What do you think went wrong with the N-1 Program?

[Yobobhi]

9 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

If Dragon 2 could fly with a downsized Canadarm in the trunk, it could do most of what the STS could do. You'd still have to have unmanned payloads for it to work with, which means more launches, but that's all.

Aaaand the Dragon 2 hasn't even been launched yet, 36 years after the Shuttle. And it could do MOST of what the Space Shuttle could do. I rest my case.

[mikegarrison]

The problem with the STS wasn't that it couldn't do enough. The problem was that it could do too much for most missions. It was overkill for things like simply launching a satellite or bringing crew to the ISS. If the Shuttle had been just one in a range of options that had a range of capabilities, many of the shuttle missions would have been less expensive.

But one could also argue that the Shuttle replaced the need for the US to have a space station like Mir. The large crew cabin and significant orbital endurance meant that much of what the Russians did with Mir in terms of manned spaceflight in the 80s and 90s, the US did with the shuttle.

In the end, I think it has to viewed as a learning experience for reusability, for spaceplane reentry, for satellite maintenance, and for space station construction.

[kerbiloid]

20 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The truss assembly required the arm, without it you would had to do with something more like MIR or gone kerbal as in launch an structure with an arm who you docked to station. 

Choose any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyappa_arm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_(crane)

[peadar1987]

8 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

Aaaand the Dragon 2 hasn't even been launched yet, 36 years after the Shuttle. And it could do MOST of what the Space Shuttle could do. I rest my case.

You rest your case that the N-1 program failed because Commies are inherently worse at engineering?

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Choose any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyappa_arm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_(crane)

Thanks

[Yobobhi]

9 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

You rest your case that the N-1 program failed because Commies are inherently worse at engineering?

No that the shuttle is better than the Dragon 2. The Commies were bad at engineering. That's why their Buran, the Shuttle equivalent, came many years later.

[peadar1987]

3 minutes ago, Yobobhi said:

No that the shuttle is better than the Dragon 2. The Commies were bad at engineering. That's why their Buran, the Shuttle equivalent, came many years later.

Nope, the Russians didn't see a need for a spacecraft with the capabilities of the Shuttle, and therefore weren't working on it until the Shuttle program was revealed and the military demanded something with the same capabilities. Buran started development 3 years after the Shuttle, and first flew 7 years after the Shuttle. That's not the hallmark of a bad engineer.

Also worth noting is that the Soviet Space Program received considerably less funding than the US equivalent. This source (from the CIA) estimates that the US program was receiving roughly 40% more funding.

The Soviets weren't great at economics, but they absolutely, categorically were not bad engineers.

As for the Dragon, it is not better or worse than the Shuttle. It was designed for a completely different job, namely delivering cargo and crew to space cheaply, and it does it far better than the Shuttle ever could. You might as well say that a 747 is "better" than the Shuttle because it carries more payload. It's true, but irrelevant.

[cantab]

The USSR was good at engineering, as their successes show - Soyuz, Mir, Lunokhod, Venera, and so on. They had problems with leadership and management, infighting, and to an extent ground logistics.

[Yobobhi]

8 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Nope, the Russians didn't see a need for a spacecraft with the capabilities of the Shuttle, and therefore weren't working on it until the Shuttle program was revealed and the military demanded something with the same capabilities. Buran started development 3 years after the Shuttle, and first flew 7 years after the Shuttle. That's not the hallmark of a bad engineer.

Also worth noting is that the Soviet Space Program received considerably less funding than the US equivalent. This source (from the CIA) estimates that the US program was receiving roughly 40% more funding.

The Soviets weren't great at economics, but they absolutely, categorically were not bad engineers.

As for the Dragon, it is not better or worse than the Shuttle. It was designed for a completely different job, namely delivering cargo and crew to space cheaply, and it does it far better than the Shuttle ever could. You might as well say that a 747 is "better" than the Shuttle because it carries more payload. It's true, but irrelevant.

The 747 is not better than the shuttle, as it can carry exactly 0 cargo to orbit.

[kerbiloid]

Saturn  and Energy are 5 times better than shuttle as they carry 5 times more cargo to orbit. (Or 3 times if count the crew cabin)

 

16 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

The 747 is not better than the shuttle, as it can carry exactly 0 cargo to orbit.

You're completely missing the point. The 747 is better than the Shuttle at what it was designed to do. The Shuttle is better than the 747 at what it was designed to do. Heck, my lawnmower is better than the shuttle at what it was designed to do. Just using total up-mass per launch as the be-all and end-all of launcher comparison is far too simplistic.

The Apollo LEM descent stage could put a payload of 4,700kg on the Moon. The Shuttle could put zero payload on the moon. Does this mean that the LEM was categorically a better spacecraft, or simply that it was designed for a different purpose?

