed cannot be reversed/sugar coated

How is that patriotic? The patriotic thing would have been to risk his career and life and publicly refuse to fly the unsafe space craft.

Not sure that story was actually true. But great urban legend

@@TomsBackyardWorkshop Some things are worse than death, like being sent to a Soviet gulag...

If it had been the N-1, Komarov would have never made it into space, but he might have survived; it seems that the escape system was the one thing on that rocket that actually worked.

Keep in mind that the US has send nearly 3x as many people into space. Including the only vehicle capable of carry large numbers on a single flight.

@@rdspam Turns out America sent twice as many fliers to space (bearing in mind that some people have flown more than once). For example the STS program flew 355 people for a total of 852 fliers. I think it is also worth pointing out that there have been no fatalities aboard a Soyuz spacecraft for FIFTY years and it's still in use today - albeit with progressive upgrades as technology advanced.

@@iplayfhorn Not quite true... 1st stage of Soyuz 2-1v (14A15) uses surplus NK-33 engines from N-1.

@@henrya3530 In 1967? They were still using the R-7, right? Or were they using N-1 engines on the R-7? I was going by the failure of the N-1 itself, not just one of the components (of course, it was only a couple of components that caused the rocket to fail anyway).

Yes.....And many Americans tried to take over the Capitol by force, while they swore that they were the 'PATRIOTS' of America.🇺🇸😪

I think you hit the nail on the head. Very suspicious circumstances indeed.

I think he died in a plane crash about 7 years later.

@@jaymudd2817 He died in March the year after Soyuz 1

🤣🤣

Now that's a shit fact... :P

It didn't really drop in zero-g .🙂

In space, no one can hear you grunt.

...That they told you of that is, I'm sure the first guy they shot into space shit himself, much as I'm pretty sure William Shatner shat himself on his lil hop.

Oh man. Imagine being up in space and then mission control comes on the radio and says (in russian) "Sorry Boris, you're going to be up there a bit longer than planned, there's a revolution happening".

It wasn’t a revolution, it was the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

@@Shadowkey392 illegal dissolution

@@alexhobbs1208 Thank you comrade. We are still here and will return soon.

@@alexhobbs1208 can't illegally dissolve something that was illegally established. Come on commie, time to head to the helicopter.

Yup. I stayed in the Hotel Cosmos in Moscow in 1989 and you can see the Space Tower outside it

This was how I understood things as well.

He also says the Saturn 5 was more powerful than the N1 which is not true so hes gotta be talking about the soyuz rocket there

I guess he meant it was designed to b3 launched together with the K1? lander on top of the n1 - but as a barley manned flight, It could easily fly without the Lander on another rocked

Gagarin wasn't the first man in space, if he ever even went. The first, when landing, the retrorockets failed and he hit hard. But he survived and spent 6 months in Siberia to recover. This was never reported as this was regarded as a failure. Can't have that, can we?

I do not understand why all that would be a requirement to first man in space? He was in space, even if he was asleep the whole time. Physically was there. Does not matter what he did or didn't do. Now someone could say someone else was the first pilot in space, but first man, he clearly was.

@@MrT------5743 They made that stipulation so they could claim a US astronaut was the 1st

@@jonsouth1545 why would the FAI care? I never heard of them so I Google them. They seem to be French or something not US based anyway.

Yeah the Soviets won the space race. Even today USA and majority of it's population can not accept that fact.

@@kokko9507 I think you are watching too many flat earth RU-vid channels.

Missions carried manual cranks to allow a spacewalker to ratchet the doors closed if the motors failed, then if necessary ride back inside the bay in his spacesuit.

@@JamesOberg This particular mission meant the bay doors would need to close possibly with the astronaut outside. I heard the story directly from the head of flight control. I was on the advanced spaceflight training team at Ames research/Moffet Field and spent a lot of time with the flight controllers at Building 5 at JSC. There were a lot of near misses getting crews up and getting them home. Every NASA manned launch was, after all, an experimental craft. Sure, there were safety procedures. But many were like the escape hatch on a submarine. There so the crew could tell their worried mother "its ok ma, we got an escape hatch.."

@@TheFloridaStig -- Cool, thanks for the fully-credible inside story. We need to capture as many as we can while witnesses still live.

