The Soviet's 70 Year Old Abandoned Moon Base Plan

Get your own privacy report by signing up for Delete Me at joindeleteme.com/SPACERACE20 and use our promo code SPACERACE20 to receive 20 percent off any of their consumer plans.
The Soviet's 70 Year Old Abandoned Moon Base
Last Video: NASA's Abandoned Plan To Colonize Mars
• NASA's Abandoned Plan ...
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Get your own privacy report by signing up for Delete Me at joindeleteme.com/SPACERACE20 and use our promo code SPACERACE20 to receive 20 percent off any of their consumer plans.

[@mailgaga4330]

As great as your content is I just cant't watch your vids anymore. Your transitions hurt my brain. Really. For me they are highly disturbing. No idea why I can't process them. I wish you wouldn't chose these flickering transitions

[@amotriuc]

If you are making historical video be more precise on your wording. Ex: Soviet Union was not just Russians. So, when you say Russian did this or that and not Soviet Union you exclude 50% of Soviet Union population. As well I as well I think you do exaggerate how far ahead was Soviet Union in the space race. Soviet Union was ahead of US due to building the first big rocket before US due to priority (they had big nuclear bombs they needed big rockets) and they fully banked that advantage. This was not true anymore for the moon landing race. I would not call this huge advantage.

[@-danR]

@@amotriuc Russian ≈ Soviet was, and remains, a very common writing convention, even in more formal writing. And more to topic: "When talking about the *Russian space program* , there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized." (--Scientific American, July 2009. The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev. By Saswato R. Das) This is very pertinent, given that fact that Segei was the son of _Ukrainian_ Premier of the USSR, Nikita.

[@-danR]

Allow me another nitpick: "...would be powered by a nuclear fission reactor..." 8:30 You're picturing a nuclear _fusion_ reactor there. Albeit it's a nice touch for the topic inasmuch as the tokamak design was first conceptualized by Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov

[@amotriuc]

@@-danRif you just talk to someone randomly using Russian ≈ Soviet is completely fine, but I don't think this is rigorous enough if you try to do describe history. You should not leave space for misinterpretation.

[@RazvanYON]

Ive been saying this for months, if apollo continued and nasa still got funded as it was back then, we would already have a mars colony and a moon city!!

[@Clone683]

People in the 60s thought we'd have been to outer planets by now. They'd be very disappointed

[@RazvanYON]

​@@Clone683yeah, just because countries thought winning a stupid war was more important than our future as an interplanetary species

[@Patrick-sj9ol]

We are the greatest problem solvers yet humanity is fighting merely its own problems. It is not obvious that we will ever reach out to other planets, it needs a special Zeitgeist to be able to, not just technological progress. Hopefully this time around it will not just be about who plants the next flag.

[@fl00fydragon]

Unfortunately the US would rather do tax cuts for the corporate feudal lords so they can have an extra yacht per year, thus requiring the defunding of programs deemed as "non essential", rather than push humanity forwards to a better future.

[@freeze1337.]

​@@RazvanYON its true

[@Clone683]

It really sucks the Space Race just kinda stopped after Apollo

[@AmauryJacquot]

well, the powers that be decided to do the vietnam war instead... we all know how that went...

[@thatonecommie8351]

After the moon landing, both sides began cooperating more than competing. Just a few years later, a Soyuz and an Apollo CSM would dock marking the world's first international docking in space. Almost 20 years later, both sides would begin Shuttle-Mir, where the US space shuttle docked with the Russian Mir station, and shortly after the ISS would start going up. Both sides began helping eachother out to better spaceflight as a whole, rather than constantly trying to be first for something new and rushing and inevitably losing lives.

[@russellharrell2747]

Human space flight isn’t that great. We’ve done amazing things with unmanned missions to every planet in the solar system and many minor planets including the dwarf planets Pluto and Ceres. Our space telescopes have changed our view of the universe, and we’ve discovered thousands of Exoplanets thanks to Kepler. Sure I’d love for humans to go out there as far as we can go, but it’s not necessary to push before we have the proper infrastructure and robust vehicles.

[@Isaac-eh6uu]

​@@russellharrell2747yeah that much is understood but ultimately worth while projects were completely abandoned. The people who worked on them are long gone and we regressed when it comes to manned flights. We should have pushed more. You get the most progress through trial and error. Just doing a little bit does way more then nothing.

