Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Soviet Moon Rocket 368

Posted by michael from the to-the-moon,-yuri dept.
TestBoy writes "There is a decent article about the Soviet Union's moon rocket and why it was doomed to fail. From one of the pictures on the website, you realize how large just one of its multiple engines were."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Soviet Moon Rocket More

Soviet Moon Rocket

Comments Filter:

  • It just goes to show... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:27PM (#3195210)
    Size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. I get told that all the time, so it must be true.
    • You must be a "nice guy" as well.
    • that people never learn...

      The giant rocket was launched just four times; each one was a disaster ending in abrupt and catastrophic failure.

      You'd think at least after the second time it ended in disaster they'd think it was time to go back to the drawing board. However I suppose this is the kind of thing that happens when they are political motivations behind scientific achievements - shortcuts are made.

  • Wow, helluva barbeque opportunity missed there...

  • Trouble (Score:5, Funny)

    by Drachemorder ( 549870 ) <brandon&christiangaming,org> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:29PM (#3195233) Homepage
    I don't know why they had so much trouble getting the thing to work. This isn't rocket sci.... oh. Never mind.

  • Lots of engines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TrollMan 5000 ( 454685 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:31PM (#3195252)
    From the University of Texas website [utexas.edu]:

    N-1 Stages

    30 NK-33 LOX/kerosene engines; 10.1 million lb. total thrust.
    8 NK-43 LOX/kerosene engines; 3.1 million lb. total thrust.
    4 NK-39 engines; 360,800 lb. total thrust.
    1 NK-31 engine; 90,200 lb. thrust; trans-lunar boost stage.
    1 engine; 19,200 lb. thrust; lunar orbit insertion & initial lunar descent stage.

    Why didn't they use fewer, but more powerful engines? Was it a matter of money, or engineering?

    • Re:Lots of engines (Score:5, Informative)

      by Buran ( 150348 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:53PM (#3195408)
      Mishin, Sergei Korolev's successor, was not an experienced engineer. This was a major factor in the failure of the N-1 program.

      Korolev, on the other hand, was very successful -- a rocket sharing the same basic design as the one that launched Sputnik 1 was rolled to the launch pad in support of a Progress freighter launch to the ISS. When?

      This morning.
      • There were a lot of reasons for the failure of the N-1. Mishin's competence as an engineer had nothing to do with it. Korolov was successful because he had the ear of Kruschev and was good at motivating his people. When Kruschev was removed from power in 64, some would argue that the drive behind the N-1 went with him, though the last launch wouldn't be until late 1972. There were also the issue of multiple design bureaus getting money to build rockets capable of getting to the moon (Chelomei and Yangel are two that come to mind).

        Korolov, like von Braun, made things happen more because of his personality and management skills than engineering prowess.

        Jim Harford wrote an excellent book titled Korolov, which presents an excellent picture of his life from childhood to death. There's also quite a bit of information on what happened at his design bureau after his death.

      • Re:Lots of engines (Score:4, Funny)

        by Dolly_Llama ( 267016 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @03:53PM (#3196154) Homepage
        a rocket sharing the same basic design as the one that launched Sputnik 1

        What do you mean by sharing the same basic design? Pointy end up - Fiery end down?

    • Re:Lots of engines (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dave500 ( 107484 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:57PM (#3195434)
      All the 30 first stage motors are identical Kuznetsov Design Bureau NK-33's generating 154 metric ton's of thrust each.

      There is a lot of debate about why the Soviets chose this approach, but for me its a combination of three reasons:-

      a) Previous Soviet Rockets were also based on the "many small engines" approach - they worked fine. (Even if it was not the most efficient approach)

      b) A key reason the the N-1 ended up with 30 NK-33 engines instead of something more manageable was political infighting. The Soviet chief engine disigner Glushko had an intense argument over fuel choice with the N1 designer Korolov and ended up taking experience to the Soviet military with the UK-500 and 700 boosters. That left Korolov with no engine designer and in the end the N-1 had it's engines designed from existing templates.

      c) At the time there were real doubts over the feasibility of combistion stability in engines with large injector surfaces. (Ie - large engines). It took Rocketdyne many, many tests to get the F-1 to work. The Soviets felt that developing these large engines was simply too risky (and expensive), despite the obvious efficiency gains.

      • Just to clarify a few things.