@@JamesOberg Very true. Example: When launches were delayed and the public was told something like "faulty transfer valve" or whatever it was usually a personnel thing in reality - like one of the crew had a bout of diarrhea.

@@TheFloridaStig -- I've gotten interested in his weird UFO stories he told after he left NASA. Cooper also claimed he'd saved the shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens. He became an avid supporter of the authenticity of Billy Meyer's Swiss UFO and alien encounters photos and stories, and even claimed that contactee Daniel Fry had arranged for him a ride around the moon on a UFO, for which he packed his camera kit and a travel bag and sat by the phone awaiting the pickup location, but then was disappointed to learn the aliens had cancelled it due to political conflicts on their home planet [it's in his autobiography]. He told folks about a secret sensor on his Mercury-9 flight by which he spotted precise locations of sunken Spanish treasure galleons [but kept it secret from NASA]. He described taking photos in 1965 from Gemini-5 so sharp you could read auto license plates and that he later even tracked down one driver from a plate number who confirmed he'd been in the city on that day. He also told a tale of being peppered by meteoroids during his 1965 flight that left deep gouges in his capsule’s hull - none of which can be seen on the capsule on display in Houston. He told the tale of hand-controller flying a manmade UFO prototype from a Utah inventor around his barn [it just hummed in its cradle but never moved, according to the inventor’s daughter, who was there]. Wowsers, is all I can say.

His funeral was with an urn with ashes.

@@ErickSoares3 That's so untrue and easily verifiable with that thing, you know, the internet.

@@ErickSoares3 False chap, it was an open casket with his charred remains, really grim.

@@ErickSoares3 nope. That 30cm long charred mass he talked about in the video? thats what was in the casket.

@@newkleerwynter except if you actually used the internet to research that you'd know the photo is in fact real.

We know the shuttle was a poor design that they were afraid to change, and it was the lack of changes that led to those astronauts deaths, pretty much ALL of which were perfectly avoidable. Both shuttle accidents were the result of KNOWN hazards, hazards that NASA had warnings about well before the fatal accidents. That's on NASA and the shortsighted American Congress, which was all too eager to fund the parts of shuttle that made good pork, but not so much things that might just save astronaut lives. For NASA's part it wasn't just recklessness on the part of Administrators, many of whom put political considerations over engineering ones, but also the fact that NASA is a huge bureaucracy and this made any change to the design or any add on to the shuttle much more likely to take many years and add much expense the program as a whole.

@@remo27 Exactly... while shuttle might have been 'designed" to last for 100 flights, the fact was they had already found SERIOUS issues with fatigue and cracking in the shuttle structures, including the fuel manifolds inside the shuttle feeding the main engines from the ET, and which the shuttle was built around and COULD NOT be removed or replaced. The foam strike that doomed Columbia had caused near-misses on other missions before, and after working on the problems for YEARS NASA finally had to admit to itself, and the leadership, that it was an unsolvable problem. It was inherent in the shuttle's very design and could NOT be corrected. Had shuttled kept flying, it was INEVITABLE than another would WOULD have been lost, no question about it it, given the law of averages and the nature of the problems... In addition, shuttle was cutting edge technology-- for *1974* when it was designed... Had shuttles continued to fly, they were GOING to have to have a multi-billion dollar, years long refit program to bring some of the technology, particularly the avionics, up to date with modern computers and systems. It was going to be ENORMOUSLY expensive, just to fix and keep flying an antiquaited and outdated and fundamentally limitied and unsafe vehicle that was ridiculously expensive to fly ANYWAY... So the decision was made, and RIGHT FULLY SO, to retire the shuttles and replace them with a new vehicle. Later! OL J R: )