[@hihihihihello]

Moon landings are fake people wake up

[@dylangtech]

The description of the N1's intended use shows how clever NASA was with their redocking approach. Saturn V and the Apollo modules had fewer stages and fewer steps. That means more efficiency and fewer risk factors to account for

[@terrystevens5261]

The Germans are known for their efficiency.

[@hihihihihello]

Cringe

[@mi1400]

But as vid say US landed so many times it got bored ... why didnt US build some station on moon ... maybe even smaller/simpler but just to close the chapter what russians were wet-dreaming!?!

[@gregmatin5187]

It's all a scam! No one has been to the moon! There are no satellites. It's all a scam! Wake up people!

[@AlexRyne]

IIRC, Korolev himself said that his design is insufficient piece of shit, and smaller amount of bigger engines would work better. But the government didn't get any money and time to develop new engines.

[@Z4m0ht]

Those transitions hurt. Everything else is amazing, but they make me wanna flip the table.

[@groonix3856]

You showed a picture of a nuclear fusion reactor but said the soviets planned to build a fission reactor.

[@rdelrosso1973]

Good catch.

[@planckstudios]

Whoa. I thought it was a mistake but it kept happening. that out-of-focus-fast-jumble-transition is like poking your viewers in the eyes. Omg you keep doing it.

[@erikjrussell]

Great video @TheSpaceRaceYT -interesting and educational. But I’m kind of surprised you got through it all without mentioning For All Mankind (Apple TV+), which showed what could have happened if the Soviets got to the moon first, even focusing on the Zvezda moon base. Anyone interested in what *could* have been would get an interesting glimpse at it in that show.

[@chammockutube]

Exactly my thoughts! For All Mankind is awesome!!!

[@billygoat520]

This video is mostly nonsense. The Russians who do not live in urban areas have carpeting to their bathroom but it is 100 meters from their bedroom and a cold walk at that.

[@rexringtail471]

Space Race: "Not with a bang" Also Space Race: "It was the largest non-nuclear explosion in human history"

[@bigianh]

Korolev had numerous health problems stemming from his time in the Gulags the operation he underwent was an exploratory operation that discovered a large tumour on his colon the surgeon attempted to remove it but Korolev didn't survive. Korolev was a high profile patient even though he was not famous in his own lifetime so his Surgeon was the Russian Surgeon General Boris Petrovski

[@gargoyle7863]

Penalty for having health issues because of gulag: gulag!

[@dukecraig2402]

In Mother Russia you must watch when in Gulag you don't suffer from unauthorized docking procedure when in bathing room, it can unfortunately lead to future problems.

[@bigianh]

@@dukecraig2402 Bathing room? This was the Soviet Gulags a bath room would have been luxury generally you were lucky if you got to sleep somewhere that had a roof. Korolev lost 5 stones and all of his teeth during his stay in the Gulag and was never the same again. On the other hand he's the only person who was sent to the Gulags that subsequently received the "Order of Lenin" and he won that twice

[@sfsstuff]

i always thought that the soviets just had a handful of unmanned probes to the moon, never knew more than this

[@fjallavindur]

They were the first in space until the Apollo mission. The first man in space, the first landing of probes on the Moon, Venus and Mars and much more.

[@sfsstuff]

@@fjallavindur yea, I was just talking about their lunar program, but most of their mars missions failed I think

[@Vorpal_Wit]

@@sfsstuff The vast mojority of all missions to Mars have failed. Its notoriously hard.

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

@@Vorpal_Wit and then there's china, first try, one launch with 1 probe 1 rover and 1 orbiter, complete success, really impressive.

[@535phobos]

​@@user-vo8zx2uj1pThey are standing on the shoulders of giants. Still, impressive to do it first try.

[@TrainTruck]

Every time I see these videos talking about who was first in space and what side was planning to do, it just haves me always thinking about what would happen if they just ended up working together instead of just by them self. But to be honest even if Coralv lived and help change how N1 preformed, it'll probably still be him and Glo's to be head budding over who's is better and may lead to another rocket to challenge N1. But it'll also be a question how long they would be able to stay there and what would they actually use that place for?

[@johnmcglynn4102]

If they were both working together both countries would not have been competing and governmental inertia plus the political difficulties of planning together would have slowed the effort to get to the moon by decades. Take a look at NASA's Constellation program vs. Space X Starliner, and then add the difficulty of the communication between the US and Russia that would have been necessary to pull off a moon landing. Endiless discussion and consensus building.