        The NK-15 was actually used on the N-1. The NK-33 are the modified NK-15 engines sold to Kistler. The NK-15 is based off the design for the NK-9.

        The engines in the R-7, the RD-107/108, were single turbopumps (one for fuel and one for oxidizer) driving four combustion chambers. The reason for four combustion chambers was to deal with acoustic problems inside the chamber. The F-1 had similar acoustic problems, but they were solved with baffles inside the chamber. The RD-170/171/180 are also multiple chambers driven by single fuel and oxidizer turbopumps.

        Glushko's bureau did the N2O4-hydrazine engines for the UR-500 (Proton). The UR-700 was never built.
      • Slightly OT, but what the hell...

        It took Rocketdyne many, many tests to get the F-1 to work

        If you're in L.A., you can see an F-1 (I think it's an F-1, might be a J-1) engine at the Boeing Rocketdyne facility in Canoga Park. It's in the front parking lot, on Canoga Ave.

    • Re:Lots of engines (Score:5, Informative)

      by ender81b ( 520454 ) <[wdinger] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:57PM (#3195439) Homepage Journal
      Encyclopedia Astronautica [rocketry.com] is a great, and I mean the best, site on the internet for rocketry info. Here are some of their links to the N-1, and reasons why they built it the way they did:

      THe N-1 Story [rocketry.com]More technical than the bbc article

      Soviet space history, broken down by year [rocketry.com]

      great site with a ton of content if you want to waste a few hours.. =)
    • I thought that the multiple-engines approach was for fault-tolerance. (since their engines have a high failure rate). However, that may have just been American propaganda. . .

    • Engineering and heat (Score:3, Informative)

      by Eric Green ( 627 )
      The larger the engine, the more heat is produced. Keeping the nozzle from melting down requires more and more exotic materials the bigger the engine gets. The Soviets had trouble coming up with materials that would withstand the heat, and thus could not have increased their engine sizes to Saturn V proportions even if they'd had Werner Von Braun as their chief designer, rather than the squabbling herd of non-entitities that were in charge after "the" Chief Designer died.

      The same basic considerations are why the jet engines used in the very successful Su-27 class fighters are more fuel-thirsty for the same thrust as an F-15 class fighter (the two are roughly equivalent). The hotter you can get, the more expansion you can get. If you don't have the expansion, the only way to get the same thrust is to pour more fuel into the nozzle. The Russian designers are confident that their newest engines for the Su-30 class follow-ons to the Su-27 are every bit as good as current Western engines -- but they have not had the money to actually build the things.

      There is also, of course, the Russian tendency to improve existing designs rather than embark upon all-new designs. For example, the next-generation Russian air superiority fighter, the Su-34/Su-35, is basically an Su-27 improved with the latest in materials to decrease weight, increase strength, and improve payload and maneuverability (not to mention better engines). The Su-34/Su-35 aren't going to be built because Russia cannot afford them, but show what Russian designers prefer to do rather than embark upon all-new aircraft like the U.S. designers like to do. The N-1 engines were similar in design to other engines used by the Soviets, and thus preferable, in the eyes of Russian designers, to all-new (risky) engine designs.

      -E

  • Kerosene? (Score:2, Informative)

    by kkkalen ( 146405 )
    The American Saturn V booster uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

    Liquid hydrogen is much more efficient in terms of energy/unit weight than kerosene.

    It's cleaner burning, as well.

  • Froydian Engine Sizes (Score:3, Funny)

    by citizenc ( 60589 ) <cary&glidedesign,ca> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:33PM (#3195265) Journal
    Wow. That's a pretty big rocket engine. It makes you wonder if the engineers who designed it were compensating for something..

    An obvious joke, I know, but SOMEBODY had to make it!
  • From the article:
    In 1997, 94 leftover N1 engines were sold to the American company Kistler for refurbishment and incorporation into a new rocket.

    So what did Kristler do with them?

    • Re:What has been done with them? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Scurrilous Knave ( 66691 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:16PM (#3195549) Homepage

      Kistler had a project underway to create a re-usable launch vehicle. I thought it had gone belly-up, but according to the Kistler Aerospace web site [kistleraerospace.com], they expect to begin commercial operations next year (2003). It looks like maybe they got an infusion of NASA money, which is itself drying up, so their schedule might take a hit.

