|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
"Sure, one could go in and argue that the failure of the Soviet
Union to make it to the Moon was a result of an incompatible governing system, or economic hurdles, or a myriad of other factors contributed to the communist nation never placing a human on the lunar surface, but they all culminated in this, the N1 rocket." See: http://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rock...326/@ericlimer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
Orval Fairbairn formulated the question :
In article , wrote: "Sure, one could go in and argue that the failure of the Soviet Union to make it to the Moon was a result of an incompatible governing system, or economic hurdles, or a myriad of other factors contributed to the communist nation never placing a human on the lunar surface, but they all culminated in this, the N1 rocket." See: http://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rock...ever-made-i-14 48356326/@ericlimer I would think that they must have had abig problem with base heating, with so many engines down there. Pat was fascinated by this rocket, so I bet there are a bunch of posts about it in the archives. /dps "don't get all that fuel too close to the Venusian Fire Women" -- Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his precious heavy water. _The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
In article ,
says... "Sure, one could go in and argue that the failure of the Soviet Union to make it to the Moon was a result of an incompatible governing system, or economic hurdles, or a myriad of other factors contributed to the communist nation never placing a human on the lunar surface, but they all culminated in this, the N1 rocket." See: http://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rock...326/@ericlimer Very poorly written article. The N-1's downfall has much *less* to do with how many engines it had and much more to do with the fact that the program was rushed and they ran into issues during development that took time, and money, to solve. Yes, it had problems with pogo (so did Saturn V) and troubles with its engine control system (shutting down the wrong engines and the like). But it could have been made to work, given more time and money. The Saturn V had one mission where a stage was very near to literally shaking itself apart due to pogo. Luckily in that case, the vibrations caused one engine to shut down and the stage did not shake itself apart. If one really delves into the development history of the Saturn V, one will realize that it's "perfect" flight record was far from "perfect". The Saturn V flirted with disaster on more than one flight. In the end, it was more luck than engineering prowess that allowed the Saturn V to win the Space Race. And finally, the crowd who claim the N-1 failed due to too many engines also claimed that the Falcon 9 wouldn't succeed due to its 9 engines on its first stage. But, it's proven to be quite successful so far. In fact, the one Falcon 9 flight where one of the first stage engines failed was able to continue to orbit due to the inherent redundancy that is provided by so many first stage engines. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
In article orfairbairn-4C8B9D.21542619102013@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says... In article , wrote: "Sure, one could go in and argue that the failure of the Soviet Union to make it to the Moon was a result of an incompatible governing system, or economic hurdles, or a myriad of other factors contributed to the communist nation never placing a human on the lunar surface, but they all culminated in this, the N1 rocket." See: http://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rock...ever-made-i-14 48356326/@ericlimer I would think that they must have had abig problem with base heating, with so many engines down there. And Henry Spencer had quite a few postings which debunked the "N-1 failed due to too many engines" myth. If you really dig into Saturn V history, you'll see that it was actually very close to disaster on more than one flight. Notably, pogo was a big problem with both the Saturn V and the N-1. No one had built such big launch vehicles before, so some development problems encountered turned out to be remarkably similar, despite the obvious differing number of engines in the two designs. With so few flights of either vehicle, leading to scant reliability data, one could easily argue that the Saturn V was merely lucky and the N-1 was unlucky. Given more time and money the N-1 could have been made to work. But, the Soviet Union was loathe to throw good money after bad, given that the U.S. had clearly won the Space Race to the moon. Its attention turned to LEO space stations, where they clearly had the lead even after they joined forces to develop ISS. The first "core" module of ISS was Russian (the FGB) with the first U.S. module being merely a connecting node (Node 1). To this day, the two "core" modules of ISS are still Russian. One of the Russian "core" modules is still the only permanent module capable of providing propulsive re-boost and propulsive attitude control of ISS. And, with the retirement of the space shuttle, Russia is the only country which can currently launch astronauts to ISS. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
In sci.space.history Robert Clark wrote:
It has been announced that SpaceX will be working on a 300 ton thrust, i.e., ca. 600,000 lbs., methane engine: Hancock County's Stennis Space Center lands SpaceX rocket-testing program. Published: October 23, 2013 Updated 9 hours ago. http://www.sunherald.com/2013/10/23/...er-rocket.html Good news. I'm not a fan of the 9 engines on the Falcon 9, much less the 27 engines on the Falcon Heavy. So Raptor isn't simply an upper stage engine any longer? Or, put another way, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29 out of date? rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler 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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This Insane Rocket Is Why The Soviet Union Never Made It To The Moon
In article ,
says... In sci.space.history Robert Clark wrote: It has been announced that SpaceX will be working on a 300 ton thrust, i.e., ca. 600,000 lbs., methane engine: Hancock County's Stennis Space Center lands SpaceX rocket-testing program. Published: October 23, 2013 Updated 9 hours ago. http://www.sunherald.com/2013/10/23/...er-rocket.html Good news. I'm not a fan of the 9 engines on the Falcon 9, much less the 27 engines on the Falcon Heavy. So Raptor isn't simply an upper stage engine any longer? Or, put another way, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29 out of date? Methane would make a good upper stage engine. It's got higher ISP than kerosene, which is currently the fuel in Falcon 9's upper stage. It's also more storable and has fewer headaches in general when compared to LH2. LH2 is still the fuel of choice for upper stage engines for most "traditional" aerospace engineers. Methane's density is less than kerosene, so I doubt SpaceX would want to use it in lower stages. Kerosene is "good enough" for lower stages. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
5 Soviet Space Programs That Prove Russia Was Insane | [email protected] | Policy | 55 | April 23rd 11 10:56 AM |
5 Soviet Space Programs That Prove Russia Was Insane | David Spain | History | 7 | April 10th 11 08:56 AM |
Soviet nuclear rocket test | Legato | Policy | 11 | January 9th 09 12:47 AM |
What, you have never seen a Europan munching on the Soviet Union of Capitalism? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 16th 07 02:29 AM |
Somewhat on-topic -- Seasons greetings from Soviet Union | Ralph Currell | History | 3 | December 24th 05 07:43 PM |