[@kaiserwhence2468]

That scenario has been made into a series called For all Mankind

[@unnamedchannel1237]

That's the thing, nothing would happen. The reason both sides were progressing so quickly as they were racing against each other. You would think that everybody working together would be more efficient but it reduces innovation .

[@rdelrosso1973]

@@kaiserwhence2468 I watched "For All Mankind" on Apple TV In that Alternative History series, the Soviets land on the Moon first, in June 1969, beating us by about 30 days! We and the USSR are NOT "working together". We still have separate programs.

[@embededfabrication4482]

Nothing, it's a waste of time going there, current spacefaring tech is a joke, all the efforts should go towards fusion

[@Peachcreekmedia]

The N1 seems very similar in critical path to Starship.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

There are some parallels, yes. Where the Saturn V stages were built and underwent extensive individual testing before being shipped to the launch site for integration, the N1, like Starship Suoerheavy was built at the launch site, with only the engines being shipped in as completed units. This was partly because there was no way to transport a 17m diameter rocket stage over any great distance, as Russia's rail network was inadequate to the task, and no aircraft even close. Barges couldn't be used. Also, both the N1 and Starship used a large number of smaller engines to achieve massive thrust, rather than a few large engines like the Saturn V. This allows large numbers to be built in production line fashion, and ease of installation, at the cost of increased flow complexity in the exhaust, plumbing needed and controlling the engines together. However, there are major differences which hopefully mean that SpaceX will succeed where the USSR failed. First, testing. Only two in six of the NK-15 engines were tested and not the ones actually being used as they used one shot pyrotechnics to open valves, which meant they could not be turned off after activation. Likewise, the stages of the N1 could not be test fired individually or as a stack before launch. By comparison, every Raptor engine is tested, and both Superheavy and Starship stages are tested before use. As far as we know, while the Raptor V1 may have had problems, no V2 has failed due to malfunction. They've failed due to other factors. Second, improved computer technology. This is big, the KORD (KOntrol Raketnykh Dvigateley) computer that was designed to control the N1's many engines, while cutting edge, was not up to the task of handling fault situations like a turbo-pump exploding. No 1960's computer could have simulated the complex flow mechanics, so the only way to test the programming was to launch. By comparison, modern computer systems are far more sophisticated, from simulations to monitoring and telemetring every component and managing insanely complex systems. Three, quality control and iteration. SpaceX is always looking to improve the Starship design, testing, upgrading, and testing again. Fifty years of improving quality control processes may also play a part. By comparison, the Soviet system was fundamentally authoritarian. Finding a fault would be tantamount to saying your boss/fellow worker has made a mistake, which gets you no friends in a society based on collective action. Add to that the difficulty of testing in the first place and you can see how something like the N1 would have trouble. The design was brilliant, the execution less so, especially under Mishkin. But even so, the first two launches of Starship have both failed, you cry out, eager to puncture my thesis. But look at how they failed. The first launch suffered problems due to FOD from the launch pad just not being able to take it. Even so it got further along it's mission path than any N1, including passing Max Q. Remaining engines and computers held up despite failures. The second launch had a flawless first stage launch and stage separation. It blew up only after the flip manouvre to return to launch site, something that had never been tested. Some complex interaction, possibly shock hammer or fuel slosh starved the engines and then caused damage. The second stage flew almost all the way to orbit, but was pottentially damaged during the hot staging manoevvre, another thing that hadn't been tested, as it was apparently losing oxygen. The last and most important difference is support. SpaceX is committed to making Starship work, and has the funding and infrstructure to keep going, even if they do blow up a dozen more vehicles in the process. By comparison, after the Apollo missions succeeded, the N1 was a vehicle without a purpose. They had two more units ready that could have continued testing, but it was abandoned instead.

[@tilmerkan3882]

Five stages vs two. Focus on reusability and refueling instead of one big shot... there are zero similaritys except the number of engines.

[@artexloop8692]

​@@stainlesssteelfox1ain't nobody reading your essay lil bro

[@hihihihihello]

Cringe

[@ape_on_rhino8467]

Oh we have pretty good idea what would happen if Soviets got to the moon first. It's called For All Mankind and it's absolute banger of a TV serie

[@averagejoe8255]

I really enjoyed this episode. Thank you.

[@rogerrinkavage]

Love it, this remains one of my favorite channels! 💜

[@maultasche668]

Creating the biggest non nuclear explosion is an really unexpected achievement And it could have been much worse, because block b and c did by an incredible chance not explode

[@sjsomething4936]

The Soviet Union was known for making very impressively large things, seems to have been an obsession of their leaders. Often impressively big messes, but in this case it was an explosion *AND* a mess.

