Bruh.

how COULD you miss the Dr Feelgood reference? how COULD YOU? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mLqSrdyi15a4gqM.html

Ah, I see people are still here...

I resemble this statement, but also like the V2, my guidance falls well short of stellar and people say "Oh hell" and try and avoid me,,,,, 😬😉

I think that's wrong. They didn't run on alcohol, they used beer and oxygen.

Most dictatorships of recent years and today have struggled trying to replicate this and we're 70-80 years later. The North Koreans, Iranians, Pakistani have only really surpassed the performance of the V2 in the last 20 years or so.

RogerWilco That's correct, I really don't like the pretentious attitude these guys take, as if they could build one even if they had the funds...

Adrien Perié Actually, now-adays many, many rocket hobbyists CAN. And do. They build scale models, and the deisgns for most WWII era stuff is easily scale-able. And that's ignoring the careerists - the ones who are actually rocket scientists for a living instead of for fun. Now, they also put in more advanced control systems today - because they can. But using the old methods would still be easy most-likely, and doable certainly. The availability of high-quality components and machine shops provides a remarkable advantage over people in the 40's. Your mistaking the lack of quality parts and experience at the time for complexity of understanding and implementing the design itself.

Xylos144 Show me one guy able to make a reasonable copy of the V2 at any scale, using an alcohol liquid oxygen engine, graphite rudders, and eventually a fully analogical flight computer. These people couldn't build a V2 in their dreams if they tried. You don't have the faintest idea of the technical difficulties on such a project if you really think a single hobbyist on this planet could even slightly reproduce a V2. The V2 was the very first space flight by an artificial object, and when it was designed, its guidance system contained the most advanced electronic logic system ever made. Today, the equivalent functions could easily be performed by a Raspberry PI, making reproducing a V2 today much easier than it was at the time. Even today, the best "amateur" rocketry experts on earth, the people who work on the Copenhagen suborbitals project, are using for their future launcher a modified copy of the V2 rocket engine. Now these guys on the video are not remotely good enough for that, that's just a fact. The model you see in this video is using a very crude solid fuel engine and aerodynamic controls, not nearly as advanced, and completely unable to reach actual space, let alone surviving re-entry, a problem which took Von Braun a year to solve. The very brightest minds of WWII worked on the V2 project, if you weren't aware Von Braun later on built America's first ballistic missile, many of the rockets which were used throughout the 20th century and the Saturn IV which remains the only rocket to ever send a man on the moon. The people who worked on the V2 are the reason both America and Russia were able to build ICBM's so fast, in fact in both countries the first people to design a working ballistic missile were Germans having worked at Penemunde. These people were actual geniuses, the people you see in this video and those who built this scale model are good hobbyists at best. Americans like to think the V2 was this crude weapon they could easily have reproduced without any German help while their greatest space exploration achievement was orchestrated by Von Braun himself, who had to fight to get his ideas on space exploration financed.

Adrien Perié Well, the Nazis did throw 3 billion American at von Braun and it helps that Goddard wasn't taken seriously in the US(a shame really) and the Soviets threw Korolev in the gulag(which ended up killing him and allow the US to take the lead in the space race.)

yes sir u r right .. its a old technology but still all of the countries using same technology as basic .. maybe when start comparing speed of rocket with sound i think this technology need to improvise a lot .. we need to create more torque and efficiency then only can maintain the speed 10 time or 20 times more than sound

6) Randomly killing civilians indiscriminately at long range. Truly the first "terrorist weapon of mass destruction" , well, unless you class the lower tech V1 as one... also Von Braun's creation. 7) Exploiting (and working to death) slave labourers to build rockets and associated infrastructure. 8) Getting away with murder while being invited to gain a US passport.

@@tasmedic a) Automobile - used as means to deliver suicide bombers to civilian marketplace plus the Oklahoma bomb in USA b) kitchen knife - murderous weapon of choice used by many c) bedroom pillow - used to smother countless people throughout time d) household stairway - convenient way to kill people in many instances e) airliner - mass murder device (9/11, German Wings Airlines etc.) f) arms, hands, legs & feet - mass killing instruments owned by everyone And of course - insecticides, broken liquor bottles, table fork, elevator shaft, etc., etc. Despite this people welcome these items into their lives every day and they don't even need a passport. .

