Skip to main content
Space Exploration

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ It also didn't help that the Soviet military didn't view the N1 as having military potential, so they weren't championing its development. There were also historical personal issues between Korolev & Glushko (Soviet chief rocket engine designer) & a difference of opinion between the two regarding what fuel the N1 should use. Glushko wanted hypergolic fuel. $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 5:45
  • $\begingroup$ The TV series For All Mankind follows up on the second reason (with the general assumption that the Soviets could maintain their spending power). $\endgroup$
    – Graham
    Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 13:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fred, Glushko winning the argument probably would have made the path to the Moon even harder -- hypergolics don't have the specific impulse needed for really large payloads. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Nov 28, 2023 at 4:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark The issue wasn't that they disagreed about the N-1 specifically, they had this argument about every big Soviet rocket, even before Sputnik. But eventually Glushko went behind Korolev's back to another rocket designer who would actually put nitric acid/UDMH engines in an ICBM and pitched it to the military (kerolox is great for space but bad for nuclear deterrent) and that led to tremendous friction between Korolev and Glushko, Korolev and Khrushchev, and Korolev and the military at a critical time in the space program's development. $\endgroup$
    – Cadence
    Commented Nov 30, 2023 at 12:23