      I've been watching Kistler with some interest for years now, and I continue to wish them all the best. Unlike some of the cranks and profiteers, they seem to be serious about making money in space.

  • In a way.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xtermz ( 234073 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:35PM (#3195283) Homepage Journal
    ..It is kind of depressing to ponder the rise and fall of the soviet space exploration empire. Crippled by the fall of communism, and lack of money, a once great competitor to NASA is now a laughing stock.

    Now a point to ponder, how long will it be before NASA becomes a laughing stock. Countless articles continually point out that NASA cant get proper funding, etc etc.

    The sad thing is, if only Russia's space agency could of survived after the berlin wall came down, we would probably still have a thriving space race and maybe even more public interest.

    • The sad thing is, if only Russia's space agency could of survived after the berlin wall came down, we would probably still have a thriving space race and maybe even more public interest.

      The problem is that space exploration isn't a commercially viable enterprise. It is more likely that the large sums invested in their space agency accelerated Russia's evolution (or collapse).

      On the other hand, the engineering expertise and proud tradition have inspired Russia to take the lead in space tourism. When I compare this to the conservative not-invented-here attitute found at US NASA, I can only cheer: "Go Russia! Go!" We should be embarassed that Russia is teaching the US and Europe lessons in capitalism.

      • The attentive history student will note that newcomers to capitalism often appear to do it better than the established states/economies (US/Europe). The attentive student will then notice all of the downsides of capitalism that come with all of the gung-ho attitude. We've done a pretty good job of moderating the problems that inevitably arise (Russian mob, wanton smuggling, profound human misery.)

    • Re:In a way.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mesocyclone ( 80188 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:05PM (#3195488) Homepage Journal
      NASA is a classic government bureaucracy (see Laws of Bureaucracy [tinyvital.com] ). As such, it is spending way more money than required to achieve the wrong goals.

      The decline of NASA started with the moon landings. After that, NASA could not justify itself to the public, because the Russians had been beaten, and the race was over.

      Thus NASA had to become more "cost effective" (the moon landing was done by crash-program techniques such as paying for several alternatives and selecting the best one after it is developed). So NASA sold the concept of the Space Shuttle as an inexpensive way to get mass into orbit. In order to justify it, they also had to make it the launcher for military payloads, so they connived to force the military into fitting their payloads into the shuttle, and defunding their own launch capabilities.

      The problem with the shuttle is that is far more expensive that projected (big surprise). A primary reasonis that it is man-rated, which greatly adds to cost.

      In order to continue to justify their existence, NASA needed a mission. The environmental movement came along just in time for them - they could devote their resources to studying the environment, and get government bucks to put up space-borne systems to do that. But, to justify continuing the shuttle, they needed a big, manned project... and thus was born the International Space Station.

      But the ISS caused NASA to put almost all of their money into one bucket, leaving little else for other research. And ISS is not a particularly good way of doing most things - because most things don't need a manned space station, they can get by with a much less expensive non-manned launch.

      Furthermore, NASA did its best to quash competition in the space launch business - again to keep justifying the money for the shuttle. After the Challenger disaster and subsequent grounding, NASA had to allow the military to use its own launchers for critical payloads, but they still have not been nice to little guys.

      As a result, we have a small fleet of aging shuttles, that launch at an average cost of $500,000 per mission, at a mission rate a fraction of what they were supposed to be able to do.

      One solution is not to give more money to NASA. It is to create incentives for private enterprise to get into the game.

      As an example, what would happen if there was a $30 billion prize to the first company to land humans on mars and bring them back successfully? Hopefully, it would lead to some pretty innovative work.

      Another approach that might work is to stimulate the public with some historic vision (like Kennedy did with the moon landing) and get public support for a truly imaginative leap.

      • that launch at an average cost of $500,000 per mission,

        I think you forgot a few zeros. It's more like $500,000,000 per mission. It's really sad; for that kind of money you can send a small probe to any planet in the solar system and learn something totally new. Instead, they blow half a gigabuck every time they need to fix a toilet on the ISS.

  • Use it if you got it. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by guamman ( 527778 )
    It said a few still exist in working order. They should update them so they don't blow up (i.e. no 'catastrophic failure') and use them as payload rockets to launch unmanned supplies to, and pieces of, the international space station. Since they are already built, it will save quite a bit of money instead of the space shuttle doing most of the work. As it is, the space shuttle has been forced way beyond its original retirement date.

