Military Review

H1 Superracket - a failed breakthrough

Russia is in dire need of a super heavy class carrier

Last year, Roskosmos announced a tender for the development of a heavy-class rocket based on the existing Angara project, which, among other things, could deliver a manned spacecraft to the moon. Obviously, the absence of super-heavy missiles in Russia, which can throw up to 80 tons of cargo into orbit, hinders many promising work in space and on Earth. The project of the only domestic carrier with similar characteristics “Energy-Buran” was closed at the beginning of the 90-s, despite the 14,5 billion rubles spent (in 80-x prices) and 13 years. Meanwhile, in the USSR, a supercar was successfully developed with stunning imagination of the performance characteristics. The readers of the "MIC" are invited to a story about stories create missile H1.

The beginning of work on the Х1 with a liquid-jet engine (LRE) was preceded by research on rocket engines using nuclear energy (NRE). In accordance with the government resolution of 30 June 1958, the design bureau 1 was developed in draft design, approved by S. P. Korolev 30 December 1959.

The OKB-456 (Chief Designer V.P. Glushko) of the State Committee for Defense Technology and the OKB-670 (M.M. Bondaryuk) of the State Committee for Aircraft Engineering joined the creation of the YARD. OKB-1 developed three variants of missiles with YARDs, and the third was the most interesting. It was a giant rocket with a launch mass of 2000 t and a payload mass of up to 150 t. The first and second stages were made in the form of packages of conical rocket blocks that were supposed to have a large number of X-NNXX LPN rocket engines in the first stage. The second stage included four YARDs with a total 9 ton-force, a specific thrust impulse in the void to 52 kg.s./kg when using another working fluid at the heating temperature to 850 K.

The prospect of using liquid hydrogen mixed with methane as a working fluid in the NRE was shown in addition to the decree “On the possible characteristics of space rockets using hydrogen”, approved by S. P. Korolev 9 September 1960 of the year. However, as a result of further studies, the expediency of heavy launch vehicles using liquid-propellant engines on all developed components using hydrogen as a fuel at all stages was discovered. Nuclear energy was postponed for the future.

Grand project

H1 Superracket - a failed breakthroughThe government decree of 23 June 1960 of the Year “On the creation of powerful launch vehicles, satellites, spacecraft and space exploration in 1960 – 1967” provided for a design study and necessary amount of research to be carried out in 1960 – 1962 in order to create Years of a new space rocket system with a launch mass of 1000 – 2000 t, ensuring the launch into orbit of a heavy interplanetary spacecraft with a mass of 60 – 80 t.

The grand project involved a number of design offices and research institutes. On engines - OKB-456 (V. P. Glushko), OKB-276 (N. D. Kuznetsov) and OKB-165 (AM Lyulka), on control systems - NII-885 (N. A. Pilyugin) and NII- 944 (V.I. Kuznetsov), on the ground complex - GSKB "Spetsmash" (V.P. Barmin), on the measuring complex - SRI-4 MO (A.I. Sokolov), on the tank emptying system and adjusting the ratio of fuel components - OKB-12 (A. S. Abramov), on aerodynamic studies - Scientific Research Institute-88 (Yu. A. Mozzhorin), TsAGI (V. M. Myasishchev) and Scientific Research Institute-1 (V. Ya. Likhushin), in manufacturing technology - Institute of Welding them. Paton of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR (B.E. Paton), NITI-40 (Y.V. Kolupaev), Progress plant (A.Ya. Linkov), according to the technology and methods of experimental testing and retrofitting of stands - SRI-229 (G. M. Tabakov) and others.

The designers consecutively examined multistage launch vehicles with a starting mass from 900 to 2500 t, at the same time assessing the technical possibilities of creating and the preparedness of the country's industry for production. The calculations showed that most of the tasks of military and space purposes are solved by a launch vehicle with a payload of 70 – 100 t, put into orbit at an altitude of 300 km.

