Cosmonauts: How Russia Won the Space Race

[CaptainKipard]

BBC Documentary available on BBC iPlayer until 10th November.

Link

[xenomorph555]

Perfect!

Another great example of the BBC's good nack for space documentary's. I enjoyed this completely, I especially liked the last minutes or so which cap it off very well. 10/10

(Although no love for Voskhod 1 ).

[Leszek]

Well it is only available in the UK.

I am in the commonwealth but that apparently isn't good enough. I wasn't able to find it on BBC Canada.

Found it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKkGPVtaVZQ

Edited October 14, 2014 by Leszek

[AmpsterMan]

Ooh. Going to have to make sure to watch this at some point. Thanks for the linky Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

Another great example of the BBC's good nack for space documentary's.

Ya. BBC despite being state-run has a reputation for objectivity, even if that title is a little provocative.

[Skyler4856]

Well, as my Grandfather's Grandson once said "HERETIC!"...

In all seriousness this is something Ill have to get around to watching this documentary.

[GoSlash27]

Cool documentary.

It's amazing how they managed to accomplish so much with such wonky technology.

-Slashy

[radonek]

Soviet technology was not at all that wonky. You just have to look at china, india, japan and whoever striving to get where Korolevs gang was like fifty years ago. As any technology, theirs had pros and cons. Worst pieces usualy came from being pressed into deadlines by The Party (first sputniks and voskhod comes to mind). Others were very smart (like, say, R-7 liftoff load-bearing, or soyuz sectioning scheme). The fact that american commercial space flight today uses engines made by Kuznetsov for N-1 should also tell you something…

[GoSlash27]

Soviet technology was not at all that wonky. You just have to look at china, india, japan and whoever striving to get where Korolevs gang was like fifty years ago. As any technology, theirs had pros and cons. Worst pieces usualy came from being pressed into deadlines by The Party (first sputniks and voskhod comes to mind). Others were very smart (like, say, R-7 liftoff load-bearing, or soyuz sectioning scheme). The fact that american commercial space flight today uses engines made by Kuznetsov for N-1 should also tell you something…

This is actually what I'm talking about. Apologies for any confusion.

Soviet science and technical abilities were excellent and still are. They were hamstrung by impossible demands and limits imposed by people with no insight into the technical problems. That's a problem in any large organization; certainly not unique to the Soviets.

My point is that many of the solutions adopted were so incredibly wonky that they were borderline suicidal, yet the cosmonauts managed to perform near miracles anyway.

Best,

-Slashy

[Javster]

What's the upsetting scenes?

[DerekL1963]

Others were very smart (like, say, R-7 liftoff load-bearing, or soyuz sectioning scheme).

How on earth is the Soyuz sectioning scheme 'smart'? Introducing multiple failure modes is rarely considered so. Apollo and Gemini were smart because they had only one joint. Soyuz was forced into a much more risky scheme because they landed on land rather than having the cushioning of water - not because they were 'smart'. (And they've suffered several near LOC and near LOCV accidents because of it.) The same goes for the R-7... they built that Rube Goldberg launch scheme because of their inability to build large engines forced them into a vehicle configuration that couldn't be handled by more rational schemes.

No, Soviet technology wasn't all wonky. Quite a bit of it worked fairly well. But even though it worked well, it also often forced them into less than optimal vehicle designs.

The fact that american commercial space flight today uses engines made by Kuznetsov for N-1 should also tell you something…

Yes, it tells me that the US didn't fund much engine development after the early 70's, and that the Russian space industry was very, very desperate for cash.

[Brethern]

Watching this made me feel like humanity might one day throw it's differences and accomplish great things.

Then I scrolled down to the comment section...

[rtxoff]

Youtube is maintaining "the biggest mob of trolls internet ever saw" with their comment policy.

[Kryten]

The same goes for the R-7... they built that Rube Goldberg launch scheme because of their inability to build large engines forced them into a vehicle configuration that couldn't be handled by more rational schemes.

The engines on the R-7 were as or more powerful than that of American contemporaries like Atlas or Thor; it needed more to carry larger soviet warheads.

Yes, it tells me that the US didn't fund much engine development after the early 70's, and that the Russian space industry was very, very desperate for cash.

