This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
N1 (rocket) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recently reverted an edit that claimed the July 3, 1969 N1 explosion as the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. I'm sure it was up there, but we need concrete evidence if we want to make claims like that. There are certainly other incidents which rival that occurence, such as the Nedelin catastrophe, when an R-16 blew up on the pad and killed >100 ppl.
So that is why I'm reverting the change. If someone can provide a source which quantitatively defines this occurence as the biggest (measured by damage, blast radius, or whatever) then I'm happy to have it reinserted. Btw, what do you mean by a high GLOW? I've never heard that term before.
On another note, the reason I reverted a separate addition regarding the potential for success of the N1 is that it is pure speculation. Not only is it pure speculation, it does not in any way address the reasons cited for failure (resonant vibration modes and unstable exhaust plume characteristics). Given enough time and $, any engineering project can be made to work, but I'm not confident that further speculation on this topic improves the article. - Lommer | talk 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
In this section the article says: "There was also the factor that the N1's Baikonur launch complex could not be reached by heavy barge so for transport by rail all the stages had to be broken and re-assembled. Because of this, the complex and destructive vibrational modes (which ripped apart propellant lines and turbines) as well as exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems (causing vehicle roll, vacuum cavitation, and other problems) were not discovered and worked out before flight."
Is there proof that transport by heavy barge could have identified these failure modes? Also the way the article is currently written, it sounds exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems may have been part of the lack of transport by heavy barge - which I assume wasn't the case. This paragraph could use clarification by someone familiar with the N1. - Thanks.
The problem really wasn't one of transport, but of expense. It was deemed too expensive to build a test stand capable of test-firing the entire first stage (which, as mentioned, could have been built at Baikonur). For that matter, though, the heart of the problem was design; the problems mentioned, both caused and compounded by needing thirty engines in the first stage, may have been insurmountable.-- 172.190.176.51 ( talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the word one Russian government images from the USSR period, are they copyrighted? Chris H 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
All of soviet space systems (spacecrafts, launchers etc) after development under letter-figure designation obtained the open name in the form of any word. What open name intended for N-1 if program N1-L3 not be cancelled?
I know it was the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry, could we get a pic of that on here? It'll look cool. 207.199.222.64 ( talk) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLMkhdf1_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lm2f ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hope I get this right, I am new to wikis!
I have been doing considerable reseach on the N-1, and would like to propose that the article here links to it.
The main page is here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/
And I have found a great many images, not generally known, here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/images/index.html
Is this suitable?
I'd also recommend linking to the 'Novosti Kosmonavtiki' galleries showing amazing photos of the remains of the launch facilities: http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_077/index.shtml http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_076/index.shtml
Nick 155.136.80.173 ( talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The text says 10 m while the side table says 17 m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 ( talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The Apollo had three Earth ascent stages: 5 x F1s, 5 x J2s, and 1 x J2. There were also the lunar descent and ascent stages. The N1 also had three Earth ascent stages. Are the remaining two stages similar to those in Saturn V? I believe briefly covering this in this article would help the reader to compare the two approaches to the lunar problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 ( talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section about possible name because it seems consisting mostly on groundless claims ("some sources" is not a reference) and original research. It is possible to put back after any citation would be found.
START OF THE REMOVED SECTION According to some sources who?, it was intended to be Raskat ( Russian: Раскат, "peal"), but other sources who? say that this name was for a military version citation needed of N1, with a few tens of super-power nuclear warheads, only. Western analysts and journalists who? earlier supposed and wrote that the public name was intended to be Nauka ( Russian: Наука, "Science"), Lenin ( Russian: Ленин), Rossiya ( Russian: Россия, "Russia"), Gerkules ( Russian: Геркулес, "Heracles"), or Gigant ( Russian: Гигант, "Giant"), but all of these were unlikely. END OF THE REMOVED SECTION
Astronautix lists 70,000kg, Russianspaceweb lists 86,182kg and the wikipage lists 75,000kg, so which is it?
-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The comparative drawings photo is way off. The Saturn was 20 feet taller than the N-1. In the drawings it shows them to be equal in height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.171.178 ( talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This just has to be wrong: "When Gemini missions put the US in the lead in space development, Korolev pressured Nikita Khrushchev into making a lunar landing before the US."
It is much more likely that Korolev persuaded (pressured?) Khruschev's successor to allow him to pursue the lunar program. (As with much of this article, citations are still needed.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The bulk of this article documents the N1/L3 manned lunar space vehicle; that is the major reason the subject is notable, as opposed to just being something on the Soviet drawing boards in 1959. The intro must summarize all information contained in the article, including why it was terminated (failed). The article cannot be improved by just taking a hacksaw to it. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:N1 booster lp.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
This article says: "...a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."
