Talk:N1 (rocket)

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)

Reading this entire thread says one thing to me, you all need to listen to WolfKeeper as he knows what he is talking about. ☭Soviet☭ (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

The problem really wasn't one of transport, but of expense. It was deemed too expensive to build a test stand capable of test-firing the entire first stage (which, as mentioned, could have been built at Baikonur). For that matter, though, the heart of the problem was design; the problems mentioned, both caused and compounded by needing thirty engines in the first stage, may have been insurmountable.--172.190.176.51 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with the lack of test stands. The last launch 7L almost flew to Block A burnout. In fact they could have staged it early and burned Block B longer for a successful mission. The problems were not unsurmoutable. It's just that the testing of Block A was carried out in flight and they did slowly get there. In James Harfords book (Korolevs biographer), most of the Soviet rocket scientists interviewed agree that vehicles 8L and 9L with the newer NK-33's would have probably delivered a successful launch finally. I tend to agree. The Saturn V had the benefit of static test firing the entire S1C cluster of 5 F1s, the N1 Block A did not. Lets not forget that there were massive problems that had to be solved with the S1C during those static tests, it was no "walk in the park" so to speak. ☭Soviet☭ 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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?

According to some sources, official open name for N-1 in case of success intended to be 'Raskat' (peal on Russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.119 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As with all new Soviet spacecraft and launch vehicles at the time, no name would have been officially designated until the N1 launch vehicle was fully qualifed and deemed a success. Before that point it had no official name so it could be 'wiped from the slate', as it was after it was cancelled in 1974. ☭Soviet☭ 20:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

There you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLMkhdf1_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lm2f (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

N-1 reference material

Hope I get this right, I am new to wikis!

I have been doing considerable reseach on the N-1, and would like to propose that the article here links to it.

The main page is here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/

And I have found a great many images, not generally known, here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/images/index.html

Is this suitable?

I'd also recommend linking to the 'Novosti Kosmonavtiki' galleries showing amazing photos of the remains of the launch facilities: http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_077/index.shtml http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_076/index.shtml

Nick 155.136.80.173 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Diameter?

The text says 10 m while the side table says 17 m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good explanation for the discrepancies and have to do with the fact that the first vehicle, 3L didn't have a skirt around the 24 outer engines as wide as the later and more definitive vehicles such 7L (and 8L and 9L which were ready for an August launch at the time of cancellation in May 1974) Essentially every N1 model, mostly Block A, the first stage, was improved in some way after each test flight revealed flaws. I have added a reference with diagrams that backs up the almost 17m (16.9 actually) diameter that the table specifies. Block A was actualy 10m wide at the top near the inter-stage, I've corrected that text and will add that aforementioned reference there. ☭Soviet☭ 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of stages

The Apollo had three Earth ascent stages: 5 x F1s, 5 x J2s, and 1 x J2. There were also the lunar descent and ascent stages. The N1 also had three Earth ascent stages. Are the remaining two stages similar to those in Saturn V? I believe briefly covering this in this article would help the reader to compare the two approaches to the lunar problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is, no they aren't. Putting the stages in consistent terms gets a bit tricky. The Saturn V third stage (S-IVB) burned about 1/3 of its fuel to get the craft into Earth orbit. So to compare it to the N1, you could say Saturn V had 2 and 1/3 Earth ascent stages. The remaining 2/3 of the third stage was used for Earth departure, which corresponded to the N1's third stage.

The N1-L3's fourth stage would have been used for midcourse corrections on the outbound flight and for lunar orbit insertion (which were done by the Apollo Command/Service Module's engine) and then thrown away. This had no counterpart on Saturn/Apollo.

The fifth stage would have been used to assist the LK craft on landing. Again no counterpart on Saturn/Apollo; the Apollo Lunar Module's descent stage handled the landing with no assist from an upper stage. The remainder was the Soyuz and LK spacecraft, which corresponded to the two Apollo spacecraft. This is covered in the second intro paragraph, but should be included in the body. I believe it was at one time, but might have gotten removed by someone?

