Привет из Армении :) Молодцы!

Watching from north Texas.

Gratulation !! Wundervoller Start und hervorragender Flug. Macht weiter so. Schöne Grüße von Bayern. Поздравляем!! Прекрасное начало и отличный полет. Делай так дальше. Привет из Баварии.

Epic success for whole world!!! This is the rocket, which will bring russian next space station ROS to orbit, as well as Lunar and far space missions!

¡Felicidades Roscosmos!

Ура! 🇷🇺❤

good to see Angara V fly again. Hopefully all goes well with the upper stage this time.

Отлично 👍.

Well, looks like a successful launch all around.

Хорошо что всё прошло по плану супер 👍

Теперь осталось "Енисея" разработать и кайф)

The whole point of Angara was to be scalable - this is a heavy lift configuration, there are less heavy configurations. Thus the comments surprised me.

Браво👏👏👏👏

Well done Russia!

35:00 At 40 seconds of flight Strange command - Driver of UAZ 695 To the fifth exit

Well done!

Thank you for your informed coverage!

8:01 Dude, why do you keep repeating erroneous information about a failed previous launch? Just to add negativity for the Russians? The problems were with the upper stage engine after the Angara A-5 rocket had been successfully launched into the target orbit with the nominal performance of all three stages....

Perfect Machine. Perfect work in the world perfect team in the world Perfect Mission. Thank you very much 110424.

34:54 Worried about driver of UAZ 695. Maybe he launched at space like Ilon Mask's tesla

Chris from Worcester In England. I admire your staying power Zac! Hope we go today. Keep up the great content!

The Angara 5 is more like the classic Soyuz with its 4 x side boosters (Stage 1) and similarly engined enlarged core (Stage 2) that burns much longer… but Angara works like Delta IV Heavy / Falcon Heavy / Atlas V by throttling down the core after the initial launch phase and going back to full power after booster burnout and separation. There was definitely an Angara 3 specified but that may have not had a purpose not covered by another launcher. I understand that Persei and Orion are not NEW upper stages but incremental upgrades to the established Blok DM-03 kerolox stage…. Introducing modernised control systems and engines. Also Vostochny uses a special synthetic variant of RP-1 kerosene called Naftil for Soyuz and Angara launches… Plesetsk and Baikonur (and previously Kourou) used conventional fuel.

Angara 1.2 Light rocket, without side blocks

Actual content this time

Водитель УАЗа то же принимал участие!!😂 Все большие молодцы!!!

Vers Nice , good job ,congratulations ….

😂😂😂Angara is a Winner Roscosmos!!!!

Impressive booster!

