N-1: Soviet Manned Moon Rocket

[ChaDanielsComposer]

Great video and I loved the music! Is it Shostakovich? I've never heard this piece before.

[chapman1235]

American coldwar sabotage

[DonPMitchell]

@chapman1235

Hehe. I doubt that. A large new rocket like the N-1 is a very complex engineering project, and not enough money was available and not enough systems engineering (QA) was done.

[TheJomogogo]

@chapman1235

No need to sabotage the N1, it blew up every time they tested it, and it had a smaller payload than the Saturn V. Even if it worked it was inferior to the Saturn.

[DonPMitchell]

@TheJomogogo Modern designers wouldn't build either rocket today. The N-1 had too many engines, and the Saturn's first stage (F-1) engine was too big and unstable, it had to be operated at an inefficient low specific impulse. Look instead at an engine like the RD-170, with multiple chambers sharing one fuel pump. Risk of failure of complex moving parts is not multiplied, but medium sized chambers allow very high combustion stability and specific impulse.

[puncheex]

@chapman1235: Ah, no. This is pure Soviet film; at the time the N-1 project was top secret; some in the Russian rocket establishment still think it wasn't real. The US took pics of it from the first film carrying spy satellites.

[rusmex19881991]

This Rocket was initially designed by Sergey Korolyov for Soviet interplanetary travel, with plans for orbital flights of Venus and orbital/landing missions to Mars.

[schileno69]

Los rusos eran los unicos que tenian tecnicas de avanzadas en el programa lunar sobre los EE.UU. tenian el LK y el LOK. Los americanos montaron el alunizaje.

[gadinaaa]

> I think the best heavy lift rocket today is the Delta IV, which uses entirely hydrogen/oxygen.

The optimal design (by best payload to full mass ratio) has kerosene/LOX engines in the lower stage and H2 engines in the upper stage.

[SergeiPilipenko]

The Proton-M rocket with 3rd stage lifts up 30 tons to the low earth orbit. The first stages of both Atlas III and Atlas V rockets have been based on the Russian RD-180 engines since 2002. Unfortunately, the modern «democratic» Russian lows allow to sale rocket techniques abroad, even to USA. So the Space Shuttle ships are useless even in the USA themselves.

[DonPMitchell]

Russian engines using closed-cycle are engineering marvels. Unfortunately the Proton uses a fuel with lower specific impulse.

I think the best heavy lift rocket today is the Delta IV, which uses entirely hydrogen/oxygen. It's engine is open cycle -- Boeing decided it was optimal to keep the price of the rocket lower by using a simple engine.

[Camerameister]

Sergei: the Space Shuttle can put 24 tonnes into LEO but each launch costs US$1.5Bn. The Soyuz can put half that payload into LEO for US$40m. Price per kilo, Soyuz is so far in front it's not funny. Proton can put 20 tonnes into LEO for around US$90m. The Shuttle makes little sense to launch customers.

But it is not useless. From memory, it still has the largest payload bay.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Delta IV and Atlas V are unable to function. And Ariane is too expensive and unreliable.

[DonPMitchell]

Low Earth orbit payloads:

Proton - 20 tons

Delta IV heavy - 23 tons

Atlas V 552 - 20 tons

Atlas V HLV DEC - 25 tons

[SergeiPilipenko]

The Shuttle rocket has no decisive importance because the main ISS modules were delivered by the Russian Proton rocket which can carry 30 tons. The heavy cargo rocket Proton delivered the modules for all Russian orbit stations from SALUTE to MIR (150 tons) as well. And for transporting cosmonauts, the Soyuz rocket is the best. It can carry 7 tons and has a very reliable life-saving system. And the Shuttle has no secure system at all and therefore is not suitable for transporting cosmonauts.

[DonPMitchell]

The Zarya and Zvezda modules were put into orbit by the Russian Proton-K rocket.  The other 8 modules of ISS were brought up on Space Shuttles. But they could have been launched with any heavy lift vehicle (Proton, Delta IV, Altas V, Ariane).