[@danielescobar7618]

It beats the black Tom explosion in Jersey city in WW1? This was a shipping/train yard sabotage by a famous German spy that leveled the dredgepile and industrial park next to the port which is now known as liberty State Park

[@EorscA]

Followed the channel for a while.... One of your best video's to date. 😊

[@HrtBkr]

Wow i never knew that! great video!

[@TheCiardellas]

Thanks for the history lesson Didn’t know much about this

[@rgberry69]

Thank you. This is a brilliant video.

[@sonnyburnett8725]

Great video, however beyond fixing the N-1 issues the Soviets would never have been able to land multiple Lunar landing modules within the same hundred mile area at the time this was happening. I actually wish the N-1 had been successful because it possibly could have caused Congress to approve the final three Apollo flights and maybe we could have performed an American/Soviet flight on one of those. Talk about history.

[@johnmcglynn4102]

Thanks. I was unaware of N1 launches 3 and 4.

[@Ender-vh2gb]

Love your videos! Would be great for AUD pricing options on the site so I could get some merch.

[@kennypool]

Don't forget the Soviet Luna remote controlled rover .

Lunokhod 1 and 2.

[@kennypool]

@ How can someone do a "documentary" and not have all the facts.

[@bobmusil1458]

@@kennypool Because it’s not relevant to the space race. It happened after the US had landed with astronauts on the Moon for several times.

[@kennypool]

@@bobmusil1458 get some sleep, your very cranky

[@terrystevens5261]

Lunokhod was mentioned in the video.@@kennypool

[@hcic8738]

Excellent videos

[@tonyug113]

And watching Elons Starship stuff , the N1 story kinds gives you chills..

[@atoriusv5070]

Uhhhh the planned soviet moon trains... did they plan to use standard track design and rely on weight and friction of the wheels on the smooth metal tracks? Pretty sure there would be some distinct issues there.

[@MichalCilekAI]

Great video, thanks a lot.

[@ti994apc]

Had Russian gone with the UR-700 and not tried to build the N-1, they might have won.

[@fjallavindur]

They might have won with N1 if they managed to rotate central ring of the engines like Starship and not turn off engines. But the problem was still a cpu to control whole process, they didn't have it back then. Yeah if they sticked with RD-270 engines for UR-700 rocket, maybe they flew to the Moon

[@ashleyobrien4937]

8:33 That's not a nuclear fission reactor ! It's a Tokamac...Fusion experiment...

[@FrankRuiz66]

Korolev didn't want to work around hypergolic fuels due to the fact that they are extremely poisonous if memory serves me correctly.

[@yeetskeet7234]

Literally THE DEFINITION of going out with a bang

[@m7791]

I wouldn’t trust a Russian school bus let alone a moon base.

[@rdelrosso1973]

And Russian TV sets in the 1960s would also blow up!

[@terrystevens5261]

Nasa have been using Russian rocket engines for more than 20 years though.

[@gagarinone]

It's funny that Soviet rocket engines are still used to launch US military satellites. Jeff Bezo has yet to get the replacement to work reliably.

[@timur3505]

Are you dumb or something? There is ISS with Russian modules, and the whole MIR stattion before that.

[@timur3505]

@@rdelrosso1973 😱 So how you survived? With brain damage?

[@johankellgren3943]

No ,that was from a company intranet. Something started to show a livefeed from the moon.

[@fast-toast]

3:54 i like your use of KSP.

[@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm]

"Your channel is something very very special. Top 3 on KZbin for this type of programming in my opinion. It boggles my mind almost as much as the information you provide in the shows, how you only have half a million subscriber’s. I feel like I’m getting in early on a community with the potential to reach 10 million subscribers or more. Just fantastic ground breaking work you’re doing here my friend. I’m honored to be a part of it. I will be making donations to the channel going forward. Thank you for what you’re doing from Canada. 🙏💫🇨🇦🍻"

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Wow, thank you! This really means a lot and glad to hear you're enjoying the videos we put so much time and effort into :)

[@billygoat520]

How much were you paid to say that.

