Some people [1] attributed the failure of the Russians to go to the Moon to the complexity of the N1 rocket with 30 engines. Let’s see how it works out this time.
N1 was about as terrifying as Saturn-V. They are rather similar in weight, length... With Saturn-V, Americans had to solve the problem of immense trust per chamber - F-1 weren't easy to develop. With N-1 Russians were hitting quite high Isp, but didn't get the reliability of the engines in time. So, both monsters had to work with advanced at the time engines.
From the time immemorial :) R-7 was flying with fully 32 chambers lit at the start. Damn, Musk couldn't allow that record sit unchallenged.
That's a joke, of course. The N1 problems were specifically in turbopumps - chambers themselves were relatively robust - and R-7 has those 32 chambers distributed among just 5 engines, one turbopump assembly each.
Regarding N1 I'd say the problem was not as much the complexity of the first stage, as complexity of engines, which couldn't be compensated enough by clever tricks of the rocket itself. NK-33, the next version of the engine, flew successfully at the first try after some 40+ years in storage.
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 23.9 ms ] thread[1] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1388790312903053312
Since this is a reusable rocket stage static fires of some or all the engines at once will be possible.
That's a joke, of course. The N1 problems were specifically in turbopumps - chambers themselves were relatively robust - and R-7 has those 32 chambers distributed among just 5 engines, one turbopump assembly each.
Regarding N1 I'd say the problem was not as much the complexity of the first stage, as complexity of engines, which couldn't be compensated enough by clever tricks of the rocket itself. NK-33, the next version of the engine, flew successfully at the first try after some 40+ years in storage.