But Apollo used a lunar orbit rendezvous profile, not a direct ascent profile -- right?
User:Jayintheusa —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC).
"Since there were a number of unknowns in the Earth orbit rendezvous profile that could not be tested in time, a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."
Because this event is cited elsewhere, more info is needed concerning it & the vehicle. 1. The infobox should list launch weight of propellant & LOX 2. The flight paragraph should find a source for the amount of stuff remaining that blew up. It could also explain the theoretical energy of that size explosion. 165.121.80.134 ( talk) 09:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Per ordinance from the Church of XKCD, can someone please delete all the "one of the" before man-made non-nuclear explosions? Flymousechiu ( talk) 13:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologize to those who have intermediate edits but in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits of the Socks of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. I looked over the edits and determined this was the best course of action for this article. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭ User talk:IRoNGRoN
The table comparing the N1 with the Saturn V gives the Saturn V's primary units as English engineering, while the N1 gives SI as primary. This results in the SI units being center-most, which should make them easy to compare (which is the intent of this table). Since by default the primary units are unabbreviated while the converted units are abbreviated, I set abbreviation off which should make them easiest to compare. (You just have to ignore the existence of the parentheses in the left column.)
There is a display=table option in the convert template which puts the conversions in a separate table column; in theory this should make it easiest to read, but I tried it, and in practice it doesn't work because it doesn't print units header rows (because all the rows have different units.)
As the table stands now, is it really unreadable? (BTW, I have what should be the identical table in the Saturn V article. Someone already switched that so the units are in consistent order, but they're both English-first.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the current wiki code, current output, and some possible outputs:
If I can't figure this out, I'd be open to changing the input numbers, with a comment containing the original numbers from the source. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, this is what we want:
Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed it to scientific notation so we can see what it looks like; don't take this as final, it's just a suggestion. I like this myself. I think the argument against it is that none of the other rows use scientific notation; but that's because none of the other rows have numbers this big. Does it seem odd to talk about 106 kilonewtons? Should this be 109 newtons instead? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate doesn't sound credible to me William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The S-530 computer was developed by the Pilyugin design bureau and was used not only for the N-1 but the LOK and LK. The rocket's telemetry system relayed back high-density data, some analysts estimating at a rate of 9.6Gbyte/sec on up to 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies, so fast that eavesdropping American electronic intelligence satellites could not keep up. Commands could be sent up to the ascending N-1 at the same pace.
Was it assembled/integrated vertically or horizontally ? Either way, how was it transported to the launch pad and was the mechanism made or modified especially for the N1 ? - Rod57 ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Article says "During the N1's lifetime, a series of improved engines was introduced to replace those used in the original design. The first stage used an adaptation of the NK-15 known as the NK-33, the second stage a similar modification known as the NK-43, and finally the third stage used the NK-31. The resulting modified N1 was known as the N1F, but did not fly before the project's cancellation." Perhaps the 'stage's do not refer to the structure of the N1, but to sequential improvements in the engine design. If true, could we reword 'stage' to 'improvement' or 'variant' ? - Rod57 ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged the statement as dubious and will remove it in a few days if nobody objects. Concerns have been raised in 2017 and consensus seems to be that it's widely inaccurate. I don't think the statement can be salvaged with something like "some estimates say...", it's just nonsensical. Isa ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that man engineers and technicians died on the explosion of the second attempt. I cannot find references for that. This should be mentioned. -- Io Herodotus ( talk) 16:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
How'd they die in the first attempt? The launch failed in the air. Gregolego ( talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any info on the "lattice" interstage? Is it lighter than a "solid" (or sheet metal I guess it would be). Does it generate a lot of turbulence, not streamlined well? Why did the designer choose this design.
Similarly with the "conical" design verus cylindrical. Why'd they go that way? Are russsians still doing it this way? Feldercarb ( talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe this is correct. Voltage is not drawn, it is generated. Electrical current is drawn. I don't have the technical knowledge of this system to correct this line. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Everyday Astronaut on YT is saying (cued up below) that Wikipedia (and others) have wrong information on which engines were on which stages... Maybe someone wiser than me could check this ? Always love an accurate (as possible) Wiki !
Well, Wikipedia is evidently blacklisting YT URLs today so search YT for...
"The Entire Soviet Rocket Engine Family Tree"
At time 1:03:10 Was published on On Nov 24, 2021
boB K7IQ ( talk) 06:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
in the information below the picture it says "has use", is this some sort of translate error or am i reading it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himini ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Just removed this statement, plus the corresponding July 3 statement as the reference does not mention anything about it being one of the largest explosions in history and / or biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
N-1 was moved on rails to the pad, and then erected. Could mention/show what was used. No mention in Transporter erector either. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fappy45 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fappy45 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
N1 (rocket) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recently reverted an edit that claimed the July 3, 1969 N1 explosion as the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. I'm sure it was up there, but we need concrete evidence if we want to make claims like that. There are certainly other incidents which rival that occurence, such as the Nedelin catastrophe, when an R-16 blew up on the pad and killed >100 ppl.