The decision was made not to recover the SRB's from SLS after the semi-successful launch of the Ares-1-X flight vehicle. If you recall, Ares I-X was basically a four-segment shuttle SRB that had passed its "best if used by" date for a manned shuttle vehicle, and so was used in the test flight rather than simply sending it back to Utah to be test fired or have the propellant removed from the casing so the casing could be reused. This SRB was then topped by a fifth dummy segment containing no propellant, a boilerplate interstage adapter, and a dummy second stage and boilerplate launch escape system which was to be used to launch the Orion capsule on the Ares-1 vehicle. The Ares I and Ares V vehicles were designed at that point to use five segment shuttle boosters for the first stage on Ares I and as side boosters on the Ares V rocket. The Ares I-X test flight was launched and flew successfully to booster burnout, at which point the dummy upper stage and boilerplate Orion escape system were jettisoned, and the five segment booster (well, four segments and a dummy segment) was then supposed to parachute into the sea for recovery like the regular four segment shuttle boosters. Unfortunately, the weight was too much even for the improved parachute system, and when it was recovered it was determined that the booster was bent beyond reuse... impact of that much weight of the longer and heavier booster with the additional joint was simply too much force on the booster, as a longer structure will bend easier than a shorter structure, and the forces simply bent the booster too much to ever be reused. Since this would happen with ALL the Ares I first stages and the Ares V side boosters in the five segment configuration, this was a severe blow to the feasibility of Ares I, which was already years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, and both vehicles were already suffering extreme underperformance issues despite Ares I being far into its design phase where such problems SHOULD have already been worked out, and the problems were carrying over into the Ares V design which was much earlier in the design phase but already proving severely problematical. As it turned out, Ares I was cancelled by the Obama administration along with the Constellation Program, Bush's "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" program, and replaced shortly thereafter with the SLS vehicle, which was just an evolution of the Ares V design. Ares V was going to use the same five segment boosters as the Ares I first stage, but it was discovered that these would not have enough power for Ares V to perform the mission as required. Adding another segment, bringing them up to SIX segment boosters, was considered, BUT it would have exceeded the weight that the VAB floor, the crawler and crawlerways out from the VAB to the 39 B launch pad, (39A had by this point already been leased to SpaceX IIRC) and the allowable weight limit that the launch pad at 39A/B could support, so the six segment boosters were non starters (which was a fatal flaw with a lot of designs that used 3 SRB's or other such exotic proposals over the years... unlike liquid rocket boosters which are stacked and moved EMPTY of propellants and only fueled on the pad immediately before launch, SOLID rocket boosters are fueled at the factory and must be stacked and moved FULLY FILLED with propellant, which makes them INCREDIBLY heavy as well as much riskier to handle and work around). The engineers ran the numbers and found out they could support another half-segment on each SRB, and since the shuttle boosters consist of four segments, the middle ones of which each consist of TWO half-segments joined together at the factory (versus the "field joints" which are assembled at the VAB when the boosters are stacked by NASA) they COULD add a half segment to each booster to create a 5.5 segment booster, which JUST squeaked in under the weight limits that the infrastructure at KSC could handle. Of course further design analysis and problems discovered drove performance down and weight up, and Ares V was still falling short of its performance goals (in no small part due to a lot of mission weight being thrown onto Ares V from the underperforming Ares I design due its problems, "kicking the can down the road" onto Ares V to be solved later). Ares V was going to need MORE liftoff thrust, which with the SRB's absolutely maxed out at 5.5 segments, meant adding a sixth SSME to the five-RS-25 engined Ares V core... problem was, that drove up the size of the core, which had already been set at 33 feet (same as Saturn V) enlarged from the 27.5 foot diameter of the Shuttle ET tanks it was based upon. The additional fuel would have to be contained in a lengthened Ares V core, which would soon cause the Ares V to be too tall for the VAB, and fitting a sixth RS-25 SSME engine under the core was also proving problematic. Plus further analysis showed that even the sixth RS-25 would not raise performance enough to make up for the additional weight of the enlarged core stage necessary to hold the propellant for it, as well as the weight of the propellant to feed the engine itself. Ares V had become a dog chasing its own tail design-wise. SLS replaced Ares V after its cancellation along with the Constellation Program, and it reverted to an earlier iteration of Ares V as the basis for its design. Thus it uses the five segment boosters and 27.5 foot diameter core stage designed around the original shuttle External Tank with four RS-25 SSME engines. The core of Ares V and of course its successor SLS was going to be flying too high and too fast for any sort of recovery of the RS-25 SSME's that would be powering it, and designing a boat-tail thrust structure with a reentry heat shield and recovery parachutes and such to recover the engines would not only be extremely expensive, but carry a large weight penalty as well, and so the idea was rejected early on and the decision made that the engines would be expended on every SLS flight. The Shuttle program had proven that SRB recovery and reuse was actually a losing proposition as well... the booster casings were heavy submarine hull maraging steel, and recovering them from the sea using a pair of ships, inspection and disassembly of them and shipping them back to Utah for cleanup and to be refilled with solid propellant, then shipping them BACK to the Cape for movement into storage and then ultimately moving them back to the VAB for stacking into another shuttle vehicle stack being readied for flight, was extremely expensive and time consuming-- it was found that basically reuse of the boosters was saving NO money, they'd be just as well off using DISPOSABLE boosters for the shuttle program, BUT that would require a very expensive design and development and testing program to create new disposable boosters for the shuttle, so the shuttle program simply used the existing boosters. With shuttle's retirement, being replaced by the Ares V then ultimately the SLS vehicle, which would fly at a MUCH lower flight rate than shuttle was intended for, the existing shuttle hardware would suffice for the first series of flights of SLS anyway, even used in expendable mode and not recovered. Plus the Ares I-X flight had proven that recovery and reuse of the shuttle boosters, flown in the new five-segment configuration, was a non-starter anyway since the casings would be bent too much to reuse on impact with the sea, even under parachute. SO going to expendable mode for the SRB's became the plan for SLS as well. Other benefits, like being able to sell the two NASA ships used for booster recoveries, and getting rid of the expenses of maintaining a ship program and crew for those vessels, as well as the SRB recovery and inspection personnel, would provide considerable savings to an already money-starved program. New expendable spiral-filament wound Advanced SRB's (ASRB's) were planned for development for the Block 2 SLS vehicles, and the remaining sets of SRB casings from the retired shuttle program would be sufficient for the planned flights of the first part of the SLS program until the ASRB's were ready. THAT is how it came to be that the reusable SSME's and SRB's from the shuttle became expendable equipment on the SLS vehicles we have now. SSME was put through a "simplification" program to make them a "cheaper' expendable engine, since they only had to survive a single flight, but they're still a terribly expensive engine due to their complexity of their high pressure staged-combustion design. ASRB as well will require a billion dollar development and testing program to create spiral-filament wound cased disposable SRB's, essentially the same technology used to make ballistic missile rocket motors which are of course expendable...

