Which is the best Olde Rocket???

[ZooNamedGames]

I have been curious about to which rocket (in the old days) is the best. I have MY favorites for my reason, but which one is YOURS? Also why so? Why is yours better than mine?? Tell me and we can decide. Here's a basic list and your perfectly allowed to add to it:

-USSR:

Vostok

Vosthod

Proton

N1 (I like this one even though it never did anything XD )

Soyuz

-US:

Mercury:

Mercury-Redstone

Mercury-Atlas 3LV

Mercury 'Little Joe'

Gemini:

Titan II

Atlas-Agina

Titan III (MOL/Big G LV)

Apollo-

Saturn 1B

Saturn V

Saturn 1

Post-Apollo/Pre-Shuttle:

Saturn-Skylab

Space Shuttle

Russia:

Buran

This is the list (current of 3/29/14) of what you can choose from, however don't be afraid to ADD to the list, because you'll help to add to the list.

My list on USSR/Russian rockets are short so if you want to add to it, then PLEASE, ADD TO IT, PLEASE!

Now choose!! However, I'd prefer if you'd choose a older type of craft... hence why the list is 'slightly' bare on new designs. Such rockets as the SLS and so on, are disregarded as we are looking for OLDE rockets, not new ones.

I hope you enjoy the conversations below and be nice

Edited March 30, 2014 by ZooNamedGames

[ZooNamedGames]

American FTW, nice XD

[Deathsoul097]

The rocket that carried the Buran was the Energia HLV. The Buran was essentially the US space shuttle, with the SSME's on the external tank, unmanned capabilities, and four Kerolox boosters, rather than two SSSRBs.

EDIT: Did you just reply to your own thread as if you were a different person?

[astropapi1]

It really depends on what you use it for. It wouldn't be practical to use Saturn Vs for crew rotations, but you can't go to the moon on a space shuttle.

[ZooNamedGames]

The rocket that carried the Buran was the Energia HLV. The Buran was essentially the US space shuttle, with the SSME's on the external tank, unmanned capabilities, and four Kerolox boosters, rather than two SSSRBs.

EDIT: Did you just reply to your own thread as if you were a different person?

I know that the Energia is the base LV, but still, I am referring to the orbiter vehicle+LV combo.

Yes, I kind of did, I just wanted to say it, if I REALLY wanted to be weird I would have hit the "reply with quote" button.

[ZooNamedGames]

It really depends on what you use it for. It wouldn't be practical to use Saturn Vs for crew rotations, but you can't go to the moon on a space shuttle.

Well, depends. You don't have to use the second largest Saturn design to go to the moon, the Saturn 1B does that quite fine without a LM in tow AND the 1B DID perform crew rotations during the Skylab era.

[maccollo]

My favorite is the Saturn V.

Why?

It actually sent people somewhere! None of this sitting on rafts in LEO for 40 years crap.

Edited March 29, 2014 by maccollo
typo

[ZooNamedGames]

My favorite is the Saturn V.

Why?

It actually send people somewhere! None of this sitting on rafts in LEO for 40 years crap.

What do you mean? Your a little ambiguous to your meaning.

I want to say something on your comment, but the meaning is so vague I can't for I simply don't know how to respond.

[Temstar]

You have something like a 30 year gap between the oldest to newest spacecraft on your list, it's a bit like comparing Orion to the Apollo spacecraft, it would have been pretty damn disappointing if Buran didn't outperform Mercury Redstone.

That said I have to vote for Buran and its Energia super heavy launch vehicle. Buran is basically a more advanced space shuttle capable of fully autonomous flight. But shuttle aside the big advantage of the Buran system is that you also get the Energia in the same package, and Energia is a bonafide, 100-tons-to-LEO Saturn V class booster rocket fully capable of being used for moon missions. If your mission didn't need a shuttle you just fit your alternative payload to the side of Energia and it will happily loft anything up, unlike the shuttle where you're either restricted to 24 tons to LEO and the dimensions of the shuttle cargo bay, or you fork out even more money to develop Shuttle-C.

And of course Buran - Energia uses all liquid fuelled rockets, so no possibility of failure due to SRB. And I'm not just talking about O-rings, there are many more ways for the shuttle stack to fail that we haven't encountered but nevertheless is possible. For example if one SRB lights and one fails to ignite or if one shuts down early you will immediately get a cart wheeling spacecraft. Where as with Buran your boosters are Zenit rockets, which happens to hold the current world record for cheapest kg to orbit ratio of all space launch systems and is rather reliable to boot.

[ZooNamedGames]

You have something like a 30 year gap between the oldest to newest spacecraft on your list, it's a bit like comparing Orion to the Apollo spacecraft, it would have been pretty damn disappointing if Buran didn't outperform Mercury Redstone.

That said I have to vote for Buran and its Energia super heavy launch vehicle. Buran is basically a more advanced space shuttle capable of fully autonomous flight. But shuttle aside the big advantage of the Buran system is that you also get the Energia in the same package, and Energia is a bonafide, 100-tons-to-LEO Saturn V class booster rocket fully capable of being used for moon missions. If your mission didn't need a shuttle you just fit your alternative payload to the side of Energia and it will happily loft anything up, unlike the shuttle where you're either restricted to 24 tons to LEO and the dimensions of the shuttle cargo bay, or you fork out even more money to develop Shuttle-C.