 

Skipping the shuttle talk, the problem with the N1 is basically that it was inferior to the Saturn V and that's why the Americans got there first. Spherical tanks and an outer skin gives a bad mass fraction. Not having a quality engine like F1 means you need far too many small ones. Having too many small engines makes for complicated  plumbing and control that have emergent behaviors you need to test for. Being unable to afford a test stand means you can't iron those behaviors out. The weaknesses all combine.

 

On 4/26/2017 at 0:17 PM, Yobobhi said:

No that the shuttle is better than the Dragon 2. The Commies were bad at engineering. That's why their Buran, the Shuttle equivalent, came many years later.

I beg to differ. Amongst many examples:

"The NK-33 and NK-43 are rocket engines designed and built in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the Kuznetsov Design Bureau. The NK designation is derived from the initials of chief designer Nikolay Kuznetsov. NK-33 was among the most powerful LOX/RP-1 rocket engines when it was built, with a high specific impulse and low structural mass. They were intended for the ill-fated Soviet N-1 rocket moon shot. NK-33A engine is now used on the first stage of the Soyuz-2-1v launch vehicle.

The NK-33 series engines are high-pressure, regeneratively cooled staged combustion cycle bipropellant rocket engines, and use oxygen-rich preburners to drive the turbopumps. The turbopumps require subcooled liquid oxygen (LOX) to cool the bearings.[2][3] These kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through failures. The United States had not investigated oxygen-rich combustion technologies until the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator project in the early 2000s.[4] The Soviets, however, perfected the metallurgy behind this method."

See also the RD180, another high performance, high ISP kerolox engine, developed for Energia, currently used to power the Atlas V.

The Soviets were not bad at engineering. Not remotely.

[Vanamonde]

Hi guys. This is one of several threads which may have become garbled due to odd forum glitches today. We apologize for the confusion which may result. 

[DerekL1963]

On 4/20/2017 at 10:13 PM, tater said:

You know, I never counted them before. You are right in terms of fatality missions 2/132 vs 2/135. I honestly thought Soyuz had flown more. Wow. On top of that, there were 2 aborts (safe crew!), so the vehicle failure rate is really 2X as high. That said, they have a quite long run of safe flights with the current version.

The current version (Soyuz MS) has only flown four missions...  Well, two complete missions and two currently underway.  You're probably thinking of Soyuz TMA-M, which flew twenty missions successfully (if you disregard the rumors from reliable sources about at least one hard landing and possibly one instance of the propulsion module failing to separate properly).  But my basic point still stands, the safety and reliability record of Soyuz doesn't hold up that well once you stop with the emotional "safer than any other vehicle" and start looking at the numbers and actual events.

And lurking behind many "safe" landings are numerous accidents that didn't cause any deaths...  Soyuz is known to have started re-entry at least three times with the propulsion module still attached.  Then there's the time they jettisoned the service module (containing all but a few hours of their life support) - and then their retrorockets failed.  Soyuz TMA was infamous for having the guidance computer fail leading to a high-G ballistic re-entry.  (Yeah, the backup system saved them - but if the primary keeps failing, you have a problem.)  Then there's a number of loss-of-mission incidents where the crew returned to Earth early because they were unable to dock...  Plus the two aborts.

Soyuz's reputation rests mainly on being Not The Shuttle and on Shuttle detractors refusing to hold it to the same standards.  (Making the overly generous presumption that they're even aware of it's history and flaws.)

<Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy the past week.>

[kerbiloid]

(My latest post here is a mix of posts from different persons. Please, disregard it.)

[peadar1987]

My post separated out from where it got merged into Kerbiloid's for some reason:

On 2017-4-27 at 2:42 AM, Yobobhi said:

The 747 is not better than the shuttle, as it can carry exactly 0 cargo to orbit.

You're completely missing the point. The 747 is better than the Shuttle at what it was designed to do. The Shuttle is better than the 747 at what it was designed to do. Heck, my lawnmower is better than the shuttle at what it was designed to do. Just using total up-mass per launch as the be-all and end-all of launcher comparison is far too simplistic.

The Apollo LEM descent stage could put a payload of 4,700kg on the Moon. The Shuttle could put zero payload on the moon. Does this mean that the LEM was categorically a better spacecraft, or simply that it was designed for a different purpose?

[Yobobhi]

45 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

My post separated out from where it got merged into Kerbiloid's for some reason:

You're completely missing the point. The 747 is better than the Shuttle at what it was designed to do. The Shuttle is better than the 747 at what it was designed to do. Heck, my lawnmower is better than the shuttle at what it was designed to do. Just using total up-mass per launch as the be-all and end-all of launcher comparison is far too simplistic.

The Apollo LEM descent stage could put a payload of 4,700kg on the Moon. The Shuttle could put zero payload on the moon. Does this mean that the LEM was categorically a better spacecraft, or simply that it was designed for a different purpose?

But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

[sevenperforce]

57 minutes ago, Yobobhi said:

But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

And launch frequency.

And the requirement of a crew.