Therefore, for the design studies of the H1, a payload of 75 t mass was adopted using oxygen - kerosene at all levels of the LRE. This value of the mass of the payload corresponded to the starting mass of the PH 2200 t, taking into account that the use of hydrogen as fuel in the upper stages of the fuel will increase the mass of the payload to 90 – 100 t with the same starting mass. Studies carried out by the technological services of manufacturers and technological institutes of the country showed not only the technical possibility of creating such a launch vehicle with minimal expenditure of funds and time, but also the readiness of the industry to produce it.

At the same time, the possibilities of experimental and bench testing of PH units and blocks II and III stages were determined on the existing experimental base of the Scientific Research Institute-229 with minimal modifications. Launches of the launch vehicle were provided from the Baikonur cosmodrome, for which it was required to create there appropriate technical and launch facilities.

Also considered were various layout schemes with transverse and longitudinal division of stages, with load-carrying and non-carrying tanks. As a result, we adopted a rocket scheme with transverse division of the stages in suspended monoblock spherical fuel tanks, with multi-engine installations at stages I, II and III. The choice of the number of engines in the composition of the propulsion system is one of the fundamental problems when creating a launch vehicle. After the analysis, it was decided to use engines with 150 tons.

At the I, II and III stages of the carrier, it was decided to establish a control system for the organizational and administrative activities of CORD, which turned off the engine when its monitored parameters deviated from the norm. The thrust-carrying capacity of the RN was such that, if the single engine failed to operate, the flight continued in the initial part of the trajectory, and in the last parts of the flight of stage I it was possible to turn off even more engines without prejudice to the task.

OKB-1 and other organizations conducted special studies to substantiate the choice of fuel components with an analysis of the feasibility of using them for the PH Н1. The analysis showed a significant decrease in the mass of the payload (with a constant starting mass) in the event of a transition to high-boiling fuel components, which is due to low specific impulse impulses and an increase in the mass of fuel from tanks and pressurized gases due to the higher vapor pressure of these components. Comparison of different types of fuel showed that liquid oxygen - kerosene is much cheaper than AT + UDMH: by capex - twice, at cost price - eight times.

The booster H1 consisted of three stages (blocks A, B, C), interconnected by truss-type transition compartments, and the head unit. The power circuit was a frame shell that perceives external loads, inside which were placed fuel tanks, engines and other systems. The structure of the propulsion system I stage included 24 engine NK-15 (11Д51) on the ground on 150 ts located on the ring, II stage - eight of the same engines with high-altitude nozzle NK-15В (11Д52), III stage - four engines NK- 19 (11D53) with a height nozzle. All engines had a closed circuit.

Instruments of the control system, telemetry and other systems were located in special compartments at the appropriate levels. On the launching device, the PH was mounted with supporting heels along the periphery of the end of the first stage. The adopted aerodynamic layout made it possible to minimize the required control points and use the principle of misalignment of the thrust of opposite engines on the PH to control the pitch and roll. Due to the impossibility of transporting entire compartments of the rocket by existing vehicles, they were divided into transportable elements.

On the basis of the PH H1 stages, it was possible to create a unified series of missiles: H11 using II, III and IV stages of PH H1 with a launch mass of 700 and payload of 20 tons in the orbit of an satellite with a height of 300 km and H111 using III and IV levels of PH HXNX and stage II of the P-1A rocket with a launch mass of 9 t and a payload of mass 200 t in an orbit of an artificial satellite 5 km high, which could solve a wide range of combat and space tasks.

The work was carried out under the direct supervision of SP Korolev, who headed the Council of Chief Designers, and his first deputy, V. P. Mishin. Project materials (total 29 volumes and 8 applications) in early July 1962 was considered by an expert commission headed by the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences M. V. Keldysh. The Commission noted that the rationale for the PH H1 was performed at a high scientific and technical level, meets the requirements for draft designs of the launch vehicle and interplanetary missiles, and can be used as a basis for the development of working documentation. At the same time, commission members M. S. Ryazansky, V. P. Barmin, A. G. Mrykin, and some others spoke of the need to involve OKB-456 in the development of engines for the LV, but V. P. Glushko refused.

By mutual agreement, the development of the engines was entrusted to OKB-276, which did not have sufficient theoretical baggage and development experience of the LRE, with virtually no experimental and test bases for this.