  • "Moon Rocket?" (Score:4, Funny)

    by cjpez ( 148000 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:38PM (#3195304) Homepage Journal
    Come on, at least make it "destruktor-module 7" or something. Then again, I suppose ours wasn't really that great.

    (okay, so I just wanted to try out my new .sig . . .)

  • Could it be because (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:38PM (#3195308) Homepage
    after WWII the US got the better German V2 rocket scientists like Wernher Von Braun [nasa.gov], instead of the USSR? Certainly the US didn't have the will to fully use their experience and talents, however, untill after Sputnik.

    • The Soviets had the home-grown Korolev, who was probably as good as von Braun. Remember that the Soviets beat us to orbit both with sats and people.

      Korolev, unfortunately, was badly mistreated by the Soviet government, and worked under horrendous conditions. It's sad, really: imagine what he could have done working for a sane Russian government. Of course, that would mean that all of those controls on the lunar lander would be labelled in Russian . . .

    • Re:Could it be because (Score:5, Interesting)

      by John Fulmer ( 5840 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:18PM (#3195562)
      Korolev, the "Grand Designer" of the Soviet space program, was easily the equal of Von Braun. With his ability and the fact that the Russians got all the German V2 production lines and factories and, many of the people who operated them during WWII, also gave the Soviets a huge boost.

      And the US *DID* use the V2 scientists to the best of their abilities, but initially only for military projects. The doomed satelite launches made in response to Sputnik (Vanguard) were on not-ready-for-prime-time civilian launch vehicles, not military rockets. In fact, the military already had proven technology on the shelf that could put a satellite in orbit, but Von Braun was expressly forbidden by the President from using 'military hardware' for such a purpose.

      Eventually, Von Braun was allowed to put the first American satellite (Explorer 1) in orbit with his Jupiter C rocket.

      (NOTE: Jupiter C was a slightly modified Jupiter missle, which was designed during Von Braun's 'satellite ban' for a 'special nose-cone' test. After the initial testing, Von Braun kept a few Jupiter C's in storage for a 'certain time' and a 'certain nose-cone test'. Later it was obvious that the 'nose-cone test' was his plan to put a satellite in orbit.)

      Anyway, I picked all this up last weekend at the Kansas Cosmosphere [cosmo.org]. Very neat place, and the current home of the Odyssey command module from Apollo 13.

      • The doomed satelite launches made in response to Sputnik (Vanguard) were on not-ready-for-prime-time civilian launch vehicles, not military rockets.

        The Soviets suffered their own failures, but managed to keep them secret - the successful Sputnik launch was preceeded by at least two failed launches, while the Americans had to do everything under the glare of the world's media. Also, the Vanguard was not civillian, it was a Navy launcher, while von Braun's Jupiter was an Army project. Anyway, von Braun was instrumental to the Saturn project.

        Don't say that he's hypocritical,
        Say rather that he's apolitical.
        "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
        That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
        - Tom Lehrer

    • Reminds me of an excellent joke (I read it in Mad Magazine, one of the old issues where they spoofed The Right Stuff). It went something like this:

      Eisenhower: The Soviets launched Sputnik and our rocket crashed?!? What are we doing wrong? We're using German Scientists, and the Russians are using German Scientists!

      Secretary of State: The difference is, here, our German Scientists work forty hours a week! In Russia, the German Scientists work forty hours a day!

      Okay, so maybe it isn't the greatest joke in the world, and sure Mad Magazine retreaded it thoroughly in the Return of the Jedi spoof (picture Darth Vader and the Emperor replacing Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles). Anyway, I thought it was cute.

  • The Mishin Mission (Score:4, Funny)

    by Caractacus Potts ( 74726 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:39PM (#3195315)

    Here's a link [fas.org] to some cool drawings of the N1's. Of course, these drawings mean nothing. My theory is that the Soviet moon mission was as faked as the US one. Here's photographic proof [moonrace2001.org] that the N1's were only about 15 ft tall! Seeing is believing. You do believe me, don't you?

    • Looks like a big model rocket to me, not an attempt at faking a moon landing.

      Unless you think that the russians had 2000 model year mazda pickups in the 1970's, cause that's whats in the background.