So that is why I'm reverting the change. If someone can provide a source which quantitatively defines this occurence as the biggest (measured by damage, blast radius, or whatever) then I'm happy to have it reinserted. Btw, what do you mean by a high GLOW? I've never heard that term before.
On another note, the reason I reverted a separate addition regarding the potential for success of the N1 is that it is pure speculation. Not only is it pure speculation, it does not in any way address the reasons cited for failure (resonant vibration modes and unstable exhaust plume characteristics). Given enough time and $, any engineering project can be made to work, but I'm not confident that further speculation on this topic improves the article. - Lommer | talk 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
In this section the article says: "There was also the factor that the N1's Baikonur launch complex could not be reached by heavy barge so for transport by rail all the stages had to be broken and re-assembled. Because of this, the complex and destructive vibrational modes (which ripped apart propellant lines and turbines) as well as exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems (causing vehicle roll, vacuum cavitation, and other problems) were not discovered and worked out before flight."
Is there proof that transport by heavy barge could have identified these failure modes? Also the way the article is currently written, it sounds exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems may have been part of the lack of transport by heavy barge - which I assume wasn't the case. This paragraph could use clarification by someone familiar with the N1. - Thanks.
The problem really wasn't one of transport, but of expense. It was deemed too expensive to build a test stand capable of test-firing the entire first stage (which, as mentioned, could have been built at Baikonur). For that matter, though, the heart of the problem was design; the problems mentioned, both caused and compounded by needing thirty engines in the first stage, may have been insurmountable.-- 172.190.176.51 ( talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the word one Russian government images from the USSR period, are they copyrighted? Chris H 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
All of soviet space systems (spacecrafts, launchers etc) after development under letter-figure designation obtained the open name in the form of any word. What open name intended for N-1 if program N1-L3 not be cancelled?
I know it was the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry, could we get a pic of that on here? It'll look cool. 207.199.222.64 ( talk) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLMkhdf1_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lm2f ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hope I get this right, I am new to wikis!
I have been doing considerable reseach on the N-1, and would like to propose that the article here links to it.
The main page is here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/
And I have found a great many images, not generally known, here: http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/images/index.html
Is this suitable?
I'd also recommend linking to the 'Novosti Kosmonavtiki' galleries showing amazing photos of the remains of the launch facilities: http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_077/index.shtml http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_076/index.shtml
Nick 155.136.80.173 ( talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The text says 10 m while the side table says 17 m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 ( talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The Apollo had three Earth ascent stages: 5 x F1s, 5 x J2s, and 1 x J2. There were also the lunar descent and ascent stages. The N1 also had three Earth ascent stages. Are the remaining two stages similar to those in Saturn V? I believe briefly covering this in this article would help the reader to compare the two approaches to the lunar problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 ( talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section about possible name because it seems consisting mostly on groundless claims ("some sources" is not a reference) and original research. It is possible to put back after any citation would be found.
START OF THE REMOVED SECTION According to some sources who?, it was intended to be Raskat ( Russian: Раскат, "peal"), but other sources who? say that this name was for a military version citation needed of N1, with a few tens of super-power nuclear warheads, only. Western analysts and journalists who? earlier supposed and wrote that the public name was intended to be Nauka ( Russian: Наука, "Science"), Lenin ( Russian: Ленин), Rossiya ( Russian: Россия, "Russia"), Gerkules ( Russian: Геркулес, "Heracles"), or Gigant ( Russian: Гигант, "Giant"), but all of these were unlikely. END OF THE REMOVED SECTION
Astronautix lists 70,000kg, Russianspaceweb lists 86,182kg and the wikipage lists 75,000kg, so which is it?
-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The comparative drawings photo is way off. The Saturn was 20 feet taller than the N-1. In the drawings it shows them to be equal in height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.171.178 ( talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This just has to be wrong: "When Gemini missions put the US in the lead in space development, Korolev pressured Nikita Khrushchev into making a lunar landing before the US."
It is much more likely that Korolev persuaded (pressured?) Khruschev's successor to allow him to pursue the lunar program. (As with much of this article, citations are still needed.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The bulk of this article documents the N1/L3 manned lunar space vehicle; that is the major reason the subject is notable, as opposed to just being something on the Soviet drawing boards in 1959. The intro must summarize all information contained in the article, including why it was terminated (failed). The article cannot be improved by just taking a hacksaw to it. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:N1 booster lp.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
This article says: "...a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."