Unsuccessful, but fruitful trials

The Keldysh Commission indicated that the primary task of the Х1 was its combat use, but in the course of further work, the main purpose of the super-missile was space, first of all an expedition to the Moon and return to Earth. To a large extent, the choice of such a decision was influenced by reports of the lunar manned program "Saturn-Apollo" in the United States. 3 August 1964, the government of the USSR by its resolution fixed this priority.

In December 1962 of the year OKB-1 submitted to GKOT coordinated with the main designers "Baseline and main technical requirements for the design of the launch complex for the Н1 rocket". November 13 The 1963 th Commission of the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR approved by decision an interdepartmental schedule for the development of design documentation for the complex of facilities required for flight testing of the PH Н1, excluding construction itself and material and technical support. MI Samokhin and A. N. Ivannikov under the close attention of S. P. Korolev led the work on the creation of the polygon complex in the OKB-1 complex.

By the beginning of 1964, the total backlog of work from the stipulated timeline was one to two years. 19 June The 1964 government had to postpone the start of the LCI to the 1966 year. The flight design tests of the Н1 rocket with the simplified head unit of the LZ system (with the unmanned vehicle 7K-L1С instead of LOK and LK) began in February 1969. By the beginning of the LCI, experimental testing of components and assemblies, bench tests of blocks B and C, tests with the prototype model of the 1М rocket at the technical and launch positions were carried out.

The first launch of the rocket-space complex Н1-ЛЗ (№ ЗЛ) from the right launch of 21 in February of 1969 of the year ended with an accident. In the gas generator of the second engine, high-frequency oscillations appeared, the pressure tapping nozzle behind the turbine came off, components leaked, a fire started in the tail section, which led to a violation of the engine operation control system, which gave a false command to shutdown the engines for a second. However, the launch confirmed the correctness of the selected dynamic scheme, the dynamics of the launch, the control processes of the launch vehicle, allowed us to obtain experimental data on the loads on the launch vehicle and its strength, the effects of acoustic loads on the rocket and the launch system and some other data, including operating characteristics in real conditions.

The second launch of the H1-LZ complex (No. 5L) conducted 3 on July 1969 of the year, and it also crashed. According to the conclusion of the emergency commission chaired by V.P. Mishin, the most likely cause was the destruction of the oxidizer pump of the eighth engine of block A when entering the main stage.

Analysis of tests, calculations, research and experimental work lasted two years. The main measures were considered to increase the reliability of the oxidizer pump; improving the quality of manufacture and assembly of the tha; installation of filters in front of the engine pumps, excluding the ingress of foreign objects into it; filling in before starting and purging with nitrogen the tail compartment of unit A in flight and introducing a freon extinguishing system; introduction to the design of thermal protection of structural elements, instruments and cables of systems located in the tail section of block A; changing the location of devices in it in order to increase their survivability; the introduction of the lock command AED to 50 with. flight and emergency withdrawal of PH from the start to reset the power, etc.

The third launch of the H1-LZ rocket and space system (No. 6L) was held on 27 June 1971 of the year from the left launch. All 30 engines of block A entered the preliminary and main thrust modes in accordance with the standard cyclogram and functioned normally before they were turned off by the control system at 50,1 pp. However, since the beginning of the flight, the roll stabilization process was abnormal, and the error in rotation angle increased continuously and to 14,5 with. reached 145 °. Since the AED team was blocked up to 50 s., The flight to 50,1 s. became almost uncontrollable.

The most likely cause of the accident is the loss of roll controllability due to the action of previously disturbing moments, which exceed the available control points of the roll bodies. The revealed additional roll moment arose with all the engines running due to the powerful vortex air flow in the rear region of the rocket, aggravated by the asymmetry of the flow of engine parts protruding beyond the bottom of the rocket.

In less than a year, under the leadership of M. V. Melnikov and B. A. Sokolov, 11 N X NUMX steering engines were created to provide roll control for the rocket. They worked on the oxidizing generator gas and fuel extracted from the main engines.