[DonPMitchell]

Hubble could have been put into orbit much more cheaply with Atlas, Delta or Titan rockets. Personally, I think manned missions like ISS are only of politcial value, not scientific. I would rather see the money spent on scientific robotic missions -- rovers, orbiters, sample-return missions. The big science questions now are about the large moons of Jupiter and Saturn, not about low earth orbit.

[spencnaz]

From what I've read, is that the Soviet designers weren't really having problem with POGO, but in synchronizing all 30 engines in the first stage. This of course lead to resonant vibrations through out the booster's structure, ripping the rocket apart.

A shame it didn't make it to orbit, truly a most impressive machine.

[Camerameister]

specnaz: synchronising certainly was a problem. Also Korolev fell out of favour and was unable to get the engines he wanted for the N-1 so he turned to Kuzhnetsov, who had plenty of jet experience but no rocket experience. Korolev designed the N-1 with this in mind. He used 30 engines because he believed some would fail and this would give him a margin for error. The 6 centre engines were supposed to shut down early, in part to avoid the resonance.

That is my understanding anyway.

[Shock1224]

The first stage of the N-1 was a disaster, but you gotta hand it to them; that was ambitious as hell. If they had developed the RD-170 a few years earlier, they could have had cosmonauts on the moon also.

[EluraUser]

One may argue technical necessity of such complex engine arrangement, but from pure aesthetic point of view I think the N-1 was the most beautiful rocket ever built. Just like the one shown in science fiction movies. Pity it did not make it.

[rudyhassen]

NYET! NO MOON FOR YOU! Pretty interesting stuff though. Totally different philosophy from USA. QC and engineering against brute force redundancy it seems. Still, it didn't get there did it? If only all that money had been poured into something to help the people of Russia out.

[aphh3]

I don't think one needs thrust vectoring or gimballing with that many engines, thrust vectoring can be made adjusting thrust on each individual engines.

But, having this many engines in such a tight package is hardly going to work. This is a stupid rocket, and I have to wonder they even did this.

[DonPMitchell]

Well, it certainly raised the risk of hardware failure to have so many engines.  On the other hand, the F-1 engine was probably too big for its time, it just barely achieved combustion stability and the Saturn V had bad pogo'ing problems. The engines themselves were very advanced, closed-cycle design.

[artwleb]

Keep in mind Pogo is a combination of airframe and engine vibrations.

[Polybun]

You can't easily just change the thrust on a rocket. They are not a jet. They way the turbo pumps and such work, doing so with any real degree of control is impossible. Having more engines makes it even more difficult because of harmonics that can build in the fuel lines.

[DonPMitchell]

I believe that is how the N-1 worked though, by adjusting thrust of the engines. Earlier rockets like the R-7 also included engine throttling, not for direction but for precision velocity regulation.

[Gnubnub]

They did it because they were not granted the budget to make more powerful engines. they only options left were more engines and better efficiency.Better efficiency ,in the end is why the russian engines ended up (for a while) surpassing the American ones. although all that technology is common knowledge now.

[Irishguy20008]

Remember the engines on the N1 are still flying to this day and operate perfectively.A full static test of the main engine section would have been safer and eliminated any problems associated with the CHORD system.

[Plutoplatter]

False. The N-1's RD-33 engines are NOT flying on any rockets today, although Aerojet General Corporation has a license to make new ones should there be customers. Granted, too, that Orbital Sciences Corporation and RKK Energia Company of Russia have expressed interest in possible future uses for the RD-33. Unless and until they do, there is no other expectation of use of the RD-33. To date, no RD-33 engines have flown in the nearly 40 years since the disastrous N-1 program.

[DonPMitchell]

That's right. Some US firms did buy some of the N-1 engines, but I do not believe they have been used. The Russian RD-170/RD-180 (on the Atlas V and Zenit rockets) are more modern and powerful successors to these engines.

[Irishguy20008]

This system for switching off the opposite engine was designed to all the N1 fly proper in the event of an engine shutdown.A fully static test of the main engine section would have eliminated any problems with the CHORD system.