@@lukestrawwalker The original shuttle was designed in the late 60's and was supposed to be but one part of a "Space Transportation System" that would include a small, rapidly and cheaply reusable shuttle, a space station and, if I recall correctly , a space tug that would help enable farther missions to the moon and maybe Mars. With the STS largely canceled along with the funding for the so -called "Apollo Applications Program" the shuttle became the only manned project that NASA had left after the last lunar landing they could afford in 1972. Thus , it became a priority for NASA. Problem was, NASA was competing with the Airforce at that time for limited rocket money as the AirForce at the time designed its own launchers such as the Atlas in order to launch its spy satellites. So, in order to get that money, NASA had to agree to launch the Air Forces spy sats. Thus the shuttle, meant to be a small , cheap vehicle capable of carrying two to 4 men to low earth orbit to the space station, needed massive redesigns. Polar orbit ability(needed for some spy sats) required the huge wings, the size of the sats (which could vary but was usually pretty damn big) required a large cargo bay, this larger, heavier shuttle needed a bigger engine, this all required more heat protection (the infamous tiles) and of course the solid booster program (for nukes) was brought in, ostensibly to save on costs. This made the shuttle less safe because you couldn't throttle a solid rocket booster unlike liquid ones. Basically the idea of reuse was emphasized, but 'cheap' and 'fast' reuse went out the window as the shuttle went from a sleek pony to some sort of warhorse/pig hybrid. This was done purely for political, military, and monetary reasons, engineers had nothing to do with it and next to no say. It's sad that the unsafe,expensive, slow, and only partially reuseable shuttle would be considered by some to be a 'cutting edge' test of the technology and economics of resuse and this argument (the shuttle couldn't do it, so why should you be able to?!) was thrown at Space X repeatedly and served as the excuse for other countries and companies to continue to go with expendable rocket technology. Not sad for Space X though. Even though it only has partial reuse technology as of yet, the partial reuse is CHEAP and has fast (compared to the shuttle certainly ) turn around and this has enabled it to dominate the global launch market.

@@remo27 True and well said... couldn't have said it better myself. Shuttle IMHO went off the rails when they dumped the fully reusable "Fluffy" internal fuel tank, metallic heat shield straight wing small payload bay orbiter with the reusable flyback booster system, and jumped in bed with the Air Force to get their funding help building shuttle, and accepted all their "requirements" for the Shuttle as well. Most of the Air Force requirements were rubbish anyway, because doing things like sabotaging enemy spy sats by spray painting their lenses, stealing them out of orbit, etc. would have just created havoc in the Cold War and given them incentive to do the same thing, or shoot our spy sats down. All the mods to the shuttle, like the huge payload bay and switching to the huge delta winged glider, was ultimately useless anyway because it was never used. The next launch after Challenger IIRC was to be the first launch out of Vandenberg AFB of a shuttle into polar orbit, which of course never happened and was cancelled. IMHO the writing was on the wall after Challenger that shuttle was flawed and would NEVER live up to the promises of "cheap, easy, routine" spaceflight made about it, and relying on a complex, fault-prone, easily delayed MANNED spacecraft to launch time-sensitive national security payloads like spysats was just rather stupid. Some things are just more easily and better launched by unmanned rockets, even if they're expendable. IMHO Shuttle should have been retired after Challenger and replaced with a new capsule, evolved from Apollo tech, and a new booster rocket like the JARVIS launcher, which would use used shuttle External Tank tooling to build a new core stage using kerosene and LOX to fuel a pair of F-1A engines, improved models in storage since Apollo and never used, and a new second stage using a common bulkhead LOX/Hydrogen tank and a single J-2S engine, again an improved model designed and perfected for Apollo and the second order of Saturn V's that was never built. This launcher in a 3 core "heavy" booster or with single smaller F-1A boosters would have given us a heavy lift vehicles capability decades ago. Later! OL J R : )

One of the most successful designs…. I agree with this but there is a glaring problem with this statement that I can say in two words. Soyuz 11

@@Yutyrannid8705 agreed, best not mention Apollo 1 or the shuttles then

@@dandare6865 don’t worry, I know about what happened in those missions

It is not amazing when considering Russian design and innovation. It is essentially the same as it was when it was first built. It is good enough, it works. That is all one can really say about the Soyuz. Could the Soyuz be made way better? Absolutely! Just don't hold your breath waiting for Russians to revamp the design and bring it into the 21st century

​@@TheSLOShadowit's not the same as it was in the 60s. That's silly.

honestly not where it is now. competition is good. The greatest achievements are always during wartime, but even outside wars you do need competition in order to really progress. I'm not talking about engineers here, the working class always works towars the better, but the working class is never in charge, therefore when competition is absent, all is left is greed.

Ummm, like the international space station? Because we have countries working together.

It worked out better this way. When they are constantly competing to do better than the other, then they are constantly innovating and improving. Look at the state of space flight since the end of the cold war.

@@alex786 Naw, the working class works toward getting the most money from the least work. As do most executives.