November 23 1972 made the fourth launch of the rocket number 7L, which has undergone significant changes. The flight control was carried out by the on-board computer complex according to the commands of the gyro-stabilized development platform of the Scientific-Research Institute. The composition of the propulsion system introduced steering engines, fire suppression system, improved mechanical and thermal protection devices and onboard cable network. Measuring systems were equipped with small-sized radio-telemetry equipment developed by OKB MEI (chief designer A. F. Bogomolov). There were more than 13 000 sensors on the rocket.

No. 7L flew without comment 106,93 with., But for 7 with. before the estimated time of separation of the first and second stages, an almost instantaneous destruction of the engine oxidizer pump No. 4 occurred, which led to the elimination of the rocket.

The fifth launch was scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1974. By May, all design and constructive measures to ensure the survivability of the product, taking into account previous flights and additional research, were implemented on the rocket number 8L, installation of the upgraded engines began.

It seemed that the superracket would fly sooner or later where and how it should be. However, academician V.P. Glushko, appointed in May 1974, the head of the TsKBEM reorganized into NPO Energia, with the tacit consent of the Ministry of General Engineering (S.A. Afanasyev), the USSR Academy of Sciences (M.V. Keldysh), the Military Industrial The Sovmin Commission (L.V. Smirnov) and the CPSU Central Committee (D. F. Ustinov) stopped all work on the Н1-ЛЗ complex. In February, 1976, the project was officially closed by a decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers. This decision deprived the country of heavy ships, and priority went to the US, which launched the Space Shuttle project.

The total costs of mastering the moon according to the H1-LZ program by January 1973 amounted to 3,6 billion rubles, the creation of the Н1 - 2,4 billion. The production reserve of the rocket blocks, almost all the equipment of the technical, launch and measuring complexes was destroyed, and the costs totaling six billion rubles were written off.

Although design, production and technological developments, operating experience and ensuring the reliability of a powerful rocket system were fully used in creating the Energia launch vehicle and, obviously, will be widely used in subsequent projects, it is necessary to note the fallacy of stopping the HNNXX operations. The USSR voluntarily ceded the palm to the Americans, but most importantly, many design bureaus, research institutes and factories have lost their emotional charge of enthusiasm and a sense of dedication to the ideas of space exploration, which largely determine the achievement of seemingly out of reach fantastic goals.
41 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 30 October 2013 08: 59
    Nothing else will take place
    Where are the vaunted shuttles and on what fly to the ISS?
    1. Canep
      Canep 30 October 2013 09: 37
      It seems to me easier to assemble in orbit an interplanetary ship of 3-5 parts launched by Unions and Protons. Although Protons would not be a bad thing to replace with something without hyptyl (asymmetric dimethylhydrazine)
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 30 October 2013 13: 11
        According to experts, both the nuclear rector and the nuclear engine are inseparable blocks weighing about 70 tons, hence the dances by the fire.
      2. Su24
        Su24 30 October 2013 19: 36
        Quote: Canep
        It seems to me easier to assemble in orbit an interplanetary ship of 3-5 parts launched by Unions and Protons. Although Protons would not be a bad thing to replace with something without hyptyl (asymmetric dimethylhydrazine)