[Irishguy20008]

If they had fully static tested the separate sections especially the main section containing the 32 engines.This rocket had built in redundancy whereby if an engine failed the opposite one would switch off.

[Irishguy20008]

There was little wrong technically with the N1 . The problem is that they never tested the separate seconds separately to get the bugs from the system.Because of it's size any error would have major consequences.

[artwleb]

Any thoughts on weight/mass efficiency on the N-1 due to the

spherical propellant tanks and the empty structure about them?

[DonPMitchell]

Hehe. I think that's is Vasily Mishin, who was almost as much of a character.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

What a great looking rocket though... I know the technology was limited or flawed, but still great!

[Arcmate]

The effort on the Soviets moon program was diluted around 3 projects (Korolev, Chelomei and Yangel) Money was wasted and was in short supply anyway. It's a wonder the N1 was even made. Korolev is a hero of mine.

[TheAmericanPageant]

Yeah, the Soviets also spend more money or making a replica of the US space shuttle to be the first Soviet reuseable space vehicle which again lack of funds made the project be abandoned.

[DonPMitchell]

The Russian shuttle had some intersting differences - a more modular design that allowed the main booster to be used for other payloads besides the shuttle. Also, the LOX/LH2 engine had some interesting improvements over the SSME. In retrospect, cancelling their shuttle was a good move, if only NASA has been that wise, we would have saved about $100 billion.

[spacechris7]

ok

thanks

[kapitankartoon]

The Soviet Lunar lander can be seen in this video about 51 seconds into the film. This craft would have placed only one person on the lunar surface. The pilot would have to do a space walk to get in and out the craft for both decent and after acent.

[Plutoplatter]

The lander had no automated systems. Attitude and propulsion were to be managed (simultaneously) by the lone occupant operating hand-cranked plumbing valves! The bare-bones lander would have been virtually impossible to control. It was a suicide machine. The Soviets knew it, and probably were relieved when the program was canceled. Cancellation was a lot less embarassing than acknowledging to the world that your brave cosmonaut died on the Moon because of their crude lander craft.

[sakoshooter48]

We have a Soviet era lunar rover in our museum. Actually, our museum has more Soviet era space flight articles than any other museum in the world. Your discussion about Russian space hardware is interesting,one truism though, the Sov's had a practical approach to all they built. I kinda like to think of our stuff as the gold lined cloud approach to getting into space, the Sov's more like the Mac truck get the fuck out of the way we are coming through approach. Robust is a good word!

[spacechris7]

what if the engines started up on the n-1 and blew the train up by hiting the end

[ozzyscruggs1]

I don't think they fuel up until the missile is ready for launch.

[DonPMitchell]

Yes, the N-1 was fueled by liquid oxygen (LOX) and Kerosene. LOX is only loaded just before launch, so it won't boil off.

[Arcmate]

Interesting view of two N1s on adjacent pads. Apparently when one of the rockets exploded, flying wreckage struck the second rocket and damaged it. The pad explosions were of such size and force that they were picked up by US satelites tasked with detecting nuclear bomb tests. BOOM!!

[DonPMitchell]

Could be, I hadn't read that. The fourth volume of Boris Chertok's "Rockets and People" would be the best source of information about N-1.

[ec100]

That must have been awesome to watch in person, the sound of the engines, the vehicle going up, from a safe distance.

[spacechris7]

dose the n1 have more thurst than the saturn v

[DonPMitchell]

No, not quite. Because the upper stages were Kerosine/LOX instead of LH2/LOX, the N-1 had less payload capacity than the Saturn V.

The N-1 was launched 4 times, all failured.

[spacechris7]

I think one n-1 rocket rose up and 10 engines i think shut off and the rocket fell and blow up the launch site

[cascaforo]

QUE CUETE QUE NOS MANDAMOS; eh!!!. VIVA LA URRS!!!