BTW, thanks for not signing and timestamping your post, and for removing the signature from the post before yours. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed section about the official name

I have removed the section about possible name because it seems consisting mostly on groundless claims ("some sources" is not a reference) and original research. It is possible to put back after any citation would be found.

START OF THE REMOVED SECTION According to some sources, it was intended to be Raskat (Russian: Раскат, "peal"), but other sources say that this name was for a military version of N1, with a few tens of super-power nuclear warheads, only. Western analysts and journalists earlier supposed and wrote that the public name was intended to be Nauka (Russian: Наука, "Science"), Lenin (Russian: Ленин), Rossiya (Russian: Россия, "Russia"), Gerkules (Russian: Геркулес, "Heracles"), or Gigant (Russian: Гигант, "Giant"), but all of these were unlikely. END OF THE REMOVED SECTION

I agree. As I explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N1_(rocket)#N-1_full_naming ☭Soviet☭ 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Payload to LEO

Astronautix lists 70,000kg, Russianspaceweb lists 86,182kg and the wikipage lists 75,000kg, so which is it?

--Craigboy (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Energia page gives 75,000 - see also here. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

75 tonnes to LEO is for the original 24 engine design, which was never built nor flown. After Korolev decided to go for a single launch scenario like the US Saturn V Apollo, the N1 was upgraded on paper by the addition of 6 centre engines, the reduction of the initial orbital inclination to save energy, the super-cooling of propellants to increase total propellant mass and the reduction of the lunar orbit as well as increasing the thrust on Blocks B and V by a small marign (2% I think off the top of my head). All this gave the 30 engine N1s 95 metric tonnes to LEO. I've added references from good sources to back up the new figures. There are sources that state 88, 90 or 93 metric tonnes but these are interim improvements and not the definitive article as flown on the 4 test flights that sadly failed. ☭Soviet☭ 17:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Scale on comparative sizes drawing

The comparative drawings photo is way off. The Saturn was 20 feet taller than the N-1. In the drawings it shows them to be equal in height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.171.178 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 363 - 345 = 18 feet, but you're essentially right; that makes the N1/L3 llaunch stack 5% shorter than the Saturn V stack (including the payloads). The picture (which comes from a NASA publication) isn't scaled quite properly. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that assumes that the height of the N1, with the launch escape tower (which isn't quoted), is accurately known. A better judge of the scale might be with dimensions that are known, such as the stage or spacecraft (Apollo and LOK SM) diameters. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles Vick essentially solved all these mysteries when he interviewed Vassily Mishin back in the late 90's I think and got him to actually sign off and review his drawings comparing not only the Saturn V in its 2 configurations (Skylab and Apollo) and N1/L3 but also Chelomeis UR-700 -- Saturn V Apollo 110m and the N1/L3 with the Safety Assurance System (SAS - Soviet nomenclature) included is 105m -- http://fas.org/irp/imint/94vol47_vick.htm ☭Soviet☭ 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

After having a good hard long look at that picture in question, I think the scale is correct. There is a little man at the bottom of the picture. If you put that little man on top of himself 2 times, assuming he's rougly 6 feet tall, you could fit about 3 of him on top of the N1 SAS tower for the 18 feet in question! The scale is correct IMHO. ☭Soviet☭ 21:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Space race

This just has to be wrong: "When Gemini missions put the US in the lead in space development, Korolev pressured Nikita Khrushchev into making a lunar landing before the US."

• Khrushchev was kicked out of office in November 1964
• Gemini didn't start flying until 1965, and only started to achieve the lead in late 1965 and 1966.
• According to what is known, it was Khrushchev who bullied Korolev into not pursuing his Soyuz lunar program, in favor of trying to kluge Vostok into a Gemini competitor. History shows how well that worked out.

It is much more likely that Korolev persuaded (pressured?) Khruschev's successor to allow him to pursue the lunar program. (As with much of this article, citations are still needed.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper removal of lead information

The bulk of this article documents the N1/L3 manned lunar space vehicle; that is the major reason the subject is notable, as opposed to just being something on the Soviet drawing boards in 1959. The intro must summarize all information contained in the article, including why it was terminated (failed). The article cannot be improved by just taking a hacksaw to it. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:N1 booster lp.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:N1 booster lp.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect comparison to Apollo program

This article says: "...a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."

