N-1: Soviet Manned Moon Rocket

The N-1 was a Saturn-V sized rocket prepared to land cosmonauts on the Moon. Kept secret, it's early tests failed and it was cancelled.

See: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm for historical and technical details of the N-1

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Russia
• Moon
• Space
• N-1
• N1

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ChaDanielsComposer]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.