@@DataWaveTaGo Just not for mention the bombing of civilian city of Dresden with phosphorous incendiary bombs, accurately, indiscriminately, conscious and by hand by the royal coward aerial force of england.-

@@tasmedic Re. 6 - If we define "weapons of mass destruction" as "randomly targetted weapon that kills random people", the first instance of use of their use would be the WW1 air attacks by Gotha bombers and by Zepplins. Then there were the air attacks on civilians during the Spanish Civil War - think "Guernica". By the time the Germans used rocket attacks on cities in WW2, aerial bombardment by both the Axis and Allies had been used for years. So, by 1944, "weapons of mass destruction" had been used for some 30 years. However, in defence of Germany, England and US, the primitive targetting systems often meant that anywhere in a city was the best they could get. Even today, we "accept" "collateral damage" when a drone strike is made against a "terrorist". Or a car bomber blows up a military post and kills some civilians, too.

Landed on the moon first, hahaha U.S.A not landed on the moon it's fake!

Hahaha you sure showed him! If only you had actual arguments, right?

yeah heres an argument for you, the Apollo 17 cost under 10 billion yet you've never been back despite 100% safety record with that tech. GAME OVER

The old joke why America was first to reach the moon was that our German rocket scientists were better than the Soviet's German rocket scientists

Better motivated, too.

To add...the PIGA would integrate acceleration and report velocity. The engines would cut off when a specified velocity was reached. Source: Wikipedia.

I really like it when the comments of a video are more accurate than the video itself.

Dan Dolata I almost LOLed watching the video. If someone is an enthusiast to the degree of spending hundreds of hours building accurate scale models, how can they get such basic details so wrong? This guy apparently thinks that the A4 was awesome because it went BOOM, not because it was probably the most advanced (and possibly most expensive) R&D project in the world at the time. The A4 was orders of magnitude more complex than he made it sound: first liquid propelled high performance rocket engine, first high performance turbo pumps (without which such engines are impossible), first use of regenerative cooling of the exhaust nozzle, first use of alcohol injection to create an isolating boundary layer that prevents melting of the steel nozzle from the exhaust temperature, first hypersonic wind tunnels to model the advanced aerodynamics required for flight stability and reentry, first integrated electronic three-axis feedback flight control computer (which was used in the US for another decade after the end of the war), first computer controlled thrust vectoring system, etc etc. The saddest thing about the A4--apart from the damage it did and the lives it cost on both sides, of course--was just how much cutting edge technology and bleeding edge science and engineering was being employed to propel less than 1,000 kg of chemical explosive 300 km. The A4 was the metaphorical equivalent of using battleship main guns to shoot mosquitos, and the scientists working on it were fully aware of that.

thanks

@@blade-OT I found the explanation of the guidance system unsatisfying, until I read the comments and found them misleading. I changed my like for a dislike, He doesn't seem qualified to make this video. Is there a better V2 guidance explanation you can recommend? Did the turbo pumps use a pre-burner? What is the difference between Isolating boundary layer and regenerative cooling? Nice analogy of Battleship mosquito guns lol. So why was the effort made? Was it more of a "shock & awe" attempt like the nuclear bomb would be?

indeed, the V2 was an inertial guided missile, not a ballistic missile. ICBMs's trajectory is determined in the first and second stages. third stages/payload vehicles have a little correction system for accuracy now.

Great Donald - when shall we expect to see your V2 guidance system video ?

Hey when are YOU gonna build a V2 replica and fly it more than 100 miles to test how accurate YOUR rocket will land based on how you have set the guidance??? Don't just tell us Don....PROVE IT fucker....

Really only two gyros - roll and a "tilt" gyro. Required accurate azimuth bearing at launch site. The first guidance system used - Pg 7, this document: apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/419538.pdf Description of Analog computer - Pg 16 shows cam mechanism, the crude "program" coupled into the servomechanism: www.cdvandt.org/Hoelzer%20V4.pdf

@@uploadJ The accelerometer used to shut of peroxide to the turbopump once a preset velocity was reached was a pendular integrating gyroscopic accelerometer (PIGA), so technically there was another gyro on board. Also, if you watch the gyro repair video in kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a5ifdtqEsrDIe3k.html , you'll note that when demonstrating the vertical gyro near the end, he mentions he needs to check if his meter is connected to the pitch or yaw potentiometer, so it seems the vertical gyro was instrumented in 2 axies.

The next flights you will have to aim for London.

spot on, on both accounts

I believe that most of the basic technology ie, turbo pumps, gyroscope stabilization, graphite exhaust vanes and regenerative cooling was pioneered by American Robert Goddard

Even a small 100km/h couple seconds after launch would be way more than enough airspeed for control surfaces to work

But this kind of rocket runs out of fuel long before reaching even the thin parts of the atmosphere. So why the hell would you need graphite rudders in "space" when you have no exhaust?