        That's what they plan, but the modules of such a ship are still larger than can be derived on Proton. The ship to Mars should consist of just 3-5 80-90 ton modules.
  2. svp67
    svp67 30 October 2013 09: 24
    Н1 is S.P. Korolev's "swan song", which he simply could not "finish singing" ...
    And will we now have a man equal to the SEC? time will tell...
    1. Denis
      Denis 30 October 2013 09: 46
      Quote: svp67
      person equal to the SEC? time will tell...
      Alas, time is x-bad tv until it shows
      Although I want to hope that they do not say how about the joint venture
  3. avt
    avt 30 October 2013 09: 36
    “It seemed that sooner or later the super-rocket would fly where and how it should. However, the appointed head of TsKBEM, transformed into NPO Energia, in May 1974, Academician V.P. Glushko with the tacit consent of the Ministry of General Machine Building (S.A. Afanasyev), the USSR Academy of Sciences (M.V. Keldysh), the Commission of the Council of Ministers (L. V. Smirnov) and the Central Committee of the CPSU (D. F. Ustinov) stopped all work on the N1-LZ complex. "------- Absolutely correct decision, in spite of the fact that this is a really powerful achievement, the project itself is dead-end and unmanageable even for the planned Soviet economy. In fact, it would have been left without pants in serial production. By the way, the table was later used for Buran - Energy. "
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 30 October 2013 10: 25
      Probably correct, since the priority did not take place, the Americans were already on the moon, and bringing H1 would require a lot of money and time.
      Another thing is interesting. Glushko refused to create an engine under H1, for the reasons of the proposed fuel option or another, although, apparently, it was his design bureau that could build powerful engines, which did not need so many unreasonably - 24-30 pieces! - install in block A. Was there a chance to make the rocket workable earlier if Glushko nevertheless agreed to make the engine?
      1. jagdpanzer
        jagdpanzer 31 December 2013 15: 44
        in vain did not do
  4. mark1
    mark1 30 October 2013 09: 38
    The design assessment is very ambiguous. Some spherical tanks and giant voids in the body are worth something (about dozens of engines (generally very advanced but not for this class of missiles) at the first stage I am generally silent ...) It is unlikely that such a rocket could have a future - heels of flights to the moon, if lucky, that's all (and she also didn't want to fly). One should cry not for H-1, but for Energia, which flew the first time and is still more modern than all modern ones.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 30 October 2013 23: 35
      Right. And on "Energia M" and on "Vulcan" (Energia variant with 8 old accelerators and three stages, with a PN mass in low earth orbit up to 200 tons).
  5. avt
    avt 30 October 2013 10: 05
    Quote: mark1
    (about dozens of engines (generally very advanced but not for this class of missiles) at the first stage I’m generally silent ...)

    Forced decision due to the lack of similar "Saturn", and there, if the thrust fell on one, automatically decreased on the symmetrical, as a result there was a significant loss of power, and already at the start site. So at least we, students, were told.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 30 October 2013 11: 42
      I wonder if all the engines "blew" into one common nozzle, then interruptions of one or two could remain not critical? ..
      1. avt
        avt 30 October 2013 16: 38
        Quote: ramsi
        I wonder if all the engines "blew" into one common nozzle, then interruptions of one or two could remain not critical? ..
        Of course, a normal exhaust pipe would turn out, the rocket would stand calmly at the start and not explode.
        Quote: Bezarius
        It seems to me that in the near future this project will continue.

        request And you can still revive the galleys in the fleet. Actually, such a bunch of several dozen engines not from a good life, the King came up with.
        Quote: barbiturate
        I do not believe in Saturn 5

        laughing Actually, there would be no Saturn, there would be no Energy. Glushko wrote in the book that the Saturn engine on oxygen and hydrogen cannot be created, then the truth was removed from the library of the Moscow Higher Technical School, well, the great ones are mistaken, especially in the heat of the argument between themselves, as Glushko and Korolev at that moment. However, the outstanding machine - the crown of his life's work Energy, it did not stop to do. The most worthy completion of the life of the Great Engineer, as well as the N-1 at the Queen. And that is typical with the same fate in terms of application. request
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 30 October 2013 19: 00
          Quote: avt
          Of course, a normal exhaust pipe would turn out, the rocket would stand calmly at the start and not explode.

          In my opinion, the problems would have been rather with the heat resistance of the nozzle material
  6. Bezarius
    Bezarius 30 October 2013 11: 45
    It seems to me that in the near future this project will continue. After all, now they began to continue to work on projects of the times of the USSR.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 30 October 2013 19: 00
      If there is nowhere to put money, then by all means they will continue it.
  7. Ascetic
    Ascetic 30 October 2013 12: 23
    In Samara, at TsSKB Progress, a heavy-class missile was designed. The preliminary design is already in Roscosmos. So not only Khrunichev with the Angara in this topic. Although, apparently, they will rely on the Khrunichev Angara-A5, because they offer a single series from light to heavy missiles. And the engine under it RD-191 Energomash sculpts with might and main. In November flight tests in Plesetsk are planned. We will wait for the results.
    1. mark1
      mark1 30 October 2013 18: 07
      I heard out of my ear that Angara is not suitable for manned flights in terms of vibration characteristics (if I blurted out nonsense, don't judge strictly, I'm an amateur) and the Yenisei launch vehicle project is being developed for cosmonauts, and suddenly Yenisei is forgotten and the emphasis is again on Angara (its derivative "Cupid"). What has changed, do not enlighten?
    2. mark1
      mark1 30 October 2013 18: 11
      Quote: Ascetic
      Flight trials in Plesetsk are scheduled for November