But Apollo used a lunar orbit rendezvous profile, not a direct ascent profile -- right?

User:Jayintheusa —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC).

"Since there were a number of unknowns in the Earth orbit rendezvous profile that could not be tested in time, a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."

You're correct, even though Apollo originally chose direct ascent for a relatively short time. The sentence as written makes little sense, so I've moved it here. It's uncited and essentially OR. If this was 1966, Korolev must surely have been able to figure out that a direct-ascent three-man lander would have required something the size of the US's planned Nova rocket, or else the lunar payload would have had to be scaled down to land fewer men. They might have been forced to decide direct ascent by the fact that they had wasted time with Voskhod and so were behind in demonstrating rendezvous and docking, but this isn't stated very well. And in fact, they also ended up selecting lunar orbit rendezvous, but since their propulsive efficiency was much lower than the roughly equal-sized Saturn V, they could only take two men and land one. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

July 1969 explosion facts

Because this event is cited elsewhere, more info is needed concerning it & the vehicle. 1. The infobox should list launch weight of propellant & LOX 2. The flight paragraph should find a source for the amount of stuff remaining that blew up. It could also explain the theoretical energy of that size explosion. 165.121.80.134 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pet Peeve -- ONE OF THE

Per ordinance from the Church of XKCD, can someone please delete all the "one of the" before man-made non-nuclear explosions? Flymousechiu (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock

I apologize to those who have intermediate edits but in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits of the Socks of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. I looked over the edits and determined this was the best course of action for this article. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

Readability of comparison table

The table comparing the N1 with the Saturn V gives the Saturn V's primary units as English engineering, while the N1 gives SI as primary. This results in the SI units being center-most, which should make them easy to compare (which is the intent of this table). Since by default the primary units are unabbreviated while the converted units are abbreviated, I set abbreviation off which should make them easiest to compare. (You just have to ignore the existence of the parentheses in the left column.)

There is a display=table option in the convert template which puts the conversions in a separate table column; in theory this should make it easiest to read, but I tried it, and in practice it doesn't work because it doesn't print units header rows (because all the rows have different units.)

As the table stands now, is it really unreadable? (BTW, I have what should be the identical table in the Saturn V article. Someone already switched that so the units are in consistent order, but they're both English-first.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a rest-of-world engineering article and the purpose of the table is to compare the subject (N1) with the Saturn V, I think the units for both rockets should be SI-first with imperial units parenthetical. I think that will be easier to follow than having the unit order change between columns. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Americans have always used imperial system, so it seems more appropriate to use such for Saturn V ? Wasn't there a Mars probe that was trashed because NASA used imperial and ESA used metric, thus meters per second values were about 3 times feet per second values for de-orbit burn and this was the reason the probe ploughed into Mars rather than soft landed ? Not related to N1, but just using as an example of US imperial use and mostly rest of world metric use ? The table is quite readable as is. I found it useful. 5.56.31.175 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, primary units are decided per-article. See WP:UNIT. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this, I tried making some changes yesterday for readability, but they were reversed (however, the abbr=off for the first stage thrust was added back by a different user). My reason for changing the Total Impulse section for the N1-L3 under the orbital insertion stage was because in the converted values, the Apollo-Saturn V shows 1,733,600,000 pounds-force, and the N1-L3 shows 1.789 x 10⁹. This prevents an easy comparison of pounds-force and requires either converting it in your head or using kilonewtons (which negates the reasoning for having the conversion listed). It can also be confusing for those not understanding scientific notation. Additionally, it is not consistent with the rest of the table (there are 12 entries that have pounds-force, and only 2 of them use scientific notation). If we aren't supposed to use lbf and flip it, is there a way to ensure lbf isn't switched to scientific notation in the conversion? (I noticed that in my original edit I missed the Total Impulse for the Earth departure stage as well.) Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If the problem is the use of scientific notation in one column and not in the other, I'll see if I can find a way to fix it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The switch to scientific notation was not asked for, and seems to be a bug of the convert template. If you can fix it, Kendal, that would be appreciated (I'm not highly literate in template-programming.) Bassmadrigal, the only reason I reverted your abbreviation=on change is because it made the units fields inconsistent, which I think is more important. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's my only current issue regarding the table. I tried to look for a way to prevent the scientific notation, but my google-fu skills are weak. Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My initial edit included changing the abbv to off for consistency. I believe Kendall just reverted my whole edit rather than just changing back the Total Impulse section. As for the other edit, I assumed the scientific notation was a bug with the convert template, but since I had no experience with that, I figured it would just be easier to change the table to use lbf and then just flip it so it still shows the kilonewtons as the primary number. Visually, it would've solved the issue, but I guess the underlying information needs to relate directly to the sources without any conversion. Bassmadrigal (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted the whole thing. The abbr param is correct now. I don't like changing the input numbers because I've seen several cases where primary units have gone back and forth and you end up with rounding error. I tried a few things and have asked at the template talk page. I could also change it to "million foot-pound." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd hold off on changing it to million foot-pound, since the various thrust amounts range from "hundred thousand" to "billion" and I think it might make it more cluttered. Maybe the template can come up with a better solution. If not, I'd vote for leaving it as is. Bassmadrigal (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the current wiki code, current output, and some possible outputs:

• {{convert|1733600000|lbf|kN|abbr=off|disp=flip}}·seconds / {{convert|7956000|kN|lbf|abbr=off}}·seconds
• 7,711,000 kilonewtons (1,733,600,000 pounds-force)·seconds / 7,956,000 kilonewtons (1.789×10⁹ pounds-force)·seconds
• 7,711,000 kilonewtons (1,733.6 million pounds-force)·seconds / 7,956,000 kilonewtons (1,789 million pounds-force)·seconds
• 7.711×10⁶ kilonewtons (1.7336×10⁹ pounds-force)·seconds / 7.956×10⁶ kilonewtons (1.789×10⁹ pounds-force)·seconds

If I can't figure this out, I'd be open to changing the input numbers, with a comment containing the original numbers from the source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is what we want:

• 7,711,000 kilonewtons (1,733,600,000 pounds-force)·seconds / 7,956,000 kilonewtons (1,789,000,000 pounds-force)·seconds

Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The latest would be my preference. Bassmadrigal (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Template talk:Convert, the convert template can't do that. I like using "million" myself but I can see why you don't. Should we just go ahead and convert manually to kN, and put the original number in a comment? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the better solution is probably to not use the template at all for these two cases. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree; not using the template is not a good option. What is wrong with using scientific notation on both sides? That makes comparison easy (I personally don't think it's that hard anyway, since the exponent is a multiple of 9 and we're talking about billions.) But I think you guys are beating this to death; notice essentially the same table exists in the Saturn V article (except there English units are first), and there the total impulse and payload momentum are given in scientific notation on both sides. Why don't we do it like that? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My only qualm with using scientific notation is that it isn't immediately obvious how big that number is for someone who isn't familiar with it. I still have to parse it in my head to try and make comparisons to other numbers that are not in scientific notation (which is why I originally edited them). As for the comparison to the table on the Saturn V article, looking at that corroborates my difficulty in quickly comparing those numbers (I'd imagine I'm not the only one). Since the template can't accomplish this, I vote for either not use the template at all (my preference for consistency on the table) or to use million/billion rather than scientific notation. I think almost anyone understands that, where not everyone will be familiar with scientific notation. Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I just thought of another point that you may be missing: the units kilogram-meter-per-second and newton-second are numerically equivalent to each other (ditto slug-foot-per-second and pound-second); therefore the total impulse and payload momentum should be formatted consistently with each other for easiest comparison (the ratio of the two is "propulsive efficiency".) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it to scientific notation so we can see what it looks like; don't take this as final, it's just a suggestion. I like this myself. I think the argument against it is that none of the other rows use scientific notation; but that's because none of the other rows have numbers this big. Does it seem odd to talk about 10⁶ kilonewtons? Should this be 10⁹ newtons instead? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As per my response above, I think I'd prefer to not use scientific notation and either not use the template (my preference for consistency on the table) or to use millions/billions. As for 10⁶ kilonewtons vs 10⁹ kilonewtons, I don't think it is a big deal. The comparison isn't being made against kilonewtons and lbf, it's between the N1-L3 and the Saturn V. As long as the kN matches on both sides, the comparison can still be made (even if you may not necessarily understand how big the number is, you can at least tell how big it is compared to other one. Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind and agree the template shouldn't be used for the total impulse lines, since this far outstrips its ability, including how the hybrid units should be rendered. The units are "kilonewton•seconds" and "pound•seconds". I'd recommend typing these lines in manually. Don't use "millions or billions". JustinTime55 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be good now; no scientific notation, and the total impulse units are written out properly. Same also applies to the payload momentum (which was done that way also). JustinTime55 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with this. I have a personal preference for scientific notation but for our general WP audience this may be best. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, everyone, for your time and input! Bassmadrigal (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate

The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate doesn't sound credible to me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is 9.6GB/s total that is split between all the channels, that ends up being 30KB/s per channel, which seems more reasonable (but, I don't know what the state of wireless transfer rates were back then). But if you check out the reference, it does provide a bit more insight into it (but not enough to clear it up for sure):

The S-530 computer was developed by the Pilyugin design bureau and was used not only for the N-1 but the LOK and LK. The rocket's telemetry system relayed back high-density data, some analysts estimating at a rate of 9.6Gbyte/sec on up to 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies, so fast that eavesdropping American electronic intelligence satellites could not keep up. Commands could be sent up to the ascending N-1 at the same pace.

So, this makes it more clear that the 9.6GB/s is a rate that "some analysts" estimated. I think the current text on the article doesn't convey that well enough.--Bassmadrigal (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That does seem pretty implausible; it is like 6 orders of magnitude faster than the Apollo telemetry. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

up to 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies doesn't really make sense. It is possible that there were ~20k channels on each frequency, but in that case they were (presumably) timesharing on the frequency. Perhaps someone has simply done the wrong calculation. Reducing the number by a factor of 20k would make it a more believable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What launch facilities required - Transporter-erector

Was it assembled/integrated vertically or horizontally ? Either way, how was it transported to the launch pad and was the mechanism made or modified especially for the N1 ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Found this wonderful page Differences between N-1 Variants which has images after horizontal integration, and showing the transporter/erector. Everything seems to be running on railway track. - Rod57 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That starbase URL sadly no longer works. Try Identifiying the different N-1 variants - Shows the first N-1 partly erected. - Rod57 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarify use of 'stage'

Article says "During the N1's lifetime, a series of improved engines was introduced to replace those used in the original design. The first stage used an adaptation of the NK-15 known as the NK-33, the second stage a similar modification known as the NK-43, and finally the third stage used the NK-31. The resulting modified N1 was known as the N1F, but did not fly before the project's cancellation." Perhaps the 'stage's do not refer to the structure of the N1, but to sequential improvements in the engine design. If true, could we reword 'stage' to 'improvement' or 'variant' ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they were the physical stages, but see the engine details comment below. - Rod57 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

9.6 GB/s

I've tagged the statement as dubious and will remove it in a few days if nobody objects. Concerns have been raised in 2017 and consensus seems to be that it's widely inaccurate. I don't think the statement can be salvaged with something like "some estimates say...", it's just nonsensical. Isa (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed two sentences: "The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate." The 9.6 GB/s part seems nonsensical and so the second sentence becomes irrelevant. I'm less sure about channels and frequencies, but since they're from the same source, I've removed the whole thing. Isa (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Also pertaining to the channels and frequencies calculation done 2 sections up. There usually there has to be a guard band in between each channel to prevent cross talk, which might reduce the possibilities even further. Seems like some serious capability for what was the first Soviet digital computer onboard a launch vehicle. I have found some good references from Vassily Mishin's actual diaries translated in english which will be very usefull in this article when I get time to integrate them and maybe remove more "waffle". Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How many people died ?

