Jeff Findley wrote:
...Correct. About the only static testing they did was individual
engines, and possibly 2-3 engines in cluster. The issue was secrecy,
in that either a static test of the full 30+ engine cluster and/or a
single-stage launch test could/would have been detected by US spy sats

The issue wasn't secrecy, it was cost; They did build a test stand for
the second and third stages, and fired those fully assembled.
Since all three lower stages used differing numbers (30,8,4) of
basically the same rocket engine modified for operation at different
altitudes, and also were similar in design and tankage layout, they
probably thought that the info from the upper stage tests would be
applicable to the first stage without going to the trouble of building a
full-scale test rig for it, saving both time and money.

- which is what happened anyway when they rolled the full stack out to
the launch site either the first or second time, there's some debate
about which pad checkout was caught and labled as "TT-5".

Info on that he

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell..._follow-on.htm



That and I don't think the Soviet Union was ever fully invested in the moon
race. It wasn't important enough for them to focus all of their efforts on
that single space program.

It was their major program at the time as far as funding went, it's just
that they were going around five different directions at once (manned
landing, unmanned rovers/sample return, civilian space stations,
military space stations, future Mars flights, etc.) rather than zeroing
in on it like we did with Apollo.

They had several different programs going on
internally, so their efforts were always divided. Even their space station
work in the 70's suffered from this. Duplication of effort was rampant in
their space program and I'm not sure it ever completely ended.

The whole works was a complete cocked-up mess from the word go, and a
great example of how not to do things if you want to succeed.
One of the basic problems was the retention of the Stalinist concept of
having at least two design bureaus working on any project in direct
competition to each other, each trying to undermine the other in the
eyes of the government and seize their competitor's funding.

Pat