[@indiangamerz3788]

​@@TheSpaceRaceYTlove and respect to you from India as well man,amazing man,it would have been marvelous for both us and soviets to build bases on mars and moon ,by now you guys would have had moon coties or bades with millions of population there,but as mations were wasting resources in unnecessary wars which didnt make any sense

[@indiangamerz3788]

*cities or bases

[@indiangamerz3788]

And 2nd comment is thats why there was a setback in terms of technology

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

8:32 speaks about nuclear fission, presents fushion reactor LOL

[@parthamittra9058]

interesting 'what if'' but it was Serge Korolev's death in 1966 which sealed the fate of this mission. Getting the N1's 32 rockets to fire together and fly straight was something the Soviets could not master (Hence the two disastrous launches). Korolev might have found a way but ti was not to be.

[@grumpy2.0]

Wow I see a lot of inspiration for the spacex booster

[@billygoat520]

Right, and if my aunt had balls she would have been my uncle. The USSR was also the first nation to lose people in their space program and how many will never be known. The Russians were also years behind in computer technology, they still are. Belize can draw up plans and say this is what we would like to do on the moon.

[@markb8468]

Subscribed!

[@hrdowns9464]

Great story!👏🏼👏🏽

[@SlyNation]

These questions are probably the exact reason why we have the show 'For All Mankind'.

[@InhumanCondition-gh2qj]

Was good soviet plan comarade! Excpet we had to stand in line for 3 hours to get oxygen, many people suffocated waiting. The toilet paper line was only 1 hour long.

[@lordgarion514]

It was never going to succeed. Not only could they not afford to test all the engines all together at one time, but they couldn't even test every engine on its own.

[@davevann9795]

The N1 main engine design was for single-fire engines. After test firing, the N1 main engines would all need to be replaced.

[@jernejfunkl8300]

I remembered a joke about the race for the Moon: An employee rushes to the director of NASA and shouts: The Russians are painting the Moon red!! The director calmly replies: Don't panic. When they're done, we'll write Coca-Cola on it :)

[@jsandersnyny]

A little naive. It wasn't just the booster. There were a thousand technological advances needed to successfully rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit and then accurately and safely land on and take off from the lunar surface, and the Soviets had developed neither the equipment not the training or experience to do so. NASA had patiently and systematically developed all of these through Gemini and Apollo, and it was a stretch even for them. Just thinking about the computers alone-the Soviets had nothing remotely like MIT's onboard Apollo navigation computer-gives me shivers. The Soviets' effort was a desperate, last-ditch kind of stunt from start to finish and would never have gotten close to succeeding, though they might have managed to kill a bunch of cosmonauts in the process. But oh well.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

You sound a little over biased. The Russians did have their bord computers, with so called pen-valves or pen-tubes. I find them more reliable, and I would love to build some amplifiers with these. Though the N1 didn't work, the Russian space program is continueasly functioning since 1957. If any problems arrise, cosmonauts can hand-steer their Sojus craft. Something the west has seen only on the Shuttle and I'm not sure if to the same degree. Their landing is somewhat exciting.... Also, when I like saying Apollo was only a tin can, I rather not think about inside a Sojus. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@kristiankoski3908]

They didn't get to the Moon but Soviet space program by no means stopped after N1 failure. They got the first space station in orbit and they made it to Venus. Especially the Venera program is amazing.

[@DouglasLippi]

1:52 lol you can say this about every failed project ever. "It would have been awesome if only it didn't suck so bad."

[@stefang5639]

Just using the normal crew department without using the complete internal space of the rocket would give us already almost the same amount of pressurized space as the ISS. I think as a start this would be already a great station.

[@DONALDSON51]

TV show 'For all Mankind' on Apple TV explores this 'what if' alternative history of the space race. First 2 series are worth a watch. Series 3 was awaful and have to see what they do with series 4 which is out now

[@robsalvv5853]

Agree first two are worth a watch. Haven’t seen 3rd series yet… doesn’t sound promising based on your feedback?! lol

[@somerandomdude1552]

I liked the 3rd season, though it does veer more into sci fi than the earlier 2

[@usun_current5786]

Just imagine if Korolev didn't die early and Soviets would have succeeded with N1 rocket, the race would continue for decades longer and we would have got lunar bases at least.

[@rdelrosso1973]

At the 14:50 mark -- the LARGEST non-nuclear explosion in history! That's pretty Awesome. But as for the "70 Years" reference -- -That means the Soviets began planning the Moon Base in 1953 ? Or 4 years before Sputnik? That's hard to believe!

[@HighMojo]

That "What if", the Soviets won has been answered in the series "For All Mankind".

