/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12422440
>My ancestor :)

>>12267904
N1 had less to do with plumbing and more to do with insufficient test of engines (No static fire tests, low quality control)

>>12025905
Found your face

>>11950977
>Who’s idea was it to go with giant F1 engines instead of lots of little engines.
I have just the rocket for you

>>9388708
>27 engines
Wasn't the "use a ton of small engines instead of a few giant ones" approach one of the big problems with the soviet moon rocket since it requires a complex arrangement of fuel lines? What is SpaceX doing to make this thing work?

>>8314761
they haven't made a new design since 1970 either.

Which is keeping them from ever putting something heavy to the moon or further. Look at their failed moon shot. They couldn't or just didn't bother to, make big motors. So they attempted to make due with a lot of small ones.

What went wrong in the Soviet/Russian space program?

They used to be the leaders of space exploration in the 50's and early 60's, but starting around the late 60's they've been slowly dropping off the race and facing failure after failure.
Has Korolev's death really been that destructive?

You also keep hearing about how much the N1 rocket bogged everything down and what a complete failure it had been, but the people involved in it insist everything was going according to plan, that the biggest issues with it were ironed out by 1973, and if only it had another test launch it would have proved itself successful.

>>7114622
the "y" vectors of the propelling force cancels themself out and you are losing valuable thrust.

Also the more engines the higher the probability of the rocket exploding,
see Russian N-1 moon rocket. (pic related, didn't end well)