And of course Buran - Energia uses all liquid fuelled rockets, so no possibility of failure due to SRB. And I'm not just talking about O-rings, there are many more ways for the shuttle stack to fail that we haven't encountered but nevertheless is possible. For example if one SRB lights and one fails to ignite or if one shuts down early you will immediately get a cart wheeling spacecraft. Where as with Buran your boosters are Zenit rockets, which happens to hold the current world record for cheapest kg to orbit ratio of all space launch systems and is rather reliable to boot.

Yes I have a LARGE gap, however as stated I prefer you DIDN'T compare the Redstone to a SpaceEx Falcon, it is unfair but I still leave the option open for anyone who wants it.

I do understand how the Buran Energia works, Im not new to rockets. I simply listed it as 'Buran' because I dont want people like you to get the wrong idea.

[bigdad84]

I'd have to chose the Saturn V. It's the only rocket that has ever taken us anywhere (as previously stated above).

I also am quite fond of the Soyuz, extremely safe and reliable.

Edited March 29, 2014 by bigdad84

[ZooNamedGames]

I'd have to chose the Saturn V. It's the only rocket that has ever taken us anywhere (as previously stated above).

I also am quite fond of the Soyuz, extremely safe and reliable.

True. I agree with both statements completely, HOWEVER I do wish to add to your first point.

Many rockets have done stuff unique to their time, the N1 is an easy example. If the N1 had been better designed, the USSR would have beaten us to the moon. By the time we had Apollo 11 ready, they had 2 pre-made and being moved to the launch site.

The Space Shuttle has also done a LOT during it's time, being a great transport to space for many reasons such as; launching satellites, being mini-stations for medical purposes and for it's biggest reason, it made the world's largest mobile lab called the ISS. It is the world's largest collaboration to date. Even the Saturn V did NOT have this effect, it had made the entire NATION, not the ENTIRE planet as the Space Shuttle did, however I DON'T want to convince you of anything you don't believe.

The Mercury Redstone allow for the America to go to space, how awesome is that?? Back then, it was world changing.

Last but not least, and no I'm not explaining this one, go look up the Saturn Nova.... Just look it up and then tell me about the awesomeness of the Saturn V.

[PDCWolf]

Voted N1, too bad it never got anywhere, but it was hella beautiful and it also created the biggest non-nuclear explosion known to man, it also gave us rocket engines so great that are still relevant today.

[ZooNamedGames]

Voted N1, too bad it never got anywhere, but it was hella beautiful and it also created the biggest non-nuclear explosion known to man, it also gave us rocket engines so great that are still relevant today.

Yep: it also WOULDVE beaten the US to the moon if it hadn't been so badly engineered or in a different point of view, if it had not been so badly setup with the ONLY launchpad useable by the N1, being on an island. Because it was on an island, it had to be disassembled and reassembled on the island, which (coupled with the engine problems as it was) caused tons of fuel, engines, control and more problems.

[maccollo]

What do you mean? Your a little ambiguous to your meaning.

I want to say something on your comment, but the meaning is so vague I can't for I simply don't know how to respond.

It's just me expressing my frustration with how fast the space program progressed initially, culminated with the Apollo. How we then stooped and went back to just barely getting into space and skimming Earth's atmosphere for 40 years in various space stations.

Basically, the Saturn V isn't just a great rocket. It's a symbol for the pinnacle of human space exploration.

Unlike most of the others in your list, I don't look at the Saturn V as a great achievement for it's time, but as something which is greater than anything we've achieved since.

[Klingon Admiral]

Aggregat 4, none of the rockets here would have flown without it

[ZooNamedGames]

It's just me expressing my frustration with how fast the space program progressed initially, culminated with the Apollo. How we then stooped and went back to just barely getting into space and skimming Earth's atmosphere for 40 years in various space stations.

Basically, the Saturn V isn't just a great rocket. It's a symbol for the pinnacle of human space exploration.

Unlike most of the others in your list, I don't look at the Saturn V as a great achievement for it's time, but as something which is greater than anything we've achieved since.

Well yes, the Saturn V WENT somewhere, but theres a REASON why we dont go there. One is that it is expensive and two, is that there was very little to learn until recently. The recent technological boast your seeing in your lifetime is something that was non-existent until the last 20 years.

There simply was no reason and also because of the lack of funding, besides the growing demand (and interest) of having manned orbital stations became greater, and sadly the people in NASA whom wanted the station, had been waiting through Mercury, through Gemini (they REALLY planned to have one up during Gemini such as in Big G, or MOL) and Apollo and ASTP. They couldn't wait any longer and besides, if microgravity didn't hold such important learning experiences, then we WOULD have gone back, or more likely, focused more on Mars, sadly that path leads to no SLS, but rather back to the Saturn Nova.