[@ethanlal4517]

U forgot the first dog in space.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

It didn't survive reentry. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@caseycooper5615]

Korilov's death and the Apollo 1 disaster are to me the turning point of the space race. Korilov was an absolute genius, but the others around him not so much. N1 may have failed even if he lived, but there was no chance after he died The deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White created a giant change in how NASA did business as expressed by Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option.” I think choosing quality at all costs versus expediency is what turned the corner. Greatly oversimplified, but it gets the gist of it Another issue for the Soviets was how overcomplicated the N1 was. 5 stages, 25 boosters on the first? Think of igniting all of them, not to mention keeping them in the correct position. It also required 10 million pounds of thrust to get less to the moon than Apollo. No wonder it had a 100% failure rate. Compare that to the Saturn V. Five engines on the first stage, three stages total with the third able to reignite.with some minor technicalities, it had a 100% success rate. In the space race, the Americans failed hard at first, but learned. I always thought it was more compelling that we endured lots of humiliation at the hands of the Soviets, but finally succeeded where it counted. It's just a shame we stopped there.

[@rustusandroid]

When Sergei Korolev died, it set the soviets WAY back. Such a tragedy.

[@venomancer711]

This is how world conflicts should be solved, Instead of wars countries should compete like the space race which besides showcasing both sides scientific engineering prowess but also furthering knowledge as a side effect

[@randybentley2633]

The same would have happened under Korolev. The Soviets didnt do full engine combustion run of the N1 on a test stand, so they would do iterative development by launching and seeing what happens.

[@amotriuc]

Agree, they were behind at that time, US starred development of the F1 engine before the moon program started. Soviets didn't have anything equivalent in the works and had to take serios shortcuts to catch up.

[@davevann9795]

The N1 could not be test-fired without replacing ALL of the engines afterward. The main engines were designed so they could only be fired once. Decades later, the leftover unused N1 main engines were sold to a US company, that had some launch failures because of engine failures.

[@55stryker]

@@amotriuc So far behind that the U.S. is still using Soviet engines.

[@amotriuc]

@@55stryker The engines that US uses from Russia are not the exactly the same as the ones from N1 rocker. The ones used in N1 rocket were not properly finished yet. Korolev did complain about it himself.

[@gagarinone]

If the Soviet chief engineer of their space program, Sergei Korolev, had not, strangely enough, died in a simple stomach operation in january 1966, the Soviets might also have been first in the field, ahead of the US. Sergei Korolev, just like Wernher von Braun in the USA, had a vision that we humans would establish ourselves in space. Both were unique individuals, were brilliant engineers and had the unusual ability to get many different people to work together on the same goal. Sadly, Wernher von Braun also passed away to early, a few years later, from kidney cancer in June 1977. With both visionaries dead, the air went out of both the Soviet and American space programs. What the world needs today are visionaries like Sergei Korolev and Wernher von Braun.

[@IraRabinowitz]

Wernher von Braun, a Nazi SS member, had slave labor in the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp build the V1 and V2 rockets. Under Operation Paperclip, the US looked the other way and recruited him and thousands of other Nazi scientists for their expertise.

[@tekmepikcha6830]

Your opening statement was very ambiguous if not incorrect. If the space race was to see who reached the moon first then yes the Americans won BUT if the space race was to see who reached space first then the Soviets were the clear winners.

[@cornpowa]

That depends on how you define "reached." Yeah, the soviets put the first man in space, but No-No Germany was the first to get a man-made object into space. Sure it was suborbital, but they still reached space in 1944.

[@tekmepikcha6830]

@@cornpowa I agree. That's good info.

[@bobmusil1458]

The US did everything that the Soviet Union did. The Soviet union could not do what the Us did. So the US won.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

@cornpowa, Perhaps a bit earlier ? V2 went in series production in 1944. First successfull launch was 1942. In 1944 they were already working on a spy rocket called V2b, the first space shuttle prototype. 2 flights until 1945. Also, work was underway on a 1st stage booster for V2, the A9/A10 rocket. That was supposed to prevent America entering the war. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@gagarinone]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Thanks for that interesting information

[@Jccj93486]

The N1 had more thrust but…it fucking blew up every time.. thus.. the saturn V was the most powerful rocket during the space race.

[@SMGJohn]

If there did a full thrust test on the N1, they would figured out the issue on day one. Taking shortcuts are really bad and the Soviet Moon program is a great example of that. N1 moon rocket was a great design, plumbing for the engines, not so much but nothing that could not be fixed.