I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that man engineers and technicians died on the explosion of the second attempt. I cannot find references for that. This should be mentioned. --Io Herodotus (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It was during the first attempt. --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How'd they die in the first attempt? The launch failed in the air. Gregolego (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

During the first test the rocket exploded killing 91 people.

Perhaps this site isn't credible. --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That link does not include any N1 accidents. 5Ept5xW (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Look closely "February 1969". --Io Herodotus (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

[1] includes many details and the estimated monetary damage caused by the failed launch, doesn't mention fatalities. [2] lists a disaster with 44 fatalities as one of the three worst Soviet rocket accidents. 5Ept5xW (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what I can read: "February 1969 - The Soviet Union's N1 Moon booster explodes during its first test flight, killing 91 people on the ground. The accident is not made public until 1995." --Io Herodotus (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have two secondary sources that say that that didn't happen, you have one secondary source that alleges that the accident was fatal. As it happens, I can read too. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you, this sources is unreliable. I was wondering about the second test, are we sure nobody died as it was one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history? --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should do some research and figure that out for yourself. However, since the explosion occurred in the middle of a safety area specifically intended to prevent fatalities in the event that the rocket exploded I kinda doubt you'll find anything. 5Ept5xW (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

One more source citing the 91 deaths figure, even if it sounds contradictory: "THE FIRST TEST flight of the Soviet Union's giant N1 Moon booster ended in an explosion at T+70s on 21 February, 1969, killing 91 people on the ground near the Baikonur Cosmodrome, it has been revealed on Russian television.

Although some details of the flight have been revealed, the fatalities were not. " 87.17.255.81 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Design decisions/aerodynamics

I was wondering if there is any info on the "lattice" interstage? Is it lighter than a "solid" (or sheet metal I guess it would be). Does it generate a lot of turbulence, not streamlined well? Why did the designer choose this design.

Similarly with the "conical" design verus cylindrical. Why'd they go that way? Are russsians still doing it this way?Feldercarb (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The lattice interstage is very common in the Russian/Soviet designs, because these rockets "hotstage", in that the upper stage engines start firing before the lower stage burnout and separation, to avoid the need for ullage motors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardorejorge (talk • contribs) 08:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the former USSR and has studied the space progrramme since childhood, yes I concur with Leonardorejorge. This is exactly the reasons for this tyoe of setup. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Also, the system ended up drawing 25V instead of its designed 15V"

I don't believe this is correct. Voltage is not drawn, it is generated. Electrical current is drawn. I don't have the technical knowledge of this system to correct this line. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly some wrong information on engines ?

Everyday Astronaut on YT is saying (cued up below) that Wikipedia (and others) have wrong information on which engines were on which stages... Maybe someone wiser than me could check this ? Always love an accurate (as possible) Wiki !

Well, Wikipedia is evidently blacklisting YT URLs today so search YT for...

"The Entire Soviet Rocket Engine Family Tree"

At time 1:03:10 Was published on On Nov 24, 2021

boB K7IQ (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Video At "The Entire Soviet Rocket Engine Family Tree" - The N-1 segment is 58-67 mins in. The engine details at ~62 mins :

• Stage 1 "Block A" 30 x NK15
• Stage 2 "Block B" 8 x NK15V
• Stage 3 "Block B" (sic) 4 x NK19
• Stage 4 "Block G" 1 x NK21
• 'Stage 5 (LOI)' "Block D" 1 x RD58

- with WP comment at 63 mins. His source was FrenchSpaceGuy (?) - Rod57 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

what does "has use" mean? - moot

in the information below the picture it says "has use", is this some sort of translate error or am i reading it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himini (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed. - Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

One of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history

Just removed this statement, plus the corresponding July 3 statement as the reference does not mention anything about it being one of the largest explosions in history and / or biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How was N-1 moved to launch pad and then erected

N-1 was moved on rails to the pad, and then erected. Could mention/show what was used. No mention in Transporter erector either. - Rod57 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just seen my similar 2018 comment above - So I've mentioned the transporter and given a link to images. I think images show it was on multiple rail tracks, but one source calls it a crawler-transporter. - Rod57 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fappy45 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fappy45 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)