Author Topic: How could N-1 have worked?  (Read 53251 times)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
How could N-1 have worked?
« on: 06/15/2010 12:01 am »
Studying the N-1 some today, got side-tracked from work.  Something struck me, the N-1's engines, NK-33 and NK-43 have been tested with Hydrolox vs the original Kerolox, so I got to wondering what would have changed had the Soviets exploited this ability.

So, I crunched some numbers, and the results were shocking, over 140mT to orbit if I swapped Hydrolox for Kerolox on stages 2 + 3, with the added thermal protection added, and removing stages 4+5.  Which got me to thinking, what else was the problem.  Well, the most obvious was the sheet # of engines.  So, I cut the first and second stage engine count in half, and swapped out the 4 3rd stage engines for a single NK-43.

I wound up with a 116mT launcher.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #1 on: 06/15/2010 04:18 am »
I don't know on what basis you reduced the number of first and second stage engines, but yeah, if you removed stages four and five, replaced the kerosene with a mix of RP1 and LH2, and changed out the 3rd stage engines, maybe the entire stack would be so much lighter that you could reduce the number of first stage engines.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #2 on: 06/15/2010 04:42 am »
I wonder how much structural weight could have been reduced by if a new structure for propellant tanks was designed. Tapered stages holding spherical propellant tanks had to be inefficient for dry mass.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2010 04:43 am by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #3 on: 06/15/2010 06:21 am »
IIRC, Korolev went with spherical tanks because Soviet companies weren't up to making non-spherical ones.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #4 on: 06/15/2010 06:52 am »
Around 1974 and the ninth N-1 the soviets had the N-1F in the pipeline.
Would the much improved N-1F have worked ? or was the very basic concept flawed ?
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #5 on: 06/15/2010 09:30 am »
The problem was that Soviet industry of the time couldn't manufacture tank walls thicker than 14mm and there was no suitable hydrogen infrastructure (and no $$$). The concept was acceptable, but not great -- it wasn't all Korolev's fault though.

If there had been a proper test stand for the first stage I suspect they would have lost one or two N1s initially (due to roll control issues etc.), but it probably would have been working by the third launch. I think by the time of the N1F most of the issues had been delt with... IMHO it is a real tragedy that Glushko destroyed so many flight ready HLVs.
John

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #6 on: 06/15/2010 11:57 am »
What you really need to do is swap out the first stage for an S-IC.  Then all you really need to do is swap out the second stage for an S-II.  Finally, swap out the third stage for an S-IV.

That should work fine.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #7 on: 06/15/2010 12:59 pm »
I don't know on what basis you reduced the number of first and second stage engines, but yeah, if you removed stages four and five, replaced the kerosene with a mix of RP1 and LH2, and changed out the 3rd stage engines, maybe the entire stack would be so much lighter that you could reduce the number of first stage engines.

I based it on multiple areas. 
1)  The replacement engine for the N1, the NK-33 has 1.9MN of thrust, over the original NK-15's 1.6MN.

2) The upper stages weighed 80mT fully loaded

3) Removal of four engines on the second stage and the switch to hydrogen kept the second stage running longer, while the removal of four engines (5.5mT) and the top-two stages now made it light enough so that there was enough thrust.

4) The 3rd stage engine swap cut 1mT while also increasing thrust from 401kN to 908kN.

5) add in these other factors, now you have too much thrust on the first stage, a total of 57MN, or roughly 12,837,697 lbf, almost 1/3rd more than the original N1.  And the original N1 had more thrust than needed, as they figured on loosing up to four engines on liftoff anyways.

6) the removal of the engines shaves over 16mT from the first stage.

So, we have an N1 which is 102.5mT lighter to start with, dropping its weight to 2923000, lighter than the Saturn V.  It also has higher thrust in the upper stages, *and* better ISP in all three stages than the Saturn V. (331 isp first stage, 430 isp upper two stages)

But as pointed out, they had no support infrastructure for Hydrogen support, so even if it could have worked, there was no way to actually fuel the vehicle.

