N-1's hidden in a top secret siberian hanger

[xenomorph555]

Imagine if after the n-1 program was cancelled they hid the remaining n-1's in a top secret location, probably in Siberia, and kept there till "a time in need".

[R0cketC0der]

What would be the use of it? Also, why would they want to keep it secret?

[Ralathon]

The "time of need" was during the Apollo days. Rockets like the N1 and the Saturn V are only useful if you want to go to the moon, what else are you supposed to do with them?

[deadshot462]

Probably would have lacked maintenance like the hangar that held the only flown Buran. The hanger collapsed and destroyed the ship.

[xenomorph555]

The "time of need" was during the Apollo days. Rockets like the N1 and the Saturn V are only useful if you want to go to the moon, what else are you supposed to do with them?

Not sure, launch mega station, beat future rocket to moon, drop 100 nukes on america...

[R0cketC0der]

Why would they risk putting a mega station worth multiple billion dollars on a launcher with 4/4 failed launches?

Why would they wait this long if they were just sending it to the moon?

Why would they put nukes on a rocket that's most likely to explode over their own soil?

[xenomorph555]

Why would they risk putting a mega station worth multiple billion dollars on a launcher with 4/4 failed launches?

Why would they wait this long if they were just sending it to the moon?

Why would they put nukes on a rocket that's most likely to explode over their own soil?

1.personally I think the 5th launch would have gone well, they fixed all the problems.

2.I don't know why they cancelled the moon program anyway so I can't answer.

3. If your in a nuclear war your gonna die anyway so might as well try...

[rtxoff]

What would be the use of it?

Because it's lot's of fun to launch such an enormous rockeeeeet !!!

[Guest]

Well, something like this actually happened. The engines (the most complex and expensive parts of the rockets) from N1s were secretly stockpiled instead of destroyed, as per orders. The only things that were disassembled were fuel tanks and such, which are usually easily replaced. That said, the NK-33 engines were mostly sold off to US later on.

[Motokid600]

1.personally I think the 5th launch would have gone well, they fixed all the problems.

2.I don't know why they cancelled the moon program anyway so I can't answer.

3. If your in a nuclear war your gonna die anyway so might as well try...

1. Dout it. The N1 never got to separate it's first stage. Chances are a 5th launch would've failed during or after the hot-stage.

2. Sergei Korolev died in 66 and the N1 with him. He was Russia's Von Braun. You can bet that if Von Braun had died there would've been no Apollo. If Korolev had lived.. well.. maybe the N1 would've flown. Hard to say wether or not they would 've beat the Americans if he had lived.. I don't think so. But the program would 've went much farther no dout.

3.) ...Na

Edited June 28, 2014 by Motokid600

[bsalis]

A time of need?

Like for a fireworks display?

[cpast]

Not sure, launch mega station, beat future rocket to moon, drop 100 nukes on america...

For the nukes: Which makes more sense, sticking a large number of warheads on a single missile which was not designed to accommodate them (and thus has a fair chance of having head wreck their control systems on re-entry), which would require moving to a massive launch site to set up, takes time to fuel, and can on no occasion deliver them to targets which are far apart? Or using their existing ICBM and SLBM units, which (especially later on) can remain fueled, and launch rapidly, from hidden locations, and which will have many more much more reliable rockets?

[SpaceCommanderNemo]

Or using their existing ICBM and SLBM units, which (especially later on) can remain fueled, and launch rapidly, from hidden locations, and which will have many more much more reliable rockets?

...hence dismantling the N1 and putting the engines in secret warehouses.

[Chris P. Bacon]

For the nukes: Which makes more sense

Looks to me like the ruskies considered option #1...

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_icbm.html

Edited June 29, 2014 by Chris P. Bacon

[Nibb31]

An N1 as a nuclear weapon would be useless. It takes weeks to prepare and fuel liquid rockets for launch. Baikonur would have been vitrified before the N1 was even rolled out of its hangar.

[Rus-Evo]

You can bet that if Von Braun had died there would've been no Apollo.

I would not take that bet. I think it was bigger than one man, even him.

[Winter Man]

Come on guys, this is sci fi theory. 'A time of need' is clearly a Soviet-made distress beacon going off on Mars.

[Idobox]

I would not take that bet. I think it was bigger than one man, even him.

Well, Von Braun designed the first practical turbopump, and showed the world liquid fueled rockets were possible.

If he had died before the first V2 prototype flew, space flight could have been considerably delayed, but once the V2 demonstrated the ability to drop payloads on enemy cities without being intercepted, the US and USSR had no choice but to develop their own.

His death after or around operation paperclip would have delayed the Americans, but not that much, and some other brilliant rocketeer would have had a chance to shine. The best proof of that is the USSR had significantly better space technology in the beginning without the Pennemünde staff (although they hired a large number of German technicians too).

[Mihara]

Actually, they didn't.

They disassembled the remaining rockets and the engines made for it are still being sold and/or used, though, because there was such a lot of them.

[Kryten]

They did have a bunch of German technical staff; they just set them up as a separate group from the soviet developers (including korolyev), and didn't actually produce anything they proposed.