      And yet, dear Ascetic, when will there be trials anyway - in November, or as Rogozin claims in May 2014?
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 31 October 2013 00: 58
        Quote: mark1
        And yet, dear Ascetic, when will there be trials anyway - in November, or as Rogozin claims in May 2014?

        A heavy Angara rocket will be sent to the Plesetsk cosmodrome by the end of 2013, said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. “On the night of 27 to 28 (May) a train with a light Angara was sent to Plesetsk, on the 31st of the day it arrived on time. Now it is being installed. Work is also being planned at the Khrunichev heavy Angara plant, which we are also sending to Plesetsk by the end of this year, ”Rogozin said at a meeting at the head of the cabinet, Dmitry Medvedev, with the deputy prime ministers.
        Moscow. July 20. INTERFAX-AVN - Flight tests of the promising Russian launch vehicle Angara-A5 of a heavy class will begin at the Plesetsk cosmodrome (Arkhangelsk region) in 2013, said Alexander Fadeev, general director of the FSUE Center for Ground Space Infrastructure Operation (TSENKI).

        "In accordance with the updated plans the creation of the Angara rocket and space complex at the Plesetsk cosmodrome, the start of flight tests of the Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle is expected at the end of 2013, "Fadeyev told Interfax-AVN.
  8. barbiturate
    barbiturate 30 October 2013 14: 14
    missiles with such capabilities will be needed for many tasks if the country that builds them wants to implement serious and large-scale projects (or a group of countries). So far, such a super-heavy launch vehicle, in my opinion, was created only in the USSR, this is Energy. I don’t believe in Saturn 5, as well as in the F1 engine (it’s painfully phony gives everything). It's a pity N-1, a unique rocket was made "without fools", it's a pity at that moment there was not enough will of the leadership to bring it up. Now it would not have been the first generation of her descendants.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 30 October 2013 18: 58
      There would be no generation since This rocket itself was not needed either then or now.
      1. Hudo
        Hudo 30 October 2013 21: 36
        Quote: NikOne
        There would be no generation since This rocket itself was not needed either then or now.

        Why such "deep" conclusions? Don't you need a heavy carrier?
        1. Nikone
          Nikone 31 October 2013 04: 18
          And why do you need it? What similar cargoes are required to be put into orbit? To date, the same Proton is enough.
          At the same time, the same fate befell the Energy, for which, in fact, no work was invented other than putting Buran into orbit. But it was more of a military project. Therefore, everything was closed as unnecessary.
          The medium must be created for specific tasks, and if there are no such tasks, then this is simply a waste of money, and very large money.
      2. Hudo
        Hudo 30 October 2013 23: 55
        Just like that, there is a Soyuz with a payload of about 7 tons, or a 20-ton Proton, and there is an H 1 with a payload of up to 90 tons and what to do with her type of mind is not enough. Before the orbital station, they do not mind. laughing
        1. Nikone
          Nikone 31 October 2013 04: 20
          To develop a rocket to launch a huge orbital station once?
          1. Hudo
            Hudo 31 October 2013 09: 07
            Quote: NikOne
            To develop a rocket to launch a huge orbital station once?