      You must be kidding, because no one is that dumb.
    • A few flaws with that theory:

      1) the 1999 Mazda pickup truck in the background
      2) the mountain in the background is located in Utah

    • Yes. It's a picture of a model rocket based on the N1, and those are late model US trucks, and the locale is in the USA. I bet that ladder even came from Sears. I thought it was cool enough to mention, posed as a joke. My hat's off to the one guy who actually suspected I might be kidding.

  • More N1 Details (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zardor ( 452852 )
    Check out this site [astronautix.com] for a detailed history of the Soviet N1 development effort.

  • Discovery covered this in an excellent program (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I recently saw a program on the Discovery Channel called "Cosmodrome" which covered this really well. They didn't reach the moon before the americans did, but the closed-cycle NK-33 rocket engines built for the Soviet moon programme (scrapped in 1974) beat all other rocket engines hands down when they were brought out from storage and tested by an american company in the mid-'90s...
    Apparently, american rocket scientists had earlier claimed that closed-cycle rocket engines were "impossible". But when has that ever stopped the russians from trying?

    They did blow up about 5 of their moon rockets before the moon programme was stopped though :)

  • That picture wasn't an engine (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rocketboy ( 32971 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:42PM (#3195344)
    From one of the pictures on the website, you realize how large just one of its multiple engines were

    The photo shows the base of the N1, inside which were housed 30 smaller motors. The Soviet philosophy for building large rocket boosters was to take existing stuff that worked and cluster them together, rather than to invent whole new, larger motors as the US did. This worked well - up to a point, as they discovered with the N1. Even today, most Russian space boosters are variations on the old Vostok booster that put Sputnik and Gagarin into orbit in the early 60's. The US tends to invent whole new technologies but even today tried-and-true designs from the early part of the Cold War are still in widespread use: American Atlas and Titan boosters originated as missiles and the Delta booster has been around forever.

    Rocketboy
    • The Delta also started as a missile, the Thor IRBM. Granted there were a lot more changes from Thor to the first Delta launch vehicles than from Atlas or Titan to the first LV versions of those.
    • Multi-engine rockets are still used by Russia today. These photos are dated today -- and this particular rocket design is very, very successful.

      Photo of base of the Soyuz rocket [spaceref.com] (20 main engines and 12 smaller auxiliary engines)

      The same rocket rolling to the pad [spaceref.com]

      On the pad [spaceref.com] (probably the same one that launched Sputnik 1!)

      But, as you say, the N-1 just took the concept too far, and the Soviets had invested so much into it by that point that the N-1's failure forced the entire lunar program to be cancelled. The only other booster that could do the job at the time (nothing exists now that could, though the Shuttle could launch a moon ship) was the Saturn V.
    • Oh boy, another thread where Beowolf cluster comments aren't totally offtopic! Maybe if their rocket controllers were running Linux, the 30 rockets could be controlled as if they were just one big rocket 30x the size.

      :D

  • PBS gave a glimpse (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eples ( 239989 )

    A few years back, PBS ran a series named the "Red Files", and Episode 3 [abamedia.com] dealt with the Soviet's Korolev Lunar Lander [pbs.org].

    If I recall correctly, they interviewed a NASA engineer who was able to take a tour of the lunar lander and compared it to a "flying garbage can". It really was awful, there were analog gauges and whatnot littering the interior - basically one step shy of having Cosmonauts just jump out of the orbiter and hope for the best!

    • Re:PBS gave a glimpse (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonerik ( 308303 )
      It really was awful, there were analog gauges and whatnot littering the interior

      It was built the late '60s. What else would they have been using?

      basically one step shy of having Cosmonauts just jump out of the orbiter and hope for the best!

      Actually, this isn't too far off the mark. If memory serves, the Soviet lunar missions were planned for two-man crews, as opposed to the three-man crews of the Apollo program. In the Soviet missions one cosmonaut would have stayed with the orbiter - same as the US flights - and the other would have spacewalked to and from the lander, rather the orbiter first docking with the lander. Soviet lunar landings and explorations would have been accomplished by one man, at least early on.

  • Don't sell the Soviet space program short... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Fulmer ( 5840 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:47PM (#3195385)
    Although they lost interest in landing on the moon after Apollo 11, along with the N-1 failure, but they still managed to land the first automated rovers [nasa.gov] I saw a backup Lunokhod 2 rover last weekend. it looked like a tractor, but was still pretty impressive for early 1970's technology.