But Apollo used a lunar orbit rendezvous profile, not a direct ascent profile -- right?
User:Jayintheusa —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC).
"Since there were a number of unknowns in the Earth orbit rendezvous profile that could not be tested in time, a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."
Because this event is cited elsewhere, more info is needed concerning it & the vehicle. 1. The infobox should list launch weight of propellant & LOX 2. The flight paragraph should find a source for the amount of stuff remaining that blew up. It could also explain the theoretical energy of that size explosion. 165.121.80.134 ( talk) 09:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Per ordinance from the Church of XKCD, can someone please delete all the "one of the" before man-made non-nuclear explosions? Flymousechiu ( talk) 13:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologize to those who have intermediate edits but in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits of the Socks of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. I looked over the edits and determined this was the best course of action for this article. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭ User talk:IRoNGRoN
The table comparing the N1 with the Saturn V gives the Saturn V's primary units as English engineering, while the N1 gives SI as primary. This results in the SI units being center-most, which should make them easy to compare (which is the intent of this table). Since by default the primary units are unabbreviated while the converted units are abbreviated, I set abbreviation off which should make them easiest to compare. (You just have to ignore the existence of the parentheses in the left column.)
There is a display=table option in the convert template which puts the conversions in a separate table column; in theory this should make it easiest to read, but I tried it, and in practice it doesn't work because it doesn't print units header rows (because all the rows have different units.)
As the table stands now, is it really unreadable? (BTW, I have what should be the identical table in the Saturn V article. Someone already switched that so the units are in consistent order, but they're both English-first.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the current wiki code, current output, and some possible outputs:
If I can't figure this out, I'd be open to changing the input numbers, with a comment containing the original numbers from the source. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 18:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, this is what we want:
Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed it to scientific notation so we can see what it looks like; don't take this as final, it's just a suggestion. I like this myself. I think the argument against it is that none of the other rows use scientific notation; but that's because none of the other rows have numbers this big. Does it seem odd to talk about 106 kilonewtons? Should this be 109 newtons instead? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate doesn't sound credible to me William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The S-530 computer was developed by the Pilyugin design bureau and was used not only for the N-1 but the LOK and LK. The rocket's telemetry system relayed back high-density data, some analysts estimating at a rate of 9.6Gbyte/sec on up to 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies, so fast that eavesdropping American electronic intelligence satellites could not keep up. Commands could be sent up to the ascending N-1 at the same pace.
Was it assembled/integrated vertically or horizontally ? Either way, how was it transported to the launch pad and was the mechanism made or modified especially for the N1 ? - Rod57 ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Article says "During the N1's lifetime, a series of improved engines was introduced to replace those used in the original design. The first stage used an adaptation of the NK-15 known as the NK-33, the second stage a similar modification known as the NK-43, and finally the third stage used the NK-31. The resulting modified N1 was known as the N1F, but did not fly before the project's cancellation." Perhaps the 'stage's do not refer to the structure of the N1, but to sequential improvements in the engine design. If true, could we reword 'stage' to 'improvement' or 'variant' ? - Rod57 ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged the statement as dubious and will remove it in a few days if nobody objects. Concerns have been raised in 2017 and consensus seems to be that it's widely inaccurate. I don't think the statement can be salvaged with something like "some estimates say...", it's just nonsensical. Isa ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that man engineers and technicians died on the explosion of the second attempt. I cannot find references for that. This should be mentioned. -- Io Herodotus ( talk) 16:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
How'd they die in the first attempt? The launch failed in the air. Gregolego ( talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any info on the "lattice" interstage? Is it lighter than a "solid" (or sheet metal I guess it would be). Does it generate a lot of turbulence, not streamlined well? Why did the designer choose this design.
Similarly with the "conical" design verus cylindrical. Why'd they go that way? Are russsians still doing it this way? Feldercarb ( talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe this is correct. Voltage is not drawn, it is generated. Electrical current is drawn. I don't have the technical knowledge of this system to correct this line. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Everyday Astronaut on YT is saying (cued up below) that Wikipedia (and others) have wrong information on which engines were on which stages... Maybe someone wiser than me could check this ? Always love an accurate (as possible) Wiki !
Well, Wikipedia is evidently blacklisting YT URLs today so search YT for...
"The Entire Soviet Rocket Engine Family Tree"
At time 1:03:10 Was published on On Nov 24, 2021
boB K7IQ ( talk) 06:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
in the information below the picture it says "has use", is this some sort of translate error or am i reading it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himini ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Just removed this statement, plus the corresponding July 3 statement as the reference does not mention anything about it being one of the largest explosions in history and / or biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
N-1 was moved on rails to the pad, and then erected. Could mention/show what was used. No mention in Transporter erector either. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fappy45 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fappy45 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)