            How everything is running! Why once? In the conditions of an orbital station, it is possible not only to conduct experiments obtaining materials whose properties are different from those obtained on Earth and have a wide range of applications, but also to organize their production. This is not the ISS with its modules weighing up to 20 tons, in which the crew feels like in a crowded tram, where you have to think a hundred times what equipment to send there for research, and let it wait until ...
            I read your comments with a strange feeling - all developed countries are striving into space, feeling in this the prospect of their development, and it has surrendered to a Russian person. China, India, Brazil and others., Such happiness as the presence of a heavy carrier rocket and the technology for its production and development would have fallen on their heads would not remember themselves with joy and would quickly realize how to raise and earn our scientific potential on this they don’t have other opportunities, but you don’t need it. What do you need? Maybe a cart drawn by a filly?
            1. Nikone
              Nikone 31 October 2013 13: 18
              Well, you got too excited, comparing the ISS with a crowded tram, there is enough space there.
              As for China, India and Brazil, their aspiration to space is connected not with the economy, but with politics more. Making money on it right away will not work; for this, a whole industry is needed, which we now have. But this is not created in a year or two. Russia went to this for five decades.
  9. AlexA
    AlexA 30 October 2013 17: 52
    Colleagues, the decision to stop the work was justified. The scheme was dead-end, nothing could be squeezed out of it. Glushko acted cunningly, but correctly. He understood that at that time we did not have technologies for powerful engines, and with 32 engines in the first stage, the result was predictable. He paused, worked out the ground and fired with engines for "Energy". N1 was at that time a purely political project, like "maybe it will slip through." It did not slip through. It's a shame, of course. But the closure of Energia (I agree with the members of the forum) is not just a mistake, it is a betrayal. I happened to work in Podlipki at the end of the 80s. I answer. Conceptually, it is more advanced than the Shuttle, more versatile. Fully implements the modular principle. In general, it's a song. Maybe I’ll still sniff. It would be in time, while some designers, technologists and craftsmen are still alive.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 31 October 2013 04: 22
      The closure of the Energy was justified, as there was simply no work for her.
  10. Technologist
    Technologist 30 October 2013 18: 31
    Now it’s almost impossible to create something like this (((. There is simply no one.
  11. Sirius-2
    Sirius-2 30 October 2013 18: 53
    Let the erroneous project N-1, but the moon had to fly. At least two flights. For the sake of experience, and for the sake of prestige. May we be second on the moon. And now we risk being third there, if at all flying. Some people dream of flying to Mars - first you need to fly to the moon, and only then to Mars. In Mars, in my opinion, generally for astronauts in the next 20 years - this is a one-way flight. Too far.
  12. AlexA
    AlexA 30 October 2013 20: 55
    Of course, it was necessary to try to fly. For experience. So we tried it. Did not work out. At that time, it was natural. The project was closed logically. We have gained experience. Used in Energia.
    By the way, I apologize for the error. Worked with Podlipki in the late 70s. In the department of propulsion systems. Popov, Vereshchetin, Mirakova - hello, if anyone is on the forum!
  13. barbiturate
    barbiturate 31 October 2013 06: 51
    Quote: NikOne
    There would be no generation since This rocket itself was not needed either then or now.

    Well, according to your logic, why is Proton needed then? 20 tons of load? and what for? satellites can be launched with less load, astronauts can be launched into the NOO (low Earth orbits) by the Unions, flew a bit and returned. Why then powerful carriers? Now, if one explores space like that, then nothing is needed. But if humanity (say, the commonwealth of countries) decides to continue to move somewhere and think, namely: What will happen to the manned astronautics after the ISS? New orbital station? How to build it, what carriers? Building a base on the moon? Flight to Mars? Mastering asteroids? On the ground, the station blocks are very limited to 20 tons of carrying capacity, and if you give designers say 100 tons?
    The Americans are well aware of this and the programs they are familiar with: Falcon 9 Heavy up to 53 tons at the IEO, FalconX, Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX with a lifting capacity up to 140 tons at the IEO, Constellation - up to 188 tons at the IEO (closed, but for the same reason it was invented and worked it out?), Instead of developing the Space Launch System, the Space Launch System is planned to be launched in three configurations with a loading capacity of 70–100–130 tons at the IEO. The purpose is the launch of heavy loads into Earth orbit, flights to asteroids, Mars and the Moon.
    Do you think the Americans clearly don’t understand that heavy media are not needed?
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 31 October 2013 13: 12
      "Proton" is quite a popular carrier today. If we take the same GSO, then already by 20, and 3 with a penny. Quite normal and sufficient mass for satellites, the Union will not be able to do this. On the contrary, the load can be increased, which is being done under the Angara project.
      With regards to what will happen to the manned astronautics after the ISS, this is unknown, because the manned space program itself has already lost the relevance that it was at the beginning and middle of the comic era.
      Bases on the Moon, flights to Mars and the development of asteroids, this relates more to science fiction than to economically feasible projects.
      Today, universality is needed and important. And the fact that more and more ambitious projects are constantly being offered, it was earlier and will be in the future. Those who offer these projects want to receive financing for them, and this is normal. But the state should live not by fantasies, but by sober calculation. If a superheavy carrier is necessary, then it is naturally necessary to create it, but for this, this need needs to be voiced by calculating the profitability of the project. When creating the Energy-Buran system, experts were well aware that this was the road to nowhere. But again, the fact that this was a mistake does not cast doubt on the work of the creators of this system.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 31 October 2013 17: 25

