Could the N-1 have worked with computer-control?

I read that the Russian N-1 moon rocket kept blowing up because the Russians
couldn't control the thrust of 30 rocket engines firing in tandem. I was
wondering: could this problem have been solved by computer controlled
engines? Or is there another structural reason for the failure of the N-1?

I understand that the N-1 was a very good engine. I believe that Kistler
was going to use some for his vehicle by buying unused engines from Russia.
Kistler needed to gimbal them for thrust vector control since the Russians
tried to used throttle control on their application.


"Uddo Graaf" wrote in message
...
I read that the Russian N-1 moon rocket kept blowing up because the
Russians
couldn't control the thrust of 30 rocket engines firing in tandem. I was
wondering: could this problem have been solved by computer controlled
engines? Or is there another structural reason for the failure of the N-1?

"no_one" wrote in message
ink.net...
I understand that the N-1 was a very good engine. I believe that Kistler
was going to use some for his vehicle by buying unused engines from
Russia.
Kistler needed to gimbal them for thrust vector control since the Russians
tried to used throttle control on their application.

The N-1 isn't an engine but a rocket. It used RD-33 engines if I remember
correctly. But the N-1 had 30 of them all firing at once creating enormous
stresses on the airframe if one of the engines' thrust varied.



"Uddo Graaf" wrote in message
...
I read that the Russian N-1 moon rocket kept blowing up because the
Russians
couldn't control the thrust of 30 rocket engines firing in tandem. I was
wondering: could this problem have been solved by computer controlled
engines? Or is there another structural reason for the failure of the
N-1?

Uddo Graaf wrote:

I read that the Russian N-1 moon rocket kept blowing up because the Russians
couldn't control the thrust of 30 rocket engines firing in tandem. I was
wondering: could this problem have been solved by computer controlled
engines? Or is there another structural reason for the failure of the N-1?

IMO the N-1 failed because:

a) the head designer died at an inoppotune moment (Werner Von Braun died
only after skylab)

b) the testing regime more or less guaranteed that the first few
launches would end in disaster- this was a very bad move politically as
it made it look like the program was making bad progress. (Note that
they had a test program of something like 12 launches, but only 4 of
them actually happened.)

c) the engines and other components weren't sufficiently well tested
individually

d) America had already 'won the race' to the moon; so politically there
wasn't the same drive in Russia

I must admit that I find the N-1 the prettiest rocket ever; the Saturn V
visually looked like an ugly kludge in comparison. But that's the
difference between form and function- Saturn V functioned ever so much
better.

Ian Woollard wrote:

b) the testing regime more or less guaranteed that the first few
launches would end in disaster- this was a very bad move politically as
it made it look like the program was making bad progress. (Note that
they had a test program of something like 12 launches, but only 4 of
them actually happened.)

c) the engines and other components weren't sufficiently well tested
individually

If memory serves, they did not test the full rocket in any way except
launching it a few times ... with the known results. They did not have
fund allocation for it...

Robert Kitzmueller

Ian Woollard wrote in message .. .
d) America had already 'won the race' to the moon; so politically there
wasn't the same drive in Russia

While I do agree with the other explanations (loss of the main
designer, conflict betweeen factions, not quite tested engines,
complex design, and so on), I don't think that I agree with this. The
only one in the race seems to be the USA, how could the Soviet didn't
have the same drive when the USA landed moon, for a race that the
Soviet don't even participate at the time.

http://www.prouty.org/271a.html

Remember, even if they were in a space race, they could still go to
the moon and said "Flag? What flag? I didn't see any flag, are you
sure that the American said that they landed here?" While having the
American flag behind their back and whistling innocently or probably
don't bother to look for flag at all.

I must admit that I find the N-1 the prettiest rocket ever; the Saturn V
visually looked like an ugly kludge in comparison. But that's the
difference between form and function- Saturn V functioned ever so much
better.

Yeah, but the fact is that... The N-1 still could function much better
if they imply much of the traditional Soviet designs. Imagine if they
cut down on the amount of engines.