@@BlueBirdsProductions yea, exploring the universe more than ever before and having a colaborative venture.. ISS, Mars exploration, Europa exploration, new technologies utilized and shared by all space exlporers, including the lay person like you and I.. seems like another 90 years in the past would have helped solve the peace we have today and the innovations we see.. while technology and war may still be imminent at the time (even now), the idea of have one safe area to harbor free thought like space seems like it may have given each country a new idea to develop.. just sayin

Yep didn't let political ideologies get in the way of mourning a fellow astronaut

I think you'll find that it's not only astronauts who know no political boundaries, but scientists as well. There are many many documented cases of Jewish scientists collaborating with Iranian and Iraqi scientists, even when the tensions between the countries were at their height.

We tend to forget there is another person reading these texts and people can be harsh. So much so that those same words spoken face to face would not end well.

@@Greg-yu4ij ?????

It was definitely the classy response

A year or less later in 1968

March, 1968

barely a year after the mission that Komarov took instead of him....there are conspiracy theories that said that Gagarin's crash was not an accident but that authorities feared he was going to go public with his knowledge of the behind-the-scenes dealings with Soyuz 1, and they could not have that, so they did away with Gagarin, and made it look like an accident, thus sparing him public humiliation as a traitor, and allowing him a place in the Kremlin wall.

At least he didn't burn up in the atmosphere

​@@agatabonilla7732...at least he didn't drink himself to death.

Interesting. That off the top of your head, or did you see that somewhere?

@@snkybrki I just know how they look. They updated the design significantly between version 1 and 2.

@@xbolt90 Gotcha.

There are many mistakes in this channel's videos. This is done to promote "engagement" in the comments section which causes the video to in turn be promoted via RU-vid's algorithm and ultimately results in a higher payout for the channel's owner.

@@RetroJack Sounds pretty conspiracy theory-like, but okay

That story still needs deeper investigation. At a hotel bar in Baykonur in 1997, I talked to a guy whose company's commercial payload was on the rocket, who had been there. He said after the explosion they were allowed back to where their hotel had been, to retrieve their personal property, and found the hotel [and contents] spread as knee-deep confetti in a field.

@@JamesOberg Incredible! This channel should do a deep dive on that subject. The events that took place should be more widely known and it is insane how suppressed it has been to the public at large. Thank you for this great insight and tidbit!

@@FutureBoyWonder Wishful thinking on my part I guess haha. I've since seen the TopTenz vid on space disasters and he did cover it briefly on there.

commie lives don't matter lol

I have, on a number of occasions, and of course it is slightly more literal in the case of space exploration. One of NASA's mottos is the similar "Ad astra per aspera." Such Latin phrases expressing this very fundamental concept did not originate in 1912 :)--they have existed for ages (in other languages, as well). The exact phrase had been used in several works from the 1800s (and may well predate those), and the figurative concept of achieving grand goals being referred to as "ad astra" dates back at least to Virgil in his _Aeneid_ (and probably even before that).

Wait wut!? I watched the rerun of the moon landing several times. I have always heard "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". In all books I have read it was printed that way too. Yeah makes more sense if u throw in an "a"

Amy Shira Tietel did an episode on The Vintage Space channel. Along with many, many other videos about Soviet and US space flight up to about 1980

No I think the Columbia crew would also qualify, as they died when the shuttle broke up on reentry, and it was certainly high enough and fast enough... Later! OL J R :)

The thing I find rather offensive is the United States' proud claim that they've never lost a person in space. It's hiding behind a technicality that rather disrespects the memory of the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia crews.

It's also my seconday school's motto, dating to 1882 :)

Per ardua ad astra is a Latin phrase meaning "through adversity to the stars" Which was what was displayed on the screen at the time. Did you watch the video?

Depends on the metric. Number of souls lost? Or the sheer insanity of the craft built (Soyuz over the shuttle for safety at any time)

Challenger might have them beat.

I believe a general ordered ground crew to check on the misfiring rocket even though he was told it wasn't safe.

@@herbertkeithmiller intrresting, i rememmber reading that base commander survived because he was having a cigarete at the time and was outside the blast area.

@@bobjk3455 He actually went into a bunker to have a smoke, still out of harm's way.

