Soviet N1 rocket

[Byeman]

Saturn vs N1 shows the advantage not just of Von Braun's absolute authority

Just

The failure of the N1 is in marked contrast to the success of the Soyuz, which has become the most used manned system.
Rather like the Titan and Gemini, Soyuz could have been an alternative, if risky, way to the Moon.
Saturn vs N1 shows the advantage not just of Von Braun's absolute authority but the lavish amounts of money and industrial resource available to the USA.

It had nothing to do with Von Braun's "absolute authority", which never existed. Von Braun did not design the Saturn V. His organization did (Koelle). It was another center (Silverstein) that told him to use hydrogen in the upperstages. Also, all up testing was a Headquarters mandate (Mueller).

Also, it wasn't the "lavish amounts of money and industrial resource", it was just doing ground tests.

Replying to my own post because just thought of something.
The Saturn V's success was due to Von Braun's lack of "absolute authority" (others made significant decisions, which included LOR) and the N1 failed because of Korolev's "absolute authority". His decisions on propellant types and engine supplier also aided in the demise of vehicle.

 

[Nik]

With all these mentions of arcane, exotic, 'BeNOTthere' propellants, I feel I must reference a truly tall tale...

A Tall Tail - Reactor

This year for Tor.com's birthday, we're initiating a tradition of Rocket Stories! For this inaugural year, enjoy an exclusive read of "A Tall Tail" by Charles Stross a week before it appears on the site! (One of the perks of being a registered user on the site.)

www.tor.com

Tangential: After Uni, the first job interview I attended coincided with 'New Scientist' breaking news of PVC stabilisers' prompt carcinogenicity. My would-be employers made that stuff in bulk. IIRC, even the manager who spoke to me had been hastily up-dating his CV while scouring the 'vacancies' in that NS issue. We made small talk, then I fled.

During my second interview, at a smaller and rather ramshackle site that looked like a pyro factory --Thick-walled bunkers with corrugated roofs, wide doors and multiple foam inlets-- the 'interview board' showed me a molecular formula, asked how I'd make the stuff. My first glance found three (3) ways the molecule would come apart unpleasantly with scant encouragement, or even spontaneously.
( Think 'sweating' dynamite in High Summer, nitroglycerin oil in old, glass-stoppered bottle on sun-lit shelf, nitrogen tri-iodide on meth... )
Very, very politely, I replied that I wouldn't dare, given its extreme exothermic instability.
The board members smiled, explained that they had a reliable work-flow.
A few seconds later, alarms began to sound, bleepers bleeped, the site fire-team ran past the window and I was hastily ordered off the site before city fire-crews arrived and took names...

 

[paralay]

,

 

[Byeman]

The Saturn V's success was due to Von Braun's lack of "absolute authority" (others made significant decisions, which included LOR) and the N1 failed because of Korolev's "absolute authority". His decisions on propellant types and engine supplier also aided in the demise of vehicle.

Two strong personalities, Glushko and Korolev could not agree

Korolev was the lead and Glushko was a supplier. Korolev decided not to use him.

 

[archipeppe]

The Saturn V's success was due to Von Braun's lack of "absolute authority" (others made significant decisions, which included LOR) and the N1 failed because of Korolev's "absolute authority". His decisions on propellant types and engine supplier also aided in the demise of vehicle.

Two strong personalities, Glushko and Korolev could not agree

Korolev was the lead and Glushko was a supplier. Korolev decided not to use him.

The conflict was deep: Glushko urged on hypergolics looking for few engines with higher performances while Korolev didn't like them because nasty and dangerous and so he always wanted kerolox engines, more and more of them with lower performances but more reliability.

 

[justajeepguy]

Not related to the discussion but it may be of interest. Currell N1 paper model (free) download.
https://currell.net/models/n1.htm

Enjoy!

 

[Willythekid]

Frame stitched image of the N1 soviet moon rocket.

 

[publiusr]

The launch tower leads one to believe that even taller LVs were looked at.

Even though I respect Glushko and Energiya (the RLA series was what he really wanted)--I do wish Korolev had lived and N-1 perfected.

 

[TheKutKu]

The launch tower leads one to believe that even taller LVs were looked at.

Even though I respect Glushko and Energiya (the RLA series was what he really wanted)--I do wish Korolev had lived and N-1 perfected.

Yes, many versions with hydrogen upper stages and uprated NK-33 were studied that would have been taller; from basic Blok SR for the reworked early 70s lunar program

https://twitter.com/x/status/1759985183099359564

View: https://x.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1759985183099359564
to much, much taller ones that would be more comparable to starship in size. Astronautix has some drawings but I'm not sure how accurate they are.

 

[NMaude]

I just stumbled across this three year old what-if video by Hazeygreyart showing the N-1 hot-staging would've looked like:

 

[NMaude]

I stumbled across this five year video that's a supercut of all four failed N-1 launch attempts:

The N1 rocket was the Soviet counterpart to the US Saturn V. Development started in 1959.

Its first stage is the most powerful rocket stage ever built. Because of its technical difficulties and lack of funding for full-up testing the N1 never completed a test flight.

All four uncrewed launches out of 12 planned tests ended in failure, each before first-stage separation.

The first test launch took place in February 21, 1969. The launch started well, the rocket cleared the pad and began ascending. But then there was a fire in the rocket, followed by an explosion. Metallic debris had caught inside an engine. About 1 minute into the flight, the rocket exploded 40km from the launch site.

The second launch took place in July 3, 1969. Learning from the first failure, the engines control system was improved for this flight. Seconds after takeoff, the rocket fell back onto the pad. Exploding with a force of a small nuclear bomb. It was the largest rocket explosion in history being visible that evening up to 35 kilometres away. While the debris were still being scraped up from the floor of the Kazakh desert, the race was over: the US launched Apollo 11. But the Soviets didn't give up.

The third launch took place in June 26, 1971. Soon after lift-off the N1 experienced an uncontrolled roll beyond the capability of the control system to compensate. At T+39 seconds the vehicle disintegrated from structural loads.

The fourth and last launch took place in November 23, 1972. At about T+90 seconds into flight, a fire started in the boattail of the booster and engine #4 exploded. The first stage broke up at T=107 seconds.

After the series of catastrophic failures, the Soviet program were eventually brought to an end.

 

[Dmitry V.]

N-1 (1962)

 

[Dmitry V.]

N-1M (var. 1969-71) model

 

[Dmitry V.]

N-II (1972)

 

[NMaude]

Just looking at the cutaway diagrams of the N-1 shows just how structurally inefficient its' design was.

 

[Nicknick]

I just stumbled across this three year old what-if video by Hazeygreyart showing the N-1 hot-staging would've looked like:

The rocket climps so slowly in this video it would have taken until now to reach the moon!