Then there's the Energia, which pretty much a much better Shuttle-C.

EAC wrote:
I must admit that I find the N-1 the prettiest rocket ever; the Saturn V
visually looked like an ugly kludge in comparison. But that's the
difference between form and function- Saturn V functioned ever so much
better.

Yeah, but the fact is that... The N-1 still could function much better
if they imply much of the traditional Soviet designs.

Technically, I think it's a great design. It very much could have
worked- and very nearly did on the final flight.

But the political aspects of the test schedule that the design implied
mean that it was a terrible design (i.e. it was pretty much guaranteed
to fail the first 4 or 5 launches because they couldn't test a vehicle
that big!).

Imagine if they cut down on the amount of engines.

I'm not sure it matters so very much. Historically, rocket engines have
a 0.4% catastrophic failure rate- which would give about an 87% chance
of a successful flight.

But there's probably no apriori reason why rocket engines have to be so
unreliable; and the Russians were working on more reliable engines to
use- the NK-33 came out of this need; but never flew on the N-1.

Ian Woollard wrote:


Yeah, but the fact is that... The N-1 still could function much better
if they imply much of the traditional Soviet designs.


Technically, I think it's a great design. It very much could have
worked- and very nearly did on the final flight.

But the political aspects of the test schedule that the design implied
mean that it was a terrible design (i.e. it was pretty much guaranteed
to fail the first 4 or 5 launches because they couldn't test a vehicle
that big!).


The design uses _way_ too much plumbing to get the propellants to the
motors, particularly in the first stage; the clever idea of letting the
different volumes of the kerosene and Lox tanks drive the design toward
a conical shape with the kerosene on top was obviated by the fact that
you had to move the kerosene around the Lox tank's exterior to prevent
it from jelling on it's way to the motors...it's a lot easier to move
lox via an insulated pipe though the kerosene tank than the other way
around; by the time the thing was fully fueled even an insulated pipe
through the center of the Lox tank would have been supercooled.
Also, the design meant that integral tankage couldn't be used, so that
you ended up with fuel tanks and a separate exterior shell, which added
more to its weight- plus the need for six separate diameter spherical
propellant tanks for the first three stages alone, with all that implied
in regards to separate assembly jigs for their construction.
In my opinion, the thing sucked from a design viewpoint, and at least to
me suggested that Korolev was in way over his head in regards to its
design....the R-7 (particularly the boosters) owed a lot to the designs
of the Germans that the Soviets had working for them, and the N-1 didn't
reflect well on The Chief Designer's innate design abilities at all-
either in its overall design concept, or reliance on such a multitude of
motors- particularly in the first stage. On the other hand, Chelomei's
UR-700 Moonrocket design also looked very clumsy in its overall
conception compared to the Saturn V.



Imagine if they cut down on the amount of engines.


I'm not sure it matters so very much. Historically, rocket engines
have a 0.4% catastrophic failure rate- which would give about an 87%
chance of a successful flight.


That certainly wasn't backed up by the flight tests though, was it?
Between pipes rupturing under excessive vibrations, excessive pressure
loads blowing the center engine propellant feed up, debris going into
engine turbopumps, and the subtle wonders of the KORD system, which was
fully capable of destroying the rocket (and launch pad) even if the
vehicle's own flawed design concept didn't get around to it on any
particular flight, the thing was a mess... about the time you start
installing fire extinguishers in the base of the first stage- because
based on past experience you suspect that there may well be a fire down
there during ascent- you have got to sit down and reconsider how exactly
you have designed your rocket in regards to reliability.



But there's probably no apriori reason why rocket engines have to be
so unreliable; and the Russians were working on more reliable engines
to use- the NK-33 came out of this need; but never flew on the N-1.