[@davevann9795]

Unfortunately the N1 main engines used pyrotechnic valves, so the engines could only be fired once. They test-fired 1 in 6 of the engines off the production line, but those tested engines were then scrapped.

[@NeedsLessWedge]

Thanks for insight into some history. Looks all too familiar to todays age, all things old are made new.

[@rayceeya8659]

THe N1 was an unmitigated disaster. 30 engines?!? Saturn had FIVE and even then they couldn't make all five run perfectly every time. 30 was ludicrous. They built four and all four went kaboom. In recent news, Starship uses 30+ engines and how's that going? Oh yeah they just blew up their own launchpad too. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the problem.

[@robotmonkeys]

The irony of showing a tokamak when saying, “fission reactor”

[@jamie8732]

It a lot cheaper and easier to make a movie.

[@hgodtx]

Know I've acquired an even deeper understanding of the phrase "It's not rocket science"!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@TheSpaceRaceYT >>> Great video...👍

[@millionerbbb]

Yeah, soviets had a lot of fantasies like that Moon base. But they never had enough resources to make it real. They made N1 test flights without any on ground tests because of funds shortage.

[@davevann9795]

No N1 test fires because the N1 main engines were designed to only be fired once. The engines used pyrotechnic valves, which means tiny explosives operated those valves. After a test firing, the N1 main engines would need to be scrapped and replaced.

[@zeltron-qk2iu]

In the soviets did achieve 100t heavy lift launcher but ofcourse it was too late

[@kevinreardon2558]

When I first read the title, I thought the Soviets were planning for the future and building an abandoned moon base so it would never have to be occupied.

[@drasticallyfantastic7164]

Like every other tech, the more people we get up there the fater tech will evolve

[@royparrish2515]

it's a good thing that that N-1 Massive Explosion wasn't mistaken as a Nuclear Attack from the US

[@hgodtx]

Both country's military are well informed of moves each other make.

[@maxcr5937]

this is the best channel, learning about russian space turtles alone ill be able to figure out how to use this information to win a bet against moon landing deniers 😂

[@johnbrooks1269]

The Soviets lived on the edge of disaster throughout their space program not because they were not smart, but because socially they were cut-throat. No second chances allowed, so everyone from designers on up to cosmonauts took huge risks. Bravado is ingrained in the culture, so rather than risk public embarrassment they pulled back to save face. NASA had many, many failures, but they admitted going to space is very, very hard! So failures were accepted as the price you pay, just learn from them and try again. Thankfully Elon has embraced that.

LOL you consumer drones and your many layered gullibility, hilarious.

[@gr7485]

Elon hasn't created any lunar landings yet and maybe never will. NASA six , Elon zero

[@hihihihihello]

​​@these ppl will be signed up to pre order neural link ASAP

[@hihihihihello]

You guys the moon landing was fake and I know this because my dog is the cutest dog in the world and she told me so.

[@EvenStar303]

How would they bury those Moon-Base modules with dirt? Did they bring an excavator? What is the excavator running on, since there is no oxygen atmosphere on the Moon? Or did they bring a shovel?

[@iamcase1245]

The excavator would've likely run on electricity coming from batteries.

[@EvenStar303]

​@@iamcase1245Most definitely.

[@danielescobar7618]

Needing surgery was a very risky thing at that time because both lenin and stalin purged a lot of the most experienced and educated doctors. There was noone to teach or oversee practices at this time. Supposedly both of them could have been saved but there was no one around to do it. Around this time they had students in neutral countries' universities all over

[@P.Galore]

Yes, the Soviets were ahead most of the time but we the US had two Aces up its sleeve: Money and Nazis.

[@bobmusil1458]

The Soviet Union also had some Nazis. The US just had the better Nazis 😂

[@craiggodfrey2789]

Probably want to calm ALL the adverts down before ... i just cant be bothered with site anymore! otherwise ive enjoyed the layout and information

[@alexanderkidonakis9185]

Was it bad luck or sabotage

[@MrGoesBoom]

Back in the day when the budget was plentiful and ambition was past the Karmen Line..plenty of really well thought out plans, little to no political or social will to carry them out once people actually got to the moon. Hopefully this time around things will be different ( for all that commercialization of everything has reduced so many things to trying to squeeze every last cent outta people, it seems like it's the only way we're gonna get things done in space at the moment )

[@gagarinone]

It seems that humanity needs an external enemy that can unite us towards a common goal. As in the science fiction television series "Space: Above and Beyond".