  • Details on the N1... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ryan_Terry ( 444764 ) <messedupfmj@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:50PM (#3195398)
    Here ya go (For those who like BluePrints more than cute pics)

    http://members.aol.com/Satrnpress/samprotw.htm [aol.com]

  • robotic mission (Score:3, Insightful)

    by orcldba ( 195785 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:53PM (#3195407)
    As far as I know - robotic mission to the moon was complete success though. It is interesting to observe mass media in the West time after time to concentrate on areas where US were ahead and never opposite. Venus landing of a robotic craft and photographs from the surface is an example of another success of soviet space programm and I am sure there are many others not well known in the West.

  • Easy to scoff until you remember... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:54PM (#3195413) Homepage

    ... what have we done recently that's so hot? Shuttle launches still cost a billion bucks a pop (yeah, we're always learning how to save money on the next generation), and all we do is either dick around in low earth orbit or lob probes out.

    Maybe I just OD'd on space opera, but to me "space exploration" means letting real people go out there and take real risks, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

    One of those little throwaway comments that stuck in my mind was Buzz Aldrin commenting that we're in for a shock when (if) we do try and go back to the moon, because we're going to find out just how hard it was. Sure, we know how to do it, but do we still have the knowhow?

    • "From now on we're living in a world where men have walked on the moon. But it wasn't a miracle; we just decided to go."
      -- Tom Hanks, Apollo 13

      I remain hopeful that one day we will "decide to go" yet again. Among other things, the Moon is an important waystation on the road to the rest of the Solar System. If the reports of ice deposits on the Moon are accurate, that's a very valuable resource; ice can be electrolyzed, using readily available solar power, into hydrogen and oxygen, which can then be burned as rocket fuel, or run through fuel cells to produce water, electricity, and heat, three essential commodities for any spacecraft. In addition, the Moon could become an important construction base for ships designed to fly further out, as well as for space stations...and the back side of the Moon would be an excellent place for radio astronomy, as the antennas there would be shielded from terrestrial interference.

      There's nothing stopping us. We've just gotta decide to go.

      "I look up at the Moon, and I wonder: When will we be going back? And who will that be?"
      -- Ibid.

      Eric

      • In addition, the Moon could become an important construction base for ships designed to fly further out, as well as for space stations...

        The moon might be a useful source of raw materials, but why the heck would you use it for ship construction? Why get out of one gravity well just to dump yourself into another? Just build the damn thing in orbit.

    • I forget where (probably on Discovery Channel or something), but someone was asked what would have to be done if we wanted to go to Mars.

      They said something like..."Well, first we'ld have to go back to the moon"...and the question was raised..."But how"...

      They then proceded to explain how, if we ever decided to return to the moon, the most likely thing we could really do is dust off the old Saturn V Plans...because it's the only tried and tested equipment to do it.

      Those are probably in an archive somewhere and I think there are a few remaining parts rusting away somewhere in a museum, but the most difficult part would be producing new parts.

      Some of the many changes that the companies made durring Apollo were not exactly documented (nothing extremely important), but it's not easy to look at a 20 year old part and the schematics and say "Why is this jumper here".

      To make it worse, most of the companies who manufactured the parts for the systems on the Saturn V are now bankrupt or have changed completely...I think the one example of that was that the company who produced the life support system is now manufacturing air conditioners.

      But, until then, NASA and the US Govt. has proven that they are perfectly fine with "dicking around in low earth orbit". There are certainly things that would make us go back. The most obvious is going to be when the chinese finally make it up there.

      Then again, if one of those Near Earth Asteroids decides to take a hunk out of the landscape, someone might come up with an idea for tracking the things from the far side of the moon (at least the ones in that general direction).
  • The moon rocket was actualy made by these people [cc.mi.us] and stolen by the soviets.

  • That picture was just of the skirt at the base of the rocket. The individual engines were tiny, just like the ones used for the Proton booster.

    Mark Wade's site [rocketry.com] has more information on the N1.

  • Its funny our attitude about success... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:58PM (#3195444) Journal
    Listen the Americans beat the USSR in the race to get to the moon but that is absolutely it.

    They got:

    1st satellite.
    1st man in orbit.
    1st woman in orbit.
    1st lunar rover.
    1st space station.
    1st long term space station.