Don't forget RD-180 on Atlas and probably RD-181 or RD-193 on Antares. Large kerolox engines are definitely an area where the US is still very much behind.

[CaptainKipard]

What's the upsetting scenes?

I'm not sure. I don't remember anything upsetting.

@DerekL1963

Breathe. Inhale for 5 seconds. Hold for 5 seconds. Exhale for 5 seconds.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Brotoro]

I love spaceflight footage I've never seen before.

[GoSlash27]

Youtube is maintaining "the biggest mob of trolls internet ever saw" with their comment policy.

Something we can all agree on!

[Kosmonaut]

I'm in Canada, so I can't watch the video, but it is a given that the USSR beat the USA. They got way more firsts than the USA. First satellite. Fist animal. First Orbit. First human. First woman. First lunar landing. First Mars landing. First interplanetary flight. First interstellar craft (Luna 7 missed the moon and left the solar system 3 years ago). First Venusian landing. First living creatures to the moon (Zond 8, frogs, bugs, and plants). First fully reusable spacecraft. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that th USA beat them in was first multi-crewed mission (Gemini 1), and first lunar landing. I'm not a communist, but the USSR won. Easily.

[Roadkill]

Neither the USA nor the USSR won the "space race". The Germans did. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_(rocket_family)#A4_.28V-2_rocket.29

[smjjames]

I'm in Canada, so I can't watch the video, but it is a given that the USSR beat the USA. They got way more firsts than the USA. First satellite. Fist animal. First Orbit. First human. First woman. First lunar landing. First Mars landing. First interplanetary flight. First interstellar craft (Luna 7 missed the moon and left the solar system 3 years ago). First Venusian landing. First living creatures to the moon (Zond 8, frogs, bugs, and plants). First fully reusable spacecraft. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that th USA beat them in was first multi-crewed mission (Gemini 1), and first lunar landing. I'm not a communist, but the USSR won. Easily.

First UNmanned landing maybe, and you also said 'lunar landing' twice.

Also, second post above is a thread necro.

[Nikolai]

I'm in Canada, so I can't watch the video, but it is a given that the USSR beat the USA. They got way more firsts than the USA. First satellite. Fist animal. First Orbit. First human. First woman. First lunar landing. First Mars landing. First interplanetary flight. First interstellar craft (Luna 7 missed the moon and left the solar system 3 years ago). First Venusian landing. First living creatures to the moon (Zond 8, frogs, bugs, and plants). First fully reusable spacecraft. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that th USA beat them in was first multi-crewed mission (Gemini 1), and first lunar landing. I'm not a communist, but the USSR won. Easily.

This is only true if you are measuring the space race in terms of "firsts". I'd assert that the entire reason the space race occurred was primarily technological muscle-flexing, and in that arena, the United States won hands-down. They demonstrated better rendezvous capabilities earlier than the Soviet Union, and from that point on (Gemini 7/6), the Soviet space program spoke more of means than ends and avoided reference to any overt competition. The attempt to equal the Americans' technological competence in anything related to the Moon stagnated at rovers, very small sample returns, and flybys -- any more than that seemed to be beyond their capability.

[smjjames]

We've gotten over the bruised ego from those Russian firsts long ago anyway.

Also, Luna 7 didn't miss the moon, it crashed into it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_7

[tater]

Given that both sides were in fact trying to send men to the moon, how did they "win?"

The US was reactionary to Soviet achievements, having started with the aim of science (Ike was not keen on the "race" aspect), but ended up pushing the Soviets to reacting once Gemini was going. The notion they never wanted the moon seems a revisionist response to the program after the death of Korolev.

[InterCity]

Former soviet-side-of-the-curtain denizen here.

Soviet technology had no hi-tech glitter like integrated circuitry. It was a bare metal efficiency, though. I remember the old soviet-made x-ray machine I've first seen when I came to university. It was big and bad, but did the job and did it well. Just like the mentioned N-1s...

[Scotius]

That's the thing - N-1 never flew correctly. At that point Russia hardly was a beginner at space stuff. So when a top-tier rocket fails spectacularly five times in a row, it indicates something wrong is with the project.