I ran a version of N-11 through the calculator too--just shifted the two upper stages of the N-1 a place to the left, used the ISPs for the bigger stages for the smaller ones (on the theory that the engines have to be reoptimized to lower atmospheric conditions) and replaced the former third stage with the smaller Ghe stage I inferred from the canon statement that 75 tons makes it to orbit on the current edition of the N-1. If I could only keep my posts shorter, more people might recall that I inferred from delta-V requirements that stage would be about 50 tons all up--this is the first big deviation from the OTL figures Wade gives--the Ghe and De stages are necessarily smaller,
The Silverbird calculator confirms that N-11 configuration would indeed deliver 20 tons to LEO.
Oh, that's with a 4500 kg shroud ejected 160 seconds into the launch. So part of that 20 tons would be a Soyuz or some other manned vehicle.
I have to acknowledge that doesn't prove anything, since the Silverbird calculator has no way to input aerodynamic factors (which we don't know anyway, nor how they compare to Saturn V) nor Soviet stuff like firing an upper stage before the lower one finishes.
----
A nitpick re the latest post--"Salyut" I believe means "salute;" the OTL space station series was a name belatedly picked either in honor of Korolev or I think most likely, Yuri Gagarin, both recently deceased when Salyut 1 was launched. "Soyuz" means "Union;" it is in the Russian version of the name USSR--from Wikipedia's article on the Soviet Union:
As it stands the post is just not correct but of course the LK can be named Salyut in tribute to something or someone--it can hardly be named "Soyuz" though!
I continue to look forward to future developments. I've been trying to evaluate incremental improvements in the N-1 but it all depends on how good a job the designers can do with hydrogen upper stages--the problem is as I've said, the tanks for hydrogen must be much larger than those for kerosene, and insulated and pressure-tolerant too; trying to extrapolate from the stage masses I inferred, I find it hard to justify less than doubling the dry mass, but doing that eats up pretty much all but a tiny portion of the gain from using hydrogen. On the other hand, the Americans managed, as I recall well from Eyes Turned Skyward, to get the dry mass of the third stage of the Saturn V (second stage of the Saturn 1B and taken with slight modifications to be the second stage of the ETS Saturn 1C and Multibody) down to about 10 percent of the propellant, about 110 tons all up, 10 tons dry. If the Soviets can match that kind of mass economy then the gains in replacing the three middle stages would be considerable.
I don't know if it is wise to replace the De stage with a hydrogen one, since it has to loiter around the moon either waiting for a crew to come land an LK or to finish its job by shoving their Soyuz off to TEI. But replacing the Ghe stage with a hydrogen TLI stage will raise the mass sent to the moon beyond 25 tons--how much beyond depends on how heavy the Ghe stage is dry of course, but potentially up to ten tons more! That's with no improvement in the orbital launch at all; any tonnage we can add to 75 can raise the TLI load stlll more.
I don't see really tremendous, dramatic improvements, even reaching the 90 ton goal seems dubious.
But a lot can be done with more efficient TLI and lots of launches! For instance if instead of inserting an LK or bigger lander into orbit we wish to send supplies directly to the Lunar surface instead, we might land as much as 13 tons out of 75 placed in orbit, if the final stage is hydrogen--since a lander won't be waiting around, the hydrogen boil-off problem might be manageable. Instead of a crasher stage, have the whole 25+ ton payload of a hydrogen Ghe replacement be a supply lander with a hydrogen landing engine; don't bother to enter Lunar orbit at all but go directly for a landing at the chosen site. 13 tons landed on the Moon is a heck of a lot bigger than any single mass NASA would have hitherto landed there.
The Silverbird calculator confirms that N-11 configuration would indeed deliver 20 tons to LEO.
Oh, that's with a 4500 kg shroud ejected 160 seconds into the launch. So part of that 20 tons would be a Soyuz or some other manned vehicle.
I have to acknowledge that doesn't prove anything, since the Silverbird calculator has no way to input aerodynamic factors (which we don't know anyway, nor how they compare to Saturn V) nor Soviet stuff like firing an upper stage before the lower one finishes.
----
A nitpick re the latest post--"Salyut" I believe means "salute;" the OTL space station series was a name belatedly picked either in honor of Korolev or I think most likely, Yuri Gagarin, both recently deceased when Salyut 1 was launched. "Soyuz" means "Union;" it is in the Russian version of the name USSR--from Wikipedia's article on the Soviet Union:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Other names
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик
Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik
As it stands the post is just not correct but of course the LK can be named Salyut in tribute to something or someone--it can hardly be named "Soyuz" though!
I continue to look forward to future developments. I've been trying to evaluate incremental improvements in the N-1 but it all depends on how good a job the designers can do with hydrogen upper stages--the problem is as I've said, the tanks for hydrogen must be much larger than those for kerosene, and insulated and pressure-tolerant too; trying to extrapolate from the stage masses I inferred, I find it hard to justify less than doubling the dry mass, but doing that eats up pretty much all but a tiny portion of the gain from using hydrogen. On the other hand, the Americans managed, as I recall well from Eyes Turned Skyward, to get the dry mass of the third stage of the Saturn V (second stage of the Saturn 1B and taken with slight modifications to be the second stage of the ETS Saturn 1C and Multibody) down to about 10 percent of the propellant, about 110 tons all up, 10 tons dry. If the Soviets can match that kind of mass economy then the gains in replacing the three middle stages would be considerable.
I don't know if it is wise to replace the De stage with a hydrogen one, since it has to loiter around the moon either waiting for a crew to come land an LK or to finish its job by shoving their Soyuz off to TEI. But replacing the Ghe stage with a hydrogen TLI stage will raise the mass sent to the moon beyond 25 tons--how much beyond depends on how heavy the Ghe stage is dry of course, but potentially up to ten tons more! That's with no improvement in the orbital launch at all; any tonnage we can add to 75 can raise the TLI load stlll more.
I don't see really tremendous, dramatic improvements, even reaching the 90 ton goal seems dubious.
But a lot can be done with more efficient TLI and lots of launches! For instance if instead of inserting an LK or bigger lander into orbit we wish to send supplies directly to the Lunar surface instead, we might land as much as 13 tons out of 75 placed in orbit, if the final stage is hydrogen--since a lander won't be waiting around, the hydrogen boil-off problem might be manageable. Instead of a crasher stage, have the whole 25+ ton payload of a hydrogen Ghe replacement be a supply lander with a hydrogen landing engine; don't bother to enter Lunar orbit at all but go directly for a landing at the chosen site. 13 tons landed on the Moon is a heck of a lot bigger than any single mass NASA would have hitherto landed there.