    The US my country that I love so well got to the moon first.

    The Soviet's took us down in every other first. It terms of keeping people in space for long periods of time they had it down while we had lost interest after seeing some guys hope around on the moon.

    ________________________________________________ __
    • A lot more people have died in the Soviet space program than the US one. It's easy to be first if you don't care about quality and safety.

      • You are wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Axe ( 11122 )
        Each russian manned launcher did have an emergency esape system - worked well enough to save crew, when the booster exploded on the launch pad.

        "Challenger" did not have such system. So who is careing about the crew safety more?

        As far as the quality goes - high tech does not always equals quality - more often the opposite is true. Why would you think American were so keen on getting russian to build the central life support module of the ISS? Cared enough, to tolerate financing caused delays, and pay big bucks for the expertise. Guess NASA does not care for lifesupport system for its astranaughts on ISS? Quite the contrary - they wanted the proven, quality system for this.

    • Well, the N-1 was supposed to be a Moon-shot rocket, and this is a story about the N-1, so discussing our success in that particular regard seems appropriate. You are, however, missing a few points, most importantly (to my way of thinking) exploration of the outer planets. Although there is much to be proud of in the Russian space heritage, there are also many "firsts" in the U.S. program.

      Virg
    • Add to that

      1st Picture of the far side of the moon.
      1st Soft moon landing and picture from the lunar surface
      1st Picture from the surface of Venus
      1st Soft landing on Mars.
      1st Spacewalk

      • Although I must applaud the "rivalry" between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union during the Space Race (because had their been no race it's doubtful the moon shot would've ever taken place due to costs, risks, etc.), wouldn't it be nice if we could move beyond "We did it first" and the countering "No, WE did it first" type of comments. Imagine something like:

        Human Race:
        1st satellite
        1st human in orbit
        1st moon landing
        1st Mars probe
        etc.

        to be followed by:
        1st permanent Lunar colony
        1st manned mission to Mars
        1st permanent Mars colony
        1st manned mission to Europa
        1st asteroidal mining colony
        1st Mercury-based solar powered antimatter generation facility (for antimatter-powered thrusters).

        Sadly, even though I'm 29, it's higly doubtful I'll see more than a token manned mission to Mars in my lifetime. My children will see my grandparents's dreams come true, albeit about 80 years too late.

    • They got:

      1st people to die in space.

      However, there might be some dispute about whether or not they were actually in space. At any rate, the capsule was high enough so that when a faulty valve caused them to lose presure, there was not enough oxygen to sustain life.

      Then there was the sheer scale of some of their disasters. You think the Apollo-1 disaster and the shuttle were the result of arrogance? Picture a senior engineer and dozens of workers gathered around a rocket loaded with fuel known to be dangerous. Naturally it exploded, killed all, and devestated the program. Many of those gathered 'round faced an agonizing decision: risk the explosion, or risk being labeled as cowards and possibly being purged.

    • First spacewalk, although it nearly ended in disaster because the spacesuit was pretty primitive and, seriously limited Leonov's movements.

      First near rendezvour - but this was only a publicity stunt. No real orbital maneouvers were performed, just timed launching of two spaceships to the same orbit.
    • It always amuses me when someone puts up the first woman in orbit as some king of technical accomplishment. It is not, the engineering challendges are identical. It is a non event.

      And the US got first, second, third, fourth, fifth etc. etc. man on the moon, and then brought them all back alive. As an accomplishment it is fair to say it dwarfs all the others. The US also has numerous firsts in planetary missions (the Soviets got a few too).

      The US also hadthe first reusable space vehicle that's more than a tin can and did not lose interest, the US has been launching shuttle missions and planetary missions spending billions for decades.

      Your problem is you are very selective about what you cound and chose to stop counting after the moon shot, the US did not stop.

      Maybe the Chinese can shoot for first woman on the moon.

  • Soviets were never really far ahead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikosullivan ( 320993 ) <miko@@@idocs...com> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @01:59PM (#3195450)
    The only reason the Soviets ever appeared to be significantly ahead of the US during the moon race era was that the Soviets started sooner and were willing to take higher risks. Keep in mind that the US's Explorer went into orbit only a few months after Sputnik [nasa.gov]. Granted, Sputnik was more advanced [space.com], but the difference was mostly due to a lack of motivation on the part of the US. Once the US got motivated, we surged ahead. By the time of Apollo it was barely a contest at all, in terms of "firsts": the US was far closer to the moon.

