Talk:N1 rocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under a proposal to clean up inconsistent disambiguation of rocket article titles, this article, N1 rocket, may be moved to N1 (rocket).
At this stage, it is only a proposal at an early stage of discussion, but you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion, which is located here.

Space Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Related projects:

WikiProject Spaceflight

Importance to Spaceflight: Unassessed

Help with this template

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

1 Speculation and Sourcing regarding interesting facts
2 Problems?
3 N-1 images
4 N-1 full naming
5 Are there any pics of the July 3rd, 1969 explosion?
6 N-1 reference material

[edit] Speculation and Sourcing regarding interesting facts

I recently reverted an edit that claimed the July 3, 1969 N1 explosion as the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. I'm sure it was up there, but we need concrete evidence if we want to make claims like that. There are certainly other incidents which rival that occurence, such as the Nedelin catastrophe, when an R-16 blew up on the pad and killed >100 ppl.

That was only a puny ICBM though; ICBMs only need/have a few tonnes payload. The technicians were clustered around it. The N-1 was a *moon* rocket with 80+ ton payload; and so was proportionately bigger. And that particular N-1 blew up right on the pad; almost completely *full* of propellant. Other vehicles that have blown up are about as big (for example Shuttle), but blew up much later in the flight; the weight goes down very rapidly from takeoff.WolfKeeper

So that is why I'm reverting the change. If someone can provide a source which quantitatively defines this occurence as the biggest (measured by damage, blast radius, or whatever) then I'm happy to have it reinserted. Btw, what do you mean by a high GLOW? I've never heard that term before.

GLOW = Gross Lift Off Weight. Orbital launch vehicles are about 90-95% propellant at liftoff, so the explosion scales nicely with GLOW. The N-1 rocket was almost 3000 tonnes, largely propellant. It's energy is comparable to a very small nuclear bomb (roughly 6k tonne equivalent- rocket propellant is twice as energetic as TNT).WolfKeeper

On another note, the reason I reverted a separate addition regarding the potential for success of the N1 is that it is pure speculation. Not only is it pure speculation, it does not in any way address the reasons cited for failure (resonant vibration modes and unstable exhaust plume characteristics). Given enough time and $, any engineering project can be made to work, but I'm not confident that further speculation on this topic improves the article. -Lommer | ^talk 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's also speculation that it couldn't have worked though. As I indicated, the maths says it has a good chance of working. And I've met people who have built rocket engines that have been started 5000 times without any explosions, and flown them. They don't think they're ever going to have an explosion, and they've designed it to make sure they never do. They've had one or two fires, which they extinguished with fire extinguishers, but nothing catastrophic.WolfKeeper

At the end of the day, the Russians were and are not dumbos, and the current article implies something that cannot be proved; and something that there is good reason to believe is false; namely that rocket engines are ridiculously dangerous. The Shuttle main engines have already demonstrated better reliability than you would need to get the N-1 to work.WolfKeeper

Ok, you've convinced me regarding the biggest explosion bit, I'll reinsert that now. However, I still don't buy the other stuff: Yes, individual rocket engines are extremely reliable, and the russians certainly had the technical ingenuity to make a lot of things work, but your numbers and examples do not address the deficiencies cited in the article. The fact remains that the N1 attempted to combine 4 or 5 times as many engines in a single vehicle than has been achieved before or since. Also, I don't see how the article originally implied that it couldn't work at all - I read it more as the design was rushed into production without sufficient testing and some serious, underlying flaws went unnoticed. As it stands right now the article doesn't directly speculate at all on the rockets practicality. -Lommer | ^talk 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget, every additional component, alone additional motor, adds a new chance to fail & kill you. The N-1 was a dog because Sov metals tech wasn't up to building hi-temp, hi-perf motors like the F-1. (I think there's also a problem with Sov fuels--they couldn't produce cryogenics, or something--& so they couldn't get nuf I_sp.)

On the other hand...since then, the Kuznetzov NK-33 has run longer than any other motor ever... (Or so I hear.) Trekphiler 23:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The F-1 wasn't particularly high performance. The NK-33 performs better on every metric (particularly including Isp) except thrust (Nk-33 is a smaller engine). The Russians had had problems scaling up their engines to F-1 sizes; and quite frankly so did the Americans, they had enormous problems, but with better funding they managed to work through it, but it was a close run thing. The other thing that the Americans mastered was the deeply cryogenic hydrogen fuelled engines- these are lighter, fully fuelled, so improve the overall vehicle performance when used on an upper stage, as with the Saturn-V.WolfKeeper 12:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's generally the case in most mass-ejectile space propulsion designs out there: One must trade Isp for thrust. So depending on which metric you use for performance you're gonna prefer one engine or the other. -User:Lommer | ^talk 02:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems?

In this section the article says: "There was also the factor that the N1's Baikonur launch complex could not be reached by heavy barge so for transport by rail all the stages had to be broken and re-assembled. Because of this, the complex and destructive vibrational modes (which ripped apart propellant lines and turbines) as well as exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems (causing vehicle roll, vacuum cavitation, and other problems) were not discovered and worked out before flight."

Is there proof that transport by heavy barge could have identified these failure modes? Also the way the article is currently written, it sounds exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems may have been part of the lack of transport by heavy barge - which I assume wasn't the case. This paragraph could use clarification by someone familiar with the N1. - Thanks.

Is the point of the comment that the N1 stages had to be built in small sections for transport, so they couldn't be tested all-up until they were assembled at the launch site?

I believe that's the case. NASA test-fired the Saturn V stages before the all-up launch tests, but the Soviets couldn't do the same for the N1 stages (though presumably they could have done after they arrived at the launc site?) Mark Grant 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N-1 images

What is the word one Russian government images from the USSR period, are they copyrighted?Chris H 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N-1 full naming

All of soviet space systems (spacecrafts, launchers etc) after development under letter-figure designation obtained the open name in the form of any word. What open name intended for N-1 if program N1-L3 not be cancelled?

[edit] Are there any pics of the July 3rd, 1969 explosion?

I know it was the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry, could we get a pic of that on here? It'll look cool. 207.199.222.64 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)