And availability.

Edited April 28, 2017 by sevenperforce

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Yobobhi said:

But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

Cost is a pretty big handicap. If I want to put a 1000kg payload in orbit, cost and reliability are the two things I'm going to use to decide which launcher is "best". Which is why the Soyuz is the "best" launcher for a lot of the applications we've had for the past 30 years, and is still flying whereas the Shuttle has been retired, in spite of its superior technical capabilities in certain areas.

All engineers are given a budget. If you meet the design brief within the budget then you're a good engineer. Bigger budgets don't make better engineers.

[wumpus]

2 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Cost is a pretty big handicap. If I want to put a 1000kg payload in orbit, cost and reliability are the two things I'm going to use to decide which launcher is "best". Which is why the Soyuz is the "best" launcher for a lot of the applications we've had for the past 30 years, and is still flying whereas the Shuttle has been retired, in spite of its superior technical capabilities in certain areas.

All engineers are given a budget. If you meet the design brief within the budget then you're a good engineer. Bigger budgets don't make better engineers.

The problem with the shuttle wasn't the budget, it was the requirements.  The requirements were from politicians, the engineers made a rocket that fit them all (thus the required budget).  The engineers weren't given the same job "go into space" for the shuttle (and I'm sure the Soyez had politics, I just don't know that story.  Look up Korolev's biography to see how serious Soviet politics were).  The more I hear just how outlandish the requirements were for the shuttle the more I am impressed with what they made.

It doesn't make a better rocket.  A design broken in the spec is still broken.  It just wasn't broken by the engineers.

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

The problem with the shuttle wasn't the budget, it was the requirements.  The requirements were from politicians, the engineers made a rocket that fit them all (thus the required budget).  The engineers weren't given the same job "go into space" for the shuttle (and I'm sure the Soyez had politics, I just don't know that story.  Look up Korolev's biography to see how serious Soviet politics were).  The more I hear just how outlandish the requirements were for the shuttle the more I am impressed with what they made.

It doesn't make a better rocket.  A design broken in the spec is still broken.  It just wasn't broken by the engineers.

Of course. But I'm not arguing that the Shuttle is terrible, or that it is better or worse than any other spacecraft, I'm just disagreeing with Yobobhi's claim that "the Commies were bad at engineering".

[radonek]

6 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

 

5 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

And launch frequency.

And the requirement of a crew.

And availability.

And endurance.

And reliability.

And crew safety.

And delta-v.

And power.

Face it, shuttle was designed to do single orbit spyflights, ferry up spy sats and space station modules and crew the space station. And at those few occasions when it did what it was designed for, it performed admirably.

[tater]

Cost is everything unless you consider the fact that the program is really a jobs program.

 

[sevenperforce]

33 minutes ago, radonek said:

And reliability.

And crew safety.

Crap, I totally forgot about this.

Strapping people to continuously exploding bombs and blasting them up so fast that they miss the Earth when they fall back down is, by definition, rather risky. But doing it Shuttle-style is one of the poorest ways to do it.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, Yobobhi said:

But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

You should thank the SRBs and the ET for that - for anyone's sake, flying a 737 to orbit ? You have no idea ! (not even the Saturn or any proposed heavy launch did that ! alright energiya did but it had waay too many payload failure.)

2 hours ago, radonek said:

And endurance.

And reliability.

And crew safety.

And delta-v.

And power.

Face it, shuttle was designed to do single orbit spyflights, ferry up spy sats and space station modules and crew the space station. And at those few occasions when it did what it was designed for, it performed admirably.

Crew safety while you can't even pull away from the erratic exploding mass a little bit further down there ? When almost everything else existed had that already ?

Well done.

 

But it was one hell of engineering achievement. Shuttle is like BR's APT - an amazing thing in the wrong time, in the wrong place, in the wrong occasion, and lately the wrong setting. Luckily it used up workforce, unlike the other one's internal problems.

 

Alright, too many off topic.

On topic :

I suppose I did said my views. But the N-1 probably had similar problem with the off-topic thing above - an amazing thing in the wrong era. Cramming all that delicate things when you can't even tell what sort of problems would really occur sounds like recipe for failure.

If they're ever going to do that again now, it shall succeed better, technically.

Edited April 28, 2017 by YNM

[tater]

I'm typically pretty anti-shuttle, none the less, I watched many launches on TV, and even spent a fair amount of time talking with shuttle astronauts. I hate to always beat on shuttle, NASA had what they were given, and made the best of it. I suppose I miss the opportunity "what might have been" costs. That said, that sort of thinking is 100% unrealistic, government programs will always operate according to government reality, and to wish otherwise is pointless. The sausage gets made the way it gets made.

[StrandedonEarth]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

But it was one hell of engineering achievement

This. Whatever else one might say about the Shuttle, it's a wonder it ever flew, and flew right the first time. It was, after all, the most complex machine ever made. With 70's tech, no less.