Уррра!!!

Florida Stands with Russia

The RD-191 engines for the first stage and boosters are basically the same as the RD-181 used as a pair for the now retired Northrop Grumman Antares 230, each about half the thrust as Atlas V’s RD-180.

🇷🇺 💪❤

Does anyone knows what would be rockets payload capacity if it would be launched from equatorial launch pads like Baikonur or Cape Canaveral for example?

Водитель УАЗ 695 на 42-й секунде просто счастлив, что его вместе машиной не отправили в космос.

34:11

Russia decided to build the Vostochny Space Launch Center because its main space launch center, Baikonur Cosmodrome, is now in a completely different and independent country.... Kazakhstan. Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan had been part of the Soviet Union, so it was no problem. After the USSR dissolved in 1991, Kazakhstan became an independent country. The newly independent Russia soon signed a long-term lease agreement with Kazakhstan for the use of Baikonur Cosmodrome, BUT the relations with the former states of the USSR and Russia have not always been smooth. Russia decided that it would be in their interests to build a new cosmodrome on their own national territory, one that they could obviously control and do with as they pleased, rather than totally rely upon Baikonur which was now in an independent country which could cause problems for them down the road, so they built Vostochny. "Vostok" means "east" in Russian, as in the old "Vostok" capsules that Yuri Gagarin and the early Soviet space pioneers flew into space, and you can see it's the root word in "Vostochny" due to the space center being in the Russian Far East just north of China. While this puts it THOUSANDS of miles further east than the already distant Baikonur (from the northern Moscow region where "Star City", the home of the Russian space program ROSCOSMOS is located, it is solidly within Russian territory and thus not reliant upon goodwill or agreements between independent countries for its future operations. Vostochny is further north, which places some disadvantages on the launches conducted from there compared to Baikonur, which is why we won't see Baikonur going away anytime soon, particularly as long as the ISS is flying (it's 51.6 degree orbital inclination was in fact determined by the launch position of Baikonur, as orbital mechanics make it most effective for a direct eastwards launch from Baikonur to reach ISS in a 51.6 degree orbital inclination). Another thing is, spent stages and boosters from rockets launched at Baikonur crash to Earth on the steppes of Kazakhstan, while boosters from Vostochny should drop into the Pacific Ocean IIRC. Stage disposal is thus greatly simplified...

Just joined. What's happening?

Что там с водителем УАЗа 695? Тема не раскрыта!

What kind of rocket is angara a5

I missed the re-entry of the boosters 🤔

Why was there rocket sound well into the launch and outside of the atmosphere?

GODSPEED SPACEX 🇺🇲 🇺🇲 🇺🇲

By Elon Musk standards this is a stunning success because the rocket didn't explode after 4 minutes of flight 😂

РОССИЯ ❤❤❤👍👍💋👍👍👍👍

That's one heck of a way to go to deliver a washing machine

Congratulations to the Russian Space Agency for a new era in space flight. Russian technology, while not always on the cutting edge, has proved to be reliable as a rock. Weigh on those stones!

У них что, нет телескопа с камерой чтоб дольше ракету в кадре держать..?

Something about their telemetry is completely off. Try watching a SpaceX Starlink launch side-by-side. The Russian rocket reaches altitude much faster than the Falcon 9, but the Falcon 9 flies much faster than the Russian rocket. It makes no sense.

26:21 Who told you that? Stop watching American media. Or better yet, come to Russia and see for yourself....

The stupid thing crashed and burned. The rest is just amateur Widows XP animation.

FAKE....

Rusia is using old technology

Запустили с десятой попытки, как тебе такое Илон Маск? К стати Маск каждую неделю запускает, и возвращает ступени.

Ну что что, а рисовать анимации русские научились. Всё было в норме разумеется. Звук работы двигателей на протяжении всего запуска это подтверждает.))

Да Русь и не такое может Великий народ Могучий во всём БЕРЕГИСЬ НЕДРУГ процветай друг

The launch of the Angara A5 is like a sickle in the balls of Russia's enemies.

Слава России!💪😉

This is awesome! Keep up the good work 🙌🏽