Energia was a better vehicle in all ways than N-1.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
The design uses _way_ too much plumbing to get the propellants to the
motors, particularly in the first stage; the clever idea of letting the
different volumes of the kerosene and Lox tanks drive the design toward
a conical shape with the kerosene on top was obviated by the fact that
you had to move the kerosene around the Lox tank's exterior to prevent
it from jelling on it's way to the motors...it's a lot easier to move
lox via an insulated pipe though the kerosene tank than the other way
around; by the time the thing was fully fueled even an insulated pipe
through the center of the Lox tank would have been supercooled.

True, but the tankage ratio ended up better; because spherical tanks are
about 2x as efficient; this helps compensate for any awkwardness in the
plumbing.

Also, the design meant that integral tankage couldn't be used, so that
you ended up with fuel tanks and a separate exterior shell, which added
more to its weight-

Somewhat. But the payload ratio was still good for this kind of vehicle.
That tells me that these disadvantages were not so massive. The X-15
showed that a hot chassis is not such a good thing.

plus the need for six separate diameter spherical
propellant tanks for the first three stages alone, with all that implied
in regards to separate assembly jigs for their construction.

Yeah, don't like that. I would have used the same tanks even if it made
the vehicle bigger; the aerolosses would have gone up, but on a vehicle
of that size they're largely irrelevant.

In my opinion, the thing sucked from a design viewpoint, and at least to
me suggested that Korolev was in way over his head in regards to its
design....the R-7 (particularly the boosters) owed a lot to the designs
of the Germans that the Soviets had working for them, and the N-1 didn't
reflect well on The Chief Designer's innate design abilities at all-
either in its overall design concept, or reliance on such a multitude of
motors- particularly in the first stage.

Well, to be honest; I rate the Germans innate design abilities to be
world class; neither NASA nor the Soviets were in the same class. When
the Germans (esp. Von Braun) retired, NASA came up with the camel that
is the Shuttle. 'Nuff said really.

That certainly wasn't backed up by the flight tests though, was it?
Between pipes rupturing under excessive vibrations, excessive pressure
loads blowing the center engine propellant feed up, debris going into
engine turbopumps, and the subtle wonders of the KORD system, which was
fully capable of destroying the rocket (and launch pad) even if the
vehicle's own flawed design concept didn't get around to it on any
particular flight, the thing was a mess...

These don't seem to have been inherent problems in the design; and I
think they weren't even a third of the way through their test program.

With the structure of their test program those kinds of problems are
practically guaranteed. I think that says more about their test program
than about the vehicle concept- it's just bad execution. Only to the
extent the concept helped make the execution bad can the concept really
be condemned.

about the time you start
installing fire extinguishers in the base of the first stage- because
based on past experience you suspect that there may well be a fire down
there during ascent- you have got to sit down and reconsider how exactly
you have designed your rocket in regards to reliability.

Probably. Still, for test launches of very early prototypes, that kind
of thing seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

Ultimately, to me, the N-1 was an embodyment of an ivory tower; and that
is why it failed. The designers had penned a vehicle concept that IMO
very probably could have done the task they demanded of it. Trouble is,
they hadn't paid enough attention to what it is that is necessary to
build such a vehicle- testing, ease of construction, cost, political
backing even the inevitable growth of payload mass that happens- they
had not paid sufficient thought to these aspects- and those aspects were
the ones that killed the vehicle.

Pat

EAC wrote:



I must admit that I find the N-1 the prettiest rocket ever; the Saturn V
visually looked like an ugly kludge in comparison. But that's the
difference between form and function- Saturn V functioned ever so much
better.



Yeah, but the fact is that... The N-1 still could function much better
if they imply much of the traditional Soviet designs. Imagine if they
cut down on the amount of engines.


I've got 1/144th scale models of both; when you see them side by side,
the Saturn V looks _far_ better (the four little fins on the first stage
really help the looks).... the N-1 is a mass of bumps, truss framework
and strange protrusions that looks like some maniacal Marxist's design
for the world's ultimate lighthouse, to be built at Leningrad. Now the
Proton-Zond...now _that's_ a pretty rocket.

Pat