In the end, the N1 as it originally was could have worked if they had properly tested it.  Even if they could not afford a proper test stand, roll out just the first stage, lock it down on the launchpad, and let her go (not fueling up the actual tanks, just funnelling fuel right to the engines along the fuel-lines, so if it blew, no big explosion taking out the pad).

**note - the thrust/isp of the hydrogen based NK-43 is based on a lot of study of the design, and may be +/- 5% my original figures, so I took the more conservative figures and used them**
« Last Edit: 06/15/2010 01:32 pm by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline rfoshaug

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #8 on: 06/15/2010 02:47 pm »
What you really need to do is swap out the first stage for an S-IC.  Then all you really need to do is swap out the second stage for an S-II.  Finally, swap out the third stage for an S-IV.

That should work fine.

+1  8)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #9 on: 06/15/2010 02:57 pm »
I still wish one of them, even one of the full-sized mockups had survived.  I'd love to see one in person.  Hell, would love to see it mounted next to one of the remaining Saturn V's.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #10 on: 06/15/2010 03:02 pm »
OT but I would like to see an R-7 ICBM displayed next to an Atlas or Titan 1 ICBM.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #11 on: 06/15/2010 03:26 pm »
OT but I would like to see an R-7 ICBM displayed next to an Atlas or Titan 1 ICBM.
That is possible to do, there's a few decommissioned Titans for sale IIRC, and I'm sure if someone approached Roscosmos they may be willing to part with a non-operational R-7.  (helps that they still build the Soyuz, so 97% of the R-7 structure is still there)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #12 on: 06/15/2010 07:57 pm »
IIRC, Korolev went with spherical tanks because Soviet companies weren't up to making non-spherical ones.


I suspect that the more accurate statement is that Soviets companies were not up to making non-spherical tanks of that size in Baikonur. We know that Proton used non-spherical tanks, but these were produced in Moscow. The N1 couldn't be shipped to Baikonur, so all large components had to be made in Baikonur, and conditions were very primitive there at that time.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #13 on: 06/15/2010 08:12 pm »
Good point. I was wondering about Proton tanks which must have been started in 1963 or so plus second generation ICBMs were started in 1959?
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #14 on: 06/15/2010 08:16 pm »
The design of the Proton first stage with the central oxidizer tank and the six smaller fuel tanks (or is that backwards?) was to keep the components under the maximum size for rail shipment within the USSR.  4 meter diameter or something like that.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #15 on: 06/15/2010 08:27 pm »
Yes, it seems that WWII Germany and USSR had/have design limits due to rail transport.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #16 on: 06/15/2010 08:48 pm »
Yes, it seems that WWII Germany and USSR had/have design limits due to rail transport.
Everyone has those limitations, though the US's extensive waterway infrastructure (perhaps the best in the world, much of it natural) with warm-water ports all along the periphery of the US (plus the Great Lakes and the Mississippi, which bring barge traffic all the way into the center of the continent) makes it far easier for us. In fact, that combined with the excellent farmland of the Midwest and other extensive natural resources (like coal and oil and metals) are probably the true source of the United States' economic power.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #17 on: 06/16/2010 01:04 pm »
Hey, I had a teacher way way back in high school that use to comment, this country's long term future was as the bread basket to the world. The farm land is the one thing we have that can not be duplicated overseas by cheaper labor.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #18 on: 06/16/2010 01:13 pm »
Hey, I had a teacher way way back in high school that use to comment, this country's long term future was as the bread basket to the world. The farm land is the one thing we have that can not be duplicated overseas by cheaper labor.
But it is something we're rapidly destroying in lieu of suburban sprawl.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How could N-1 have worked?
« Reply #19 on: 06/16/2010 03:05 pm »
Hey, I had a teacher way way back in high school that use to comment, this country's long term future was as the bread basket to the world. The farm land is the one thing we have that can not be duplicated overseas by cheaper labor.
But it is something we're rapidly destroying in lieu of suburban sprawl.

Waaay off-topic, but also totally wrong.  The suburbs have grown, but farm production has grown substantially as well.  New technology and new methods have increased farm production.

And have you flown over the middle of the country lately?  Look out the window.  Lots of massive farms.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1