0

Why did the N1 (to my inexperienced eye) have a massive rework? Soyuz, Vokshod, Vostok, Sputnik all showed that detachable side boosters worked. If side boosters work, why wouldn’t the N1 just had some really big detachable boosters (highly technical term) instead of a massive base?

Blue Skin and Glowing Red Eyes
  • 845
  • 2
  • 21
  • I don't have a definitive answer, but I note that the tankage in the Soyuz-family boosters is in oddly-shaped tanks, not mass-optimal and maybe tricky to fabricate; each of the N1 stages contains a pair of spherical tanks with a thin shell around the pair. – Russell Borogove Apr 18 '23 at 01:00
  • "some really big detachable boosters" - the whole reason for the N1's design was to avoid having to design newer, larger engines, which would have taken time that they simply didn't have. See this related question. – Cadence Apr 18 '23 at 01:24
  • @Cadence No. They would just have clustered the smaller engines on the strapons. – Abdullah is not an Amalekite Apr 19 '23 at 04:09

1 Answers1

2

http://www.astronautix.com/n/n1.html

Configuration variations considered were:

N1-I - Packet rocket, as used for the R-7. Six strap-ons around an identical core with an upper stage. Two sub-types were considered: In the first, as in the R-7, the rocket would hang from the 'shoulder' of the strap-ons above the flame pit to minimize lower stage mass. The second, which was selected for further study, had the same layout, but the base of the rocket was mounted conventionally, free-standing on its base on the launch pad. This was the baseline design for comparison with the others.

N1- II - Polyblock - a cluster of autonomous rocket stages, each consisting of two propellant tanks feeding individual engine sections. Loads would be carried through the individual stage structure, although the Blocks would be tied together to form a single unit. This was basically the same as the competing Chelomei UR-700 and Yangel R-56 layouts.

N1-III - Polyblock - a cluster rocket, but with the loads transmitted through an external skin. The tanks would be unsupported and a common fuel system would feed the engines. This scheme was analogous to the American Saturn I first stage and Nova designs.

N1-IV - Monoblock - large single stages, each with one oxidizer and one fuel tanks, using a common fuel system to feed the engines. This was analogous to the American Saturn V and the selected N-I configuration All of the designs used 'hot start' stage ignition, requiring use of the familiar Warren truss open strut interstages.

Following analysis of the designs, the following were the results of the detailed design analysis:

Parameter N1-I N1-II N1-III N1-IV

Payload - kg 70,000 65,000 72,000 75,000

Complexity 16 tanks 8 engine systems 78 armatures 30 tanks 15 engine systems 621 armatures 30 tanks 3 engine systems 331 armatures 6 tanks 3 engine systems 305 armatures

Train Cars Required 26 21 33 43

The disadvantages of Variants I, II, and III were the large number of servicing ports, fueling ports, and check inspection points. It was felt that the lower complexity and higher performance of the monoblock Variant IV outweighed the much greater number of train-car loads of parts necessary. The gores of the spherical propellant tanks and panels of the side walls would be built in the factory in Samara and only final assembly of the launch vehicle would be undertaken at the cosmodrome.

(Emphasis mine)

Abdullah is not an Amalekite
  • 2,839
  • 1
  • 13
  • 38