|
Post by james on May 1, 2007 2:20:34 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 1, 2007 11:58:16 GMT -4
I don't have much on the N-1, but I know someone who may. Don Mitchell has been studying the Soviet space program and collecting research material. He has concentrated on Soviet planetary exploration, so he may not have anything on the N-1 but you can ask. Don can be contacted at his own forum, Interplanetary Communication, or he also hangs out at The Space Race Forum. Many of the regulars at the Interplanetary Communication forum seem pretty knowledgeable about the Soviet program, so if Don can't help perhaps someone else there can.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 1, 2007 12:04:12 GMT -4
There were some crude drawings at Astronautix, but that's all I know of right off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 1, 2007 20:14:07 GMT -4
I have a couple on my site. Not sure if they would be helpful though.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 1, 2007 20:16:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by james on May 1, 2007 20:44:00 GMT -4
Great, thanks for the links guys. I'll check out that other forum as well.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on May 1, 2007 21:21:12 GMT -4
Why was there a kaboom? There wasn't supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on May 1, 2007 21:49:07 GMT -4
A couple good diagrams over here, go to the "Reference Photos & Drawings" link, then to "N1-L3 Technical drawings" That page also includes links for a downloadable print-and-assemble N1 model (a few MB of zipped PDFs).
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 1, 2007 21:52:42 GMT -4
Why was there a kaboom? There wasn't supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!
Not sure if you are being serious as to the "Why" so here's the answer.
Test 1) A pump to one of the main enigines lost a part which entered the engine causing it to explode and detonating the rocket.
Test 2) Instabilities in the main engines caused a shutdown on launch and the remaining engines didn't have enough thrust to lift it, resulting in the rocket falling back onto the pad and detonating.
Test 3) The rocket suffered instabilities in flight and started to roll uncontrollably causing the rangematser to destroy it.
Test 4) Suffered from extreme pogo effects which ruptured the rocket and caused it to explode in flight.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 1, 2007 22:52:48 GMT -4
Why was there a kaboom? There wasn't supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom! Silly russians used illudium pew-36 as rocket fuel. Oh drat these rockets, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 1, 2007 23:58:03 GMT -4
A couple good diagrams over here, go to the "Reference Photos & Drawings" link, then to "N1-L3 Technical drawings" That page also includes links for a downloadable print-and-assemble N1 model (a few MB of zipped PDFs). Nice! those are really great, thank you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 2, 2007 1:01:24 GMT -4
Is the N1 supposed to be nearly exactly the same height as the Saturn V?
|
|
|
Post by james on May 2, 2007 1:30:15 GMT -4
It's pretty close, the N1 is just a bit smaller, by about 5m or so.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on May 2, 2007 10:31:12 GMT -4
Why was there a kaboom? There wasn't supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom! Silly russians used illudium pew-36 as rocket fuel. Oh drat these rockets, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 2, 2007 11:13:05 GMT -4
Is the N1 supposed to be nearly exactly the same height as the Saturn V? The N-1 was about the same height as the Saturn V, and it generated more thrust at liftoff (10,000,000lb compared to the Saturn V's 7,500,000lb), but due to its heavier construction it had a lower payload capacity. The N-1 would have sent a 2-man modified Soyuz to the Moon with a 1-man lunar lander. As it was no test launch ever got as far as first stage separation, and one of them didn't get much further than the top of the tower. That was a hallmark of Russian rockets at the time: they were built so solidly that a greater proportion of their thrust was required to get the launch vehicle itself off the ground, thus reducing the payload compared to similar American rockets.
|
|