It was inevitable. Besides, the Space Shuttles/Soyuz s WAS an achievement, one that has a much LARGER impact than that of Apollo (sowwy, but true). Apollo bonded a NATION together stronger than anything before, the ISS bonded a WORLD together, and it even bounds some parts of the world that ethically couldn't be in the same room together, but because of the SS/Soyuz s ability to make space flight common, changed the world just as drastically.

Last reason above all is that think of it this way, we had a Gemini program which allowed us to know what would spaceflight would do to people, how to work in space and so on is basically what the Space Shuttle served as. Now we move onto todays program which is basically Apollo, which is Orion. The basic ideas behind both of those programs is the same.

[ZooNamedGames]

Aggregat 4, none of the rockets here would have flown without it

It was one of the first REAL designs and makes, but sadly there were rockets prior to these designs, some schematics dating to if not prior to the 1900s.

[karolus10]

Soyuz - the best manned rocket on the market.

[m4v]

My favorite is the Saturn V.

Why?

It actually sent people somewhere! None of this sitting on rafts in LEO for 40 years crap.

Prrrf, going to orbit is halfway to everywhere.

[Temstar]

if it hadn't been so badly engineered

I don't know if I would say N1 was badly engineered. Using 30 engines was not so much an engineering choice - it was more a lack of choice since Glushko refused to build the large hydrocarbon engines needed for N1. Even so, NK-15 / NK-33 was and still is a marvel of engineering and remains on the cutting edge of hydrocarbon rocket engine 40 years after they were built. The engines are so good that companies like Orbital Sciences have decided to just buy those 40 year old surplus N1 engines and use them on their rockets.

so badly setup with the ONLY launchpad useable by the N1, being on an island. Because it was on an island, it had to be disassembled and reassembled on the island

Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 110 is definitely not on an island:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B057%2752.9%22N+63%C2%B018%2717.6%22E/@45.9634791,63.3065631,1863m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

But yes, assembly is a problem for Russian rockets since the complainants have to be able to travel by rail to Baikonur. Hence why Proton has that strange shape for it's first stage to simplify onsite assembly.

[ZooNamedGames]

I don't know if I would say N1 was badly engineered. Using 30 engines was not so much an engineering choice - it was more a lack of choice since Glushko refused to build the large hydrocarbon engines needed for N1. Even so, NK-15 / NK-33 was and still is a marvel of engineering and remains on the cutting edge of hydrocarbon rocket engine 40 years after they were built. The engines are so good that companies like Orbital Sciences have decided to just buy those 40 year old surplus N1 engines and use them on their rockets.

Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 110 is definitely not on an island:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B057%2752.9%22N+63%C2%B018%2717.6%22E/@45.9634791,63.3065631,1863m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

But yes, assembly is a problem for Russian rockets since the complainants have to be able to travel by rail to Baikonur. Hence why Proton has that strange shape for it's first stage to simplify onsite assembly.

True. But the fact remains. Yes the engines might be nice, but the problem remains, that the N1 was NOT well engineered and or constructed. If it was, then it wouldn't have exploded every single time it is launched.

[Temstar]

True. But the fact remains. Yes the engines might be nice, but the problem remains, that the N1 was NOT well engineered and or constructed. If it was, then it wouldn't have exploded every single time it is launched.

N1 blowing up has more to do with how Russians build rockets, they prefer to do their testing with "all up test" - just stack the damn thing, light it up and see what happens. N1 didn't have any real testing before it's first flight, in fact the people who actually worked on N1 said they only really felt the rocket to be complete for the cancelled fifth flight, the first flight of the upgraded NK-33 engine.

Look at the Proton for example, when Proton was still called UR-500 it had terrible track record from all the growing pains and its repeated failures killed off any chance of the Zond spacecraft beating Apollo to a circumlunar flight. Yet Proton has grown to be quite a reliable and popular heavy launcher today.

[ZooNamedGames]

N1 blowing up has more to do with how Russians build rockets, they prefer to do their testing with "all up test" - just stack the damn thing, light it up and see what happens. N1 didn't have any real testing before it's first flight, in fact the people who actually worked on N1 said they only really felt the rocket to be complete for the cancelled fifth flight, the first flight of the upgraded NK-33 engine.

Look at the Proton for example, when Proton was still called UR-500 it had terrible track record from all the growing pains and its repeated failures killed off any chance of the Zond spacecraft beating Apollo to a circumlunar flight. Yet Proton has grown to be quite a reliable and popular heavy launcher today.

Fair enough. I build myself on being a widely scholar on the space race but I still don't know as much about the Russian program/rockets as I do about NASA (I find them more interesting sorry! )

[Woopert]

Voted N1, too bad it never got anywhere, but it was hella beautiful and it also created the biggest non-nuclear explosion known to man, it also gave us rocket engines so great that are still relevant today.

F-1 engines are still relevant today, as well as J-2 engines.

F-1B engines are upgraded F-1s and J-2X are "derived" from the J-2.

Saturn V accomplished the most and was designed by the one and only Wernher von Braun, possibly the greatest rocket genius of all time. Korolev was pretty good, too. Would have been great if they worked together.