[Motokid600]

I would not take that bet. I think it was bigger than one man, even him.

Well... To say Apollo would've never happened is a stretch, yea. But if Von Braun had died at the same time and manner that Korolev did ( mid program ) it would've significantly hindered things. How involved was Von Braun in the design of the Saturn V and it's engines? I know he had an entire team. So if let's say the leader of your team kicks the bucket in the middle of your project. You have a predecessor. Someone to pick up where the leader left off. When it comes to the Saturn V.. would someone else had been able to work out it's problems/bugs? The pogo, combustion instability, rotating gases in the chamber, ext..

[cpast]

Looks to me like the ruskies considered option #1...

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_icbm.html

Read the link. Korolev proposed it to get military support, but:

despite all Korolev's efforts, the N1 rocket did not fit well into the Soviet military doctrine, relying on mass deployment of compact ballistic missiles.

So, the Soviet military felt the same way about using one rocket for lots of bombs, or for huge bombs, exactly the way my leading question led. Lots of smaller missiles can be far more effective than one huge one: if the huge one is destroyed before launch, or there's a technical failure, you lose too large a portion of your firepower.

[rdfox]

The N1 *couldn't* be transported to a secret warehouse in Siberia and stored on site. One of the main sources of the problems that plagued it during the test flights was related to its sheer size and the Soviet infrastructure. Saturn V wasn't a problem for the US, because even though the first two stages were 10m in diameter (yes, that's accurate--the Apollo hardware is all friggin' HUGE), NASA and its contractors had one major advantage--the launch site was located just off the Atlantic Ocean, making sea-based transport of the outsized stages entirely feasible. Thus, the S-II (second stage) production facility was built in Seal Beach, California, with direct ocean access, while the S-IC (first stage) production facility was the NASA-owned Michoud Assembly Facility at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, just off the Mississippi River, with test stands located not far away, also with access to the Mississippi River. Even the first two flight articles, built by the engineers at Huntsville and tested in test stands there, could be transported by water, because of a roundabout series of navigable rivers that provided access to the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, barge shipment was the preferred method, (The S-IVB third stage was also built along the California coast, though without direct water access--shipping it required it to be trucked through town to the docks to be loaded on the barge. However, it was also small enough in diameter that the Super Guppy aircraft could carry it, and since the contractor had an airfield right on the property next to the factory, air transport became its preferred mode.) Every S-IC and S-II stage was shipped from the factory to the test stand by barge (through the Panama Canal, in the case of the S-II), then erected on a test stand and given a test firing of at least its full mission operating cycle, all the little bugs fixed, and then test-fired again to prove that there were no more bugs in the system, then shipped to the Cape, by barge, to be assembled into a flight-ready vehicle and flown.

By contrast, the Soviet launch site, while as low-latitude as they could get it (for maximum boost from Earth's rotation), was also completely land-locked, hundreds of miles from any navigable waterway. Everything had to be able to be shipped in by rail, truck, or airplane--and this meant that the N-1 couldn't have its lower stages assembled where they were fabricated, or be test-fired before flight--instead, they were fabricated in sections, shipped by rail to Baikonur, and then assembled on site. The Soviet government refused to build full-scale test stands at Baikonur, so these complex rockets, assembled in relatively primitive conditions by relatively unskilled laborers, were never test-fired before launch. In a ground test, if there's a problem with the stage, you can shut it down, safe the vehicle, diagnose and fix the problem, and then try again. However, if the first time the rocket is fired is in *flight*, then you're pretty much screwed, since shutting down will still result in the destruction of the vehicle. (Yes, theoretically, a "Flight Readiness Firing" test of the N-1's first stage on the launch pad could have been done. This would have greatly slowed the processing rate, due to the need to do it for each booster, could have severely damaged the pad and upper stages, and, at best, would have shaken the bugs out of the first stage only.)

Since the Soviets couldn't transport the N-1 stages in one piece, it makes transporting the "extra" ones to some mythical Siberian warehouse infeasible--what are you going to do, dismantle them into their original component parts (including "un-welding" the welded joints in the tanks), load them onto trains, ship them out there, and then reassemble them on site for storage?--what they did made the most sense--partial disassembly to retrieve the most valuable parts (electronics and engines), and then simply scrapping the rest, since what would be left would essentially be structure, tankage, and plumbing--which are cheap (by comparison).

[Guest]

Exactly the problem with N1. Chelomei's UR-700 was more-or-less free of those problems, being composed of rail-transportable blocks, not to mention it had fewer engines. It also looked very Kerbal, with fuel crossfeed from boosters to the core. The theory would've been much more plausible with an UR-700, but it was never built.

[xenomorph555]

Exactly the problem with N1. Chelomei's UR-700 was more-or-less free of those problems, being composed of rail-transportable blocks, not to mention it had fewer engines. It also looked very Kerbal, with fuel crossfeed from boosters to the core. The theory would've been much more plausible with an UR-700, but it was never built.

I hate when people say it would have been more plausible, people forget that at the time the proton (ur-500) failed over half the times it launched, if the 700 exploded it would have been a Chernobyl with the toxic fuel. Plus all of the untested technologies, some even till this day like crossfeed.