How the Russians can take the next step in space tourism (Tourism to the moon)

Spacefuture ^ | 6/25/02 | Alan Breakstone

[Jay W]

The flight profile of L-3 was basically similar to Apollo, requiring the development of a large, heavy booster, the N-1, which was the equivalent of the Saturn V. The N-1 failed all its unpiloted flight tests and was cancelled in 1974.

Equivalent of the Saturn V? I thought the N-1 generated around 10 million pounds of thrust from its 30 engines in its first stage, compared to the 7.6 million pounds of thrust from the Saturn V's first stage. In theory they could lift heavier payloads into space.

On the other hand, all N-1 tests resulted in either the rocket's blowing up of their own accord, or being blown up by the launch engineers due to various failures of the N-1 rocket (for starters, the dubious wisdom of having thirty engines in the first stage).

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt

[Jay W]

Here's a comparison of the Saturn V and the N-1:

[RadioAstronomer]

WOW nice! So close!! I wonder why they chose the 30 engine option instead of the 5 engine option of the Saturn booster.

[Mr. K]

you know what? using 35 year old technology combined with current processing power and miniaturization, I bet some enterpanuer here in the US could create a private company taking people to the moon for $25 mil easy...

[Brett66]

Interesting photo, by the looks of it, the upper stages were smaller on the N-1. That would of made for some seriously cramped cosmonauts if they ever went to the moon.

[Jay W]

Interesting photo, by the looks of it, the upper stages were smaller on the N-1. That would of made for some seriously cramped cosmonauts if they ever went to the moon.

Possibly. That National Air and Space Museum site from which the photo comes also has a "schematic" of the innards of the N-1. It might have been more spacious than the Apollo configuration. Note, though, how the upper stages of the N-1 are almost identical, on the outside, to the Apollo-Saturn upper stages.

It's all moot, because no N-1 flew for more than about 70 seconds before blowing up or being blown up by mission control.

[Jay W]

WOW nice! So close!! I wonder why they chose the 30 engine option instead of the 5 engine option of the Saturn booster.

Because the US after WW2 got all the top-level nazi scientists like Werner von Braun and the Russians got only low level technicians. We got the better rocket scientists.

If you look at ALL Soviet rockets, Vostok, Soyuz, etc., they ALL have lots of engines on the tail end of the rocket.

The problem with the N-1 was that in a couple of flights not all 30 engines ignited, which made the flight unstable, leading to the rocket's destruction.

The value of the N-1 is that it proves that the Soviets really were in a race with us to the Moon.

In term of aesthetics, I prefer the looks of the Saturn V rocket to the N-1. The Saturn V also had one other redeeming feature: It worked.