        Have you ever seen the cabin of the Soyuz spacecraft and the Buran cabin from the inside? In science fiction films, this is something grand, starting with huge windows and rooms the size of a quarter of a football field. The cabins of our ships resemble thermoses or basements of houses: here it flows, and here it drips. Who told you that the Energia-Buran system is the way to nowhere? Then the whole cosmonautics is also a road to nowhere. This is complete nonsense, son. The future belongs to reusable ships. Space powers. having gained some experience, they are working on their creation. Unfortunately. space will soon become a new theater of military operations. There are already terms "near space", "deep space", "orbital space grouping." Orbital combat complexes equipped with high-precision weapons will appear soon. Space technologies are a locomotive that pulls along all industries: mechanical engineering, electronics, energy, communications, chemistry, metallurgy. The end justifies the means, and money - the Romans said: "The one who gives more quickly gives twice!"
      2. barbiturate
        barbiturate 1 November 2013 12: 06
        You are an interesting person) the path to nowhere ... and with what output load this path begins, after all, 23 tons (theoretically, in fact, 20) is the path to nowhere). There is a carrier and you can dance, but there is no carrier and you can cross out a bunch of paper, no one will pick it up there) How much do you think to use Proton? another 50 years? It is not universality that is important, but the political will and task, a bunch of tasks !! it’s a bunch and everyone understands this, only when the money is stolen, it’s easier to inspire, but why all this was necessary? and anything can be justified. And "Bases on the moon, flights to Mars and exploration of asteroids, this is more about science fiction than economically viable projects." Where next then? As before, we will make hundreds of thousands of means of murder for hundreds of billions of any money and kill hundreds of millions, but 20-50 billion and several lives, well, it's insanely expensive !!!)
        It’s just you who offer the road to nowhere, the one who invests money and makes another jerk will win
  14. rubin6286
    rubin6286 31 October 2013 17: 08
    Quote: Canep
    It seems to me easier to assemble in orbit an interplanetary ship of 3-5 parts launched by Unions and Protons. Although Protons would not be a bad thing to replace with something without hyptyl (asymmetric dimethylhydrazine)

    Look, it's not collecting cubes, it's not just about heptyl. How much SRT is needed, what should be the thrust of the engines. Who will assemble the modules in orbit. Have you seen the spacesuits of the astronauts? How many of them can be in outer space and at what load? for comparison, the regenerative cartridge of the insulating gas mask IP-4 lasts only 20 minutes with an average physical exertion.
  15. landromat
    landromat 26 February 2014 23: 55
    The US spent $ 25 billion on its lunar program, according to Wikipedia ($ 137 billion in 2005 prices)
    The USSR spent 15 billion of those bucks and there wasn’t enough corny dough for this n-1. Although the lunar ship was built. And all because Khrushchev first said it was necessary, and then they gave him an account and he ordered to save on everything. States initially considered loot and then wondered whether they would pull it in Congress. But he ordered one and as always it turned out ... It's a shame, but in the 60s the people did not live richly.
  16. Izzy Gubinstein
    Izzy Gubinstein April 15 2020 07: 21
    The thrust-weight ratio of the N-1 was greater than Saturn-5 (the operating time of the 1st and 2nd stages was 120 seconds each, for the S-5 it was 160 and 380), which caused the loss of gravity in the N-1 to be less.
    Therefore, with a starting weight of 2715 tons, the N-1 could put into orbit like the S-5 120 tons.