Not true. The opposite in fact. After engine start - BEFORE the rocket is moving at all, and thus BEFORE the aerodynamic fins can control it - the vanes inside the rocket exhaust are able to control the V-2 (and the US Redstone, Jupiter, etc.) attitude and yaw. As it speeds up, the vanes erode away and so become less effective; but as it speeds up in flight, the outside aerodynamic fins become effective and can control the rocket's heading and pitch and yaw. At Huntsville's NASA museum, you can put your hands on the control vanes inside the engine exhaust. They are controlled by the same pivot arm and bearings as the external aerodynamic fins. There is only one control system needed - which saves weight. Once high up, the rocket can "coast" through the very thin atmosphere, and so neither the aero nor the exhaust vane controls are needed. Re-entry same way: No extra drag, control movements, nor control system is used. For a terror weapon, hitting anywhere is "good enough".

RACookPE1978 Gut erklärt Good explain.

You would have thought differently when they would have developped the V3, which was to strike in Manhattan. They were working on ICBM's.

The hydrogen peroxide and sodium permanganate were used to produce superheated steam to run the steam turbine which powered the fuel pumps. The fuel was liquid oxygen and about 80% alcohol / water mix. After the testing was moved from Peenemunde to Poland, Polish resistance was able to beat the Germans to at least one crash site and get the bits to England.

_Mite_ :a minute arachnid which has four pairs of legs when adult, related to the ticks. _Might_ :used tentatively to ask permission or to express a polite request.

Thrust vectoring of rocket engines moves the whole engine, while this design had control wanes that at the end of a fixed engine. Wanes used up a part of exhaust power (lift) in order to control the rocket in flight and after 60 or so seconds of flight they were wholly burnt up. Graphite exhaust wanes are not really rocket engine thrust vectoring in a modern sense, they were more crude, would burn up, and used up precious lift. The problem was that normal control surfaces (wings at the end of the rocket) could not control a rocket in flight, so they had to control a rocket this way. Only much later on Soviet and US designs did thrust vectoring appear. Germans did not have thrust vectoring in a modern sense at all.

@@Vurmashin There are several ways of doing it, mostly today by directing the nozzle. In this case its a very simple way of doing so. Reminds me of the vanes, the imperial 1 class star destroyers have on the 3 main drive engines.

Maybe If was 'landed' at the same place were did lift of.....

The turbopump was spun by catalyzed decomposition of85% H2O2 into steam and oxygen. This oxygen was different from the LOX. The turbopump exhaust was dumped overboard via two small vents near the rear of the rocket, so the oxygen steam mixture driving the turbopump never entered the combustion chamber. Source: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a5ifdtqEsrDIe3k.html . In most V2 launch videos, you can see a small stream of steam near they rocket exhaust, but it's moving much more slowly than the rocket exhaust and thus much more affected by crosswinds. See the linked video series for details.

Boris Chertok in his book "Rockets and People", published by NASA said that because grafite(carbon) was in such demand for production of V2 rocket that German Nuclear scientists were forced to create heavy water nuclear reactors, not graphite ones (which were cheaper, but had problems with Bromium inpurities in early stages). Using heavy water is much more costly than using graphite for slowing neutrons to speeds usable for sustained fission. That is how V2 program slowed the development of German nuclear weapons program.

41 feet ?

oh no, used during the first world war

No one can own rights to footage in the public domain, they only can if it is enhanced and modified as part of another work, see the full law for details. If you are interested in the same footage, it is available through providers of historic and goverment footage. It is important to stand up for historic property in the public domain as this is constantly under attack by nasty corporations like "The Orchard" which profit from claiming whole, unchanged public works.

The A4 / V2 also used a pendular integrating gyroscopic accelerometer (PIGA) in its inertial guidance system.

Hydrogen peroxide and sodium permanganate when mixed formed high pressure steam

the equation isnt linear, as the outcomes are sized so that they fit the equations they made.....

50-100 km (31-60 miles) seems ok, London was about 10 miles across so worse case scenario 1 in 6 would hit London so that ties up with your figure of 1 in 5.

RogerWilco Id much rather reLIVE the war than refight it.

RogerWilco The reason so much missed london was that brits had double agents.. that told slowly guided the rockets to hit outside of the city. By the end the missiles went way off :D

Von Braun was a Nazi and and SS officer. Stop deluding yourself.

When planning LOI, lunar orbit insertion for Apollo, they had to figure how to match the position of the moon at a certain point in it's orbit in order to land on it.

The Germans accounted for the Coriolis drift when firing their Paris guns a shorter distance in World War One, so I presume they also took it into account for A4 / V2 rockets.