@@herbertkeithmiller He sat in a chair near the rocket to observe, and the other engineers and workers didn't want to be seen as cowards, so they went with him. As I recall, it was a test launch, and it didn't take off as planned. Nedelin ordered them to work on the rocket without emptying the fuel first. Also, they didn't disarm the timer on the second stage, so while they were working on the first stage, the second stage fired up, and blew the whole thing to kingdom come.

@@iplayfhorn yes thats right. kind of amazing though everybody else was killed yet he managed to survive.

That's a sleeping emoji

😴 this is a sleeping emoji

@@olliedee but still, its a tired emoji

How pathetic, I swear you weebs cannot go more than 5 seconds without mentioning those garbage cartoons.

@@JohnDoe-vn1we lighten up John...life's too damn short

LOL

He's locked in a basement, his life DOES depend on it!

Cocaine's a terrible drug......

And if William Shatner had ever tried to steal Komarov's valor, your backhanded swipe at him might have done some damage.

I hardly call these 15 minute "space hops" making the same journey... just rich people fads... OL J R :)

Yes.

Da

Comradeship, comrade.

I didn't even know comradeship was a word lol

Comradeship. Communists don't have compassion

Much like the US, unless it's a "National prestige" program like the moon landings... once they were accomplished, funding for the space missions in large part "dried up" and it's been hand to mouth more or less ever since... OL J R :)

@@lukestrawwalker Because, robotic missions do as much, or more, than any human landings.

@@randomthings8247 no disagreement from me, on that score, but human exploration has it's place... But I agree anything that can be done robotically should be, WAY more bang for the buck... OL J R

Well, not quite. In the Soviet's case it was, as I understand, politicians making those decisions to disregard safety for political reasons - they all wanted to look good to other politicians especially Soviet leadership, ironically by taking maximum risk of looking bad to the point of callous disregard. In the case of Challenger it was NASA administrators (mid-level, not top-level) as opposed to politicians making those decisions to ignore safety warnings for largely budget reasons and not passing on to top administration any concerns that were expressed by engineers. They had too many missions to fly and delays were too costly in terms of both operational funding and further jamming up scheduling. They decided they needed to keep launching as fast as possible and were repeatedly and perhaps willfully dismissive of warnings from engineering subordinates about safety. In short, they should NOT have been people who would be in a position to ever sacrifice safety for purely administrative reasons. So, in the American case, not politics and ideology, but more accurately money and managerial convenience.

@@duanevp spin it all you want, but the reality is that for all the Soviet corruption, the Soviet program killed less people than the "transparent, incorruptible, lovers of life" Americans.

What do you think the odds are that simon sees your 2 week old comment with 2 likes? Damn near zero

This is how they treated Cosmonauts who were heros of the USSR. Imagine how they treated ordinary citizens.

That is practically the foundation of the State, from the early Revolution days, through the era of Stalin and WW2, all the way to the Cold War. Human lives were discounted as nil.

Opposite to the Americans who were perfectly incorruptible and protected human life... wait, Apollo 1 and the Shuttle weren't Soviet missions? Oh my bad.

There were a few inaccuracies in the video. I thought I’d let that one slide

Does anybody else see the irony of the astronauts on the first Crew Dragon being named Bob and Doug? ("blast off, eh") 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Or, Columbia. lol

@@HarryPalmerOrchestra I was in 7th grade watching The challenger live. It's that thing on tv from my childhood I'll never forget.

The Soviets never even TRIED to launch cosmonauts in =THEIR= shuttle.

A life is a life just bc u add more deaths does not subtract from the one death being tragic more disastrous is just a point of view bc I'm sure for his friends and family it was much worse than the Americans loosing 14 people

The fractions are about the same since there so fewer Russian flights.

Ah Armageddon. A throughly accurate documentation of space flight right up there with 2001 and Apollo 13

Ok. Search for a video titled, "Simon Whistler interview"

Smells like simp round here 😆

He should be in a WatchMojo video.

Bullshit. How about race car drivers? And many more examples from various extreme endeavors.

Compare spaceship type to spaceship type. The Soviet's never even risked a single crew on their own shuttle. For ballistic capsules, the only type both countries flew, on actual missions the Soviets killed two crews and the US zero.

I’ve read Amy Shira Title’s book and I can thoroughly recommend it, it’s very interesting and well researched and written.

Didn't she get in trouble for plagiarism?

"Red Star in Orbit" ??

@haneame08 what