    In short, it was a tortoise and hare race. In terms of the space race, the US took a nap after WWII and the USSR got to work. Once the hare woke up it was just a question of how much of a head start the hare had. For the moon race, it wasn't enough of a head start.

    Still, don't think I'm disrepecting the USSR space effort. They did great things and I hope Russians today are proud when they think of the Soviet space program.

    -Miko

  • Don't Knock it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Apparently the Soviets could not afford to develop a few powerful engines (AKA the Saturn V).

    Instead they decided to use lots of cheap(er) engines, for their time these engines were revolutionary (something to do with the way the fuel and oxygen were mixed). After the break up of the soviet union some of these engines were takn to the US and tested. It turns out they out performed modern NASA Equivalents.

    As for the explosions that they had during launch. Apparently this was a part of test program with each test ironing out the bugs in the system. For example one of the launches was wrecked by debris getting into the engines.

    Apparently they reckoned that they would need 11 launches before they got everything ironed out.

    I call these guys real engineers, if you have limitless funds like NASA did in those days you could do almost anything. But to do things on a tight budget and limited resources takes brains

  • Modern Russian Rockets (Score:5, Informative)

    by cthrall ( 19889 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:09PM (#3195511) Homepage

    Now that you've read all the posts about how the Russian space program is done, read this Wired article [wired.com] (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/rd-180.ht ml) that describes how US companies are launching their payloads using Russian propulsion.

    Here's a quote: "They build the thing and test the shit out of it. This engine cost $10 million and produces almost 1 million pounds of thrust. You can't do that with an American-made engine."

  • Clearly, the Soviet space program was hamstrung by the fact that during the cold war, magnetic north was in the territory of the west. Without free access to the actual magnetic North Pole (though Lech Walesa was a pretty magnetic Pole), they obviously had a hard time navigating, as their most sophisticated navigational equipment (besides the sextant) was a souvenir compass obtained from an East German high school science fair.

    Too bad they don't have the budget to pursue the moon again now that magnetic north will actually be in their own territory. They would have a distinct advantage over Nasa if they could make Nasa pay for access to magnetic north, maybe on a subscription basis or using micropayments.

    All this rocket stuff is so confusing!

  • Yet another massive failure of central planning (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheNarrator ( 200498 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:23PM (#3195593)
    All this money wasted on these rockets brings to mind the book [amazon.com]
    The Ghost of the Executed Engineer is a great history as told by a Soviet engineer of a number of different massive engineering failures that occurred under central planning. I.E The Building of the white sea canal in which 200,000 people died and the resulting canal was much less usefull than the railroad that was proposed by engineers before the commencement of construction that would have cost less to build in terms of lives and capital.

    BTW, the greatest technological failure of all time was a series of dam collapes in China in 1975 that caused the deaths of more than 85,000 people and as many as 200,000 if you count the resulting disease epidemics set off.. Story here [sjsu.edu]. Which is why everyone has been so warry of the Three Gorges Dam project.

    • Like all the times they beat us in the space race. Satelites. Probes. Rovers. Etc.

      Ask the Nazis what they thought of Soviet central planning. It did not seem to matter that the Red Army lost personnel and material in quantities that would have decimated any other form of government. The will to fight came from a very stubborn center. The /entire/ /country/ was doing nothing but producing weapons scientists, weapons factories, and soldiers. After Germany lost their first campaign, it was all over. The Soviets produced effective tanks and planes with single-minded dedication in quantities Germany could never hope to match.

      Centralized planning can be very good for a small number of projects that need to be rushed.

  • When are we going back? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday March 20, 2002 @02:24PM (#3195597) Homepage Journal
    Why has no-one been to the moon since 1972? For those who cant count, that's 30 years. There are not even plans to go back even though we've (debatably) found ice up there (perfect for a settlement). I guess the next people to go will be from the private sector. Seems like a long way out though.
  • After all, when your country strands you on the moon and has no way of getting you back down, of course you will need tons of room for all the supplies.

    Damn...that must have been one huge beast if that just held all the rockets.

    Wonder what Steve Buscemi's Armageddon character would have to say about that :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner

Close