[@peterlongprong7521]

Russian rocket engine designers: "should we come up with a new blueprint?" "nah, we'll just keep doing the same thing over and over, and over again, and hope it works out"

[@SMGJohn]

And who has the most reliable Rockets in the world because of that?

[@terrystevens5261]

Ironic really, when you consider Nasa used Russian rockets extensively.

[@portcybertryx222]

For all mankind timeline would probably have been true today if nasa had the same consistent funding

[@andreasboesch9922]

Great informative video. To know a possible outcome if the Soviets had landed on the moon first, watch For All Mankind.

[@ionelsaiu6377]

they didn t lost anything,they lunch the first man into space,first satelite,first orbital station,they master the most efficient rocket enginee Rd class

[@charlesringram6616]

What happened to the Venus landing for the Russian Rover?

[@rapidthrash1964]

Honestly, despite only two launches so far, Space X’s starship is still more successful than all the N1 launches

No.

[@thomaslanders2073]

Not really. SpaceX engineers and scientists need to cheer and clap less while working hard more 😅

[@Thethyck4445]

​@@thomaslanders2073no the Starship managed to get into space the N1 never managed to get it to space and Starship never had a major ground explosion yet.

[@blengi]

true and has much more power, much greater potential tonnage to LEO, full reusability, more efficient and much cheaper engines etc and they already have experience with the most successful, reliable, cheapest per kilo rocket booster in history falcon 9 to make it all come together

[@fjallavindur]

​@@Thethyck4445 ofc, 50 years ago soviets didn't have cpu to control 30 N1 engines, SpaceX have these technologies rn

[@danielescobar7618]

Burying your modules with regolith was an extremely bad idea in hindsight. Nobody accounted for how impossibly abrasive it is. More than industrial abrasives we can mine and manufacture here. It never has any natrual weathering or grinding down action like anything on earth, even during mining, our indusrial diamonds and aluminum oxide are blunted. The moon regilith during the act of burying, and compaction would be cutting and grinding constantly on the outside

[@markabele8794]

A very interesting "what if" scenario about how are space race could have gone. It's possible we have gone to Mars at some point.

[@rdelrosso1973]

I think there is an error in your last sentence.

[@markabele8794]

@@rdelrosso1973 You're right. I should have proofread what I wrote before posting.

[@thomascooley2749]

The n1 never worked it never completed a first stage burn It made for good fireworks tho

[@CD3WD-Project]

I find it sad that we never went farther with space stuff. Yet I find it even funnier that yet 50 years on we can't even make it back to the moon.

You need to get your meds balanced sleepy.

[@Pariah_Larry]

I think they were just significantly more willing to die.. or forced to be that way.

[@MBTIinRealLife]

wtf why they couldn't just make N1 work or just make another rocket and make it work. That's weird.

[@nunyabidness117]

So the competent guy was knocked off the politically-connected incompetent guy. Russia in a nutshell.

[@lepompier132]

How come the first fatal accident on the Launch pad of the N1 that used hypergolic fuel is not mentionned? One of the first time I learned about the N1 after the fall of the USSR I saw the documentary of the N1 exploding on the launch pad as they worked on it. Many died on that day. After that accident they started to use RP1 and Lox. Why in 2023 do people desperatly change or remove some facts on events of history?

[@shockcat5988]

It looks like starship almost

[@michaelhardesty1752]

Two main reasons for the N1 failure is that they would not spend the money to build a test rig for the first stage engines, they were only tested on an actual launch, which as we have seen is the wrong method. After rebuilding the launch pad it possibly would have been cheaper to have built the test rig. Secondly the engineers knew of the failings etc, but no one had the balls to speak out, that's the Russian culture.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Its not limited to Russia. Culture is probably the wrong word for it. Also, it is being worked very hard on making this US and European standard too. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@davevann9795]

The N1 could NOT be test-fired because the main engine design was single-firing only. All engines would have to be replaced after a test-fire.

[@michaelhardesty1752]

@@davevann9795 Yes a crazy situation but they should have tested the engine on its own and waste the money on a few test engines not blow up all the completed rockets and pad. Better still design and use an engine that can be fired numerous times, which they did talk about amongst themselves.

[@OKTHUNDERROCK]

If the moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earths gravity, would it not take a rocket 1/6th the size of apollo to get off the moon to return home?

[@CommentConqueror]

Sounds a lot like starships future