Falcon 9 Heavy vs. Soviet N-1

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

Additionally the Russians did never test the N-1 first stage prior to
launch, while SpaceX already did a full test for the F-9 first stage.
This is not to say that the Falcon 9 (Heavy) can't fail, but it has a
much higher chance not to fail than the N-1.

All four N=1 failures were due to different causes, not some fundamental
flaw in the engines.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

Additionally the Russians did never test the N-1 first stage prior to
launch, while SpaceX already did a full test for the F-9 first stage.
This is not to say that the Falcon 9 (Heavy) can't fail, but it has a
much higher chance not to fail than the N-1.

All four N=1 failures were due to different causes, not some fundamental
flaw in the engines.

But all were due to a flaw in the first stage which could have been
caught with full testing. They did never (to my knowlegde) a full
vibration test, a fuel flow test or (god forbid) a test with all engines
running for the full duration of the first stage burn.

All of that has been done with the Falcon 9 first stage, though. All
engines running with a full first stage attached for the full duration
of a real launch. This still leaves the aerodynamic effects out, but I
would say that there's about an order of magnitude more confidence in
the thing than in the N-1 now.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:38:45 +0100, Jochem Huhmann
wrote:

But all were due to a flaw in the first stage which could have been
caught with full testing. They did never (to my knowlegde) a full
vibration test, a fuel flow test or (god forbid) a test with all engines
running for the full duration of the first stage burn.

...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
- 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".

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. 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.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On Nov 11, 2:32*am, OM wrote:
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
- which is what happened anyway when they rolled the full stack out to


It has nothing to do with secrecy. It was money and time, which they
didn't have.

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

Pat Flannery wrote:
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.

Sounds like competitive U.S. Military procurement procedures. Do we
have an airborn refueling tanker deal yet?

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
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.

Sounds like competitive U.S. Military procurement procedures. Do we
have an airborn refueling tanker deal yet?


This got a lot more severe; about the closest thing we had to it in our
space program was McDonnell pitching all sorts of modified Gemini
variants in competition to Apollo till NASA told them to cut that crap
out: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm

Pat