[nushnik]

Did any version of the N1 EVER have a successful launch? I'd like to know. Also if CCCP rocket personnel (scientists or others) were disciplined severely for "disasters" like this? C'mon ya can't expect dedicated commies ta tolerate such waste:)

[DonPMitchell]

No, there were four unsuccessful launces, then a political rival to Vasily Mishin stepped in, took over the space program and cancelled the manned moon program. Mishin has written extensively about it, for example a book called "Why We Didn't Reach The Moon".

But no, no one was put up against a wall and shot or anything like that.

[kapitankartoon]

no. there were only 4. 2 in 1969 the last in 74.

[DFORCE1969]

There was a BBC documentary in the early 90's about the Russian moon programme which showed a prototype LEM in a storage warehouse ;Does anyone know if its on you tube?

[booradley4000ad]

At least they were all unmanned.

[DonPMitchell]

Shostakovich's 15th Symphony.

[georgH]

Thanks.

[georgH]

Thanks for thi video.

Five stars.

[THEBIZZWIZ]

A bit disjointed. Like to see more flight footage. SPECTACULAR BANG!

[Kinemacolour]

They should have gone with the Proton.

[DonPMitchell]

The Proton would not have been nearly big enough for a manned Lunar mission. The N-1 was a super-heavy class rocket, similar in power to the Saturn V.

[Kinemacolour]

Tell it to Chelomei!

[DonPMitchell]

Chelonei wanted to build a moon rocket, but his plan was also a super-heavy booster, much larger than the Proton.

The Proton was used to launch Zond capsules, and might have been able to do an Apollo-8 style orbital mission, but not a landing and return mission.

[Kinemacolour]

Well, they could have tried EOR or LSR.  They certainly knew how to get to the Moon.

[DonPMitchell]

Sure, but the Proton really didn't have the payload capacity for this. Proton is comparable to Ariane or Delta IV or Titan IV. A rocket like the Saturn V (or N-1) had LEO payload capacity about 10 times greater.

The Soviets decided against trying an Apollo-8 style lunar orbit mission because the Zond technology was too unreliable and unsafe (Zond-5 and Zond-6 had both experienced serious failures and only Zond-8 worked perfectly).

[MightySaturn5]

Although it had more thrust (30 engines) I've heard the N-1 had a low earth orbit payload cabibility of around 90 tons where the Saturn V had something around 140 tons

[DonPMitchell]

The Saturn V had a LEO payload capacity of 118 tons. It's hard to say what the payload capacity of the N-1 would be if it had been fully developed. It was designed to do 95 tons.

[MightySaturn5]

At every NASA faculity I've been to they say the Saturn V was rated at 285,000 lbs LEO, is this about 140 tons?, I always thought it was 2000 lbs per ton however there might be a deviation to this that I'm not aware of, any help is appreciated

[DonPMitchell]

It would be metric tons, 1000 kg. Encyclopedia Astronautica claims the LEO payload of Saturn V was 118,000 kg. Here is a page that gives the payload capacity of several variants:

astronautix dot com (you can't type urls) in /lvs/satint21.htm

[MightySaturn5]

Thanks.

[OCTOROID]

It's odd that no scientist explained that the thrusters were too close to the ground. I bet most of the bottom of that rocket was melted 1 sec after take off, KA-BOOM.

[DonPMitchell]

That's incorrect.  The rockets did not melt. The first failure was caused by an object being sucked into one of the fuel pumps, and that occured well after lift-off.

[pooperscooper71]

wasnt it a screw that was too long penetrated some fuel pump machinery. thanks for the vid anyway. I never knew that the launches were now on the net.

[alienspectre]

"Oh the Humanity!" (Kinda reminds me of the Hindenburg disaster---neat footage!)

[MegaUltraGalactic79]

The Explosion of N1-5L Where Brutal

[Patoubody]

Where is this clip from... A documentary or something?

[DonPMitchell]

I edited together this clip in Adobe Premire. It is from half a dozen chunks of video I found, plus Shostakovich symphony #15.

[Ckayt]

great job!

[Kvartet]

great! good quality video! better than mine.

suggestion: add to the tag "n1" to appears this video next to the other N1 videos.