... and not just heavy tanks - the engines weren't optimal for that project
either. Korolev wanted larger & better engines but was involved in a colossal
spat with the chief engine developer (Valentin Glushko) about conceptual
direction. Glushko only wanted to pursue storable propellants which Korolev
detested, so he was forced to effectively build up that capability with a new
shop. Add into that the budgetary & time constraints which forced a
less-than-optimal lost engine redundancy configuration & other stuff.
Troy
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Henry Spencer
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: Saturns (was Re: APCP ...)
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023, roxanna Mason wrote:
Well this was assuming low risk open cycle engines like F-1 and H-1
which 4 stages would have been necessary...
Come now, at least you should assume that upper-stage engines would be based
on the Atlas *sustainer*, which had a vacuum-Isp advantage of nearly 30s over
the H-1. But I would expect better than that -- the only reason better upper-
stage kerosene engines weren't seriously pursued was that everybody thought
LH2 made them unnecessary.
The Russian N-1 had 4 stages and used closed cycle NK-33 engines.
But, as I noted, quite heavy tanks. Especially compared to the S-IC, whose
mass
ratio was impressively good and could certainly have been improved further.
Henry