INCLUDED

OPTIONAL

COOL FEATURES

Q & A

Answer

Yes! The 41″ (1:100 scale) N1 is significantly larger—and not only in height! In the photo below, if you look at the lowest stage, the volume of the rocket is much larger. Now, don’t get me wrong, even the “smaller” 34″ N1 is already quite impressive. But that larger 41″ model is just… BIG!

So what are some other “advantages” and “disadvantages” of a larger rocket?

Let’s start with the “disadvantages”? Both rockets use the same 29mm composite motors. Because the larger rocket obviously weighs more, it’s not going to get the same altitude as the smaller one. So assuming an AeroTech F67-4W engine is mounted, the “launch weight” (this includes nose weights, parachutes, wadding, and engine) for the larger N1 is about 986 grams which, according to Rocksim, should reach an altitude of about 251 feet. The launch weight for the smaller 1:122 scale N1 is around 711 grams and should reach an altitude of approximately 383 feet.

So, besides size, what are the “advantages?” There are several… First, if you are building a fleet of 1:100 scale rockets, then the 41″ N1 is the one to get! Second, because everything is larger, the engine mount could be recessed further into Stage I making balancing the model a little easier. Third, a larger BT-70 tubes could be used for Stage III and Stage IV. This means that there’s more room for a larger parachute.

The larger N1 was not simply “scaled up” in a CAD program. The basic structure had to be completely redesigned and retested from scratch.

Answer

You do NOT need to purchase the optional 29mm stand. Especially if you remove the decorative Stage 1 bottom plate, the rocket will be very stable. Even with the the Stage 1 bottom plate attached, the rocket can stand up on its own, but I wouldn’t put it in an area where people can bump into it. The 29mm stand will give the N1 more stability with the decorative plate attached.

Answer

I’ll leave that up to you. Although the regular LES included with the kit has some imperfections and distortions (because it had to be 3D-printed horizontally for strength), I find the final results acceptable. The optional detailed LES is definitely visually better looking (because it printed using an SLA printer). To keep this part pristine, make sure to replace it with the stock LES before launching.

Answer

• Thick cyanoacrylate glue (Superglue)
• 5-minute epoxy
• Contact Adhesive (i.e. Gorilla Clear Grip)
• Yellow wood glue
• Hobby knife
• 220 grit wet/dry sandpaper
• 12 inch ruler
• Sharp scissors
• Needle nosed pliers
• Dark Gray Spray paint
• White spray paint
• Matte Clear Coat
• Masking Tape
• Tweezers for small parts
• Nitrile gloves (for epoxy)
• Eye protection

Answer

You don’t have to, but I would. Sanding and priming will help remove the subtle layer lines, and spray painting will definitely make the rocket completely opaque which will significantly add to the realism. The plastic (especially the white PLA) has a minor translucent quality to it that does not look realistic. Trust me, the N1 looks AMAZING properly finished! That said, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 exhaust plates are printed using silver PLA which looks really good unpainted.

Answer

Do NOT use a cheap plastic parachute! A plastic one will shred almost instantaneously. This mid-power rocket require a strong nylon fabric chute. For the 34″ N1 Moon Rocket, I recommend a 36″ or larger parachute. For the 41″ N1, I recommend a 42″ or larger chute. However, the size of the parachute depends on many factors such as field size, wind speed, and ground conditions. Here are some links to parachutes that may work (note that I have not tested all of them—you will have to make your own judgement base on the above factors):

• For less expensive options made from quality thin-milled nylon, look at Top Flight Recovery.
• Also look at this affordable 48″ Printed Nylon Parachute from Apogee Components.
• For the ultimate lightweight, custom, 8-panel, hemispherical parachutes, take a look at these ULTRA Light Spherachutes made from .66 oz. membrane 10 taffeta nylon fabric. More expensive but gorgeous! I have the 42″ ULTRA Light Spherachute for my 1:122 N1 and boy is it beautiful!

Answer

Easy! You want a custom chute made by Steve Riegel. Below is a custom-made, 42 inch, 36 gore parachute that Steve made for my 1:100 N1. It was made from 1.1 oz thin mil Ripstop nylon and 200 lb Dacron lines with rolled hems and flat felled seams. It is truly a work of art!

If you are purchasing the N1 as a special gift for a model rocket fanatic, I can’t think of a better compliment than a chute made by Steve. But, get your order in ahead of time. Each chute is custom made for you.

SOURCE: Photo by Steve Riegel. Used by permission.

Answer

An internal, 3D-printed “launch lug” transects Stage 1. You can see the lower portion of the lug in the photo below. The launch rod will enter from the base of the rocket and then exit through a slit on the side of Stage 1. This is designed to accommodate a 1/4 inch diameter launch rod. For safety reasons, do NOT use a smaller diameter rod. They lack the rigidity to safely launch larger rockets.

Answer

In terms of difficulty, this is around a Level 3 kit (intermediate difficulty), It should take most people less than a week to leisurely finish this model. The use of epoxy and CA glue make this a Level 4 kit since more safety precautions are needed when working with these glues. Also, because this require powerful composite engines, previous rocketry experience is required for launch. Otherwise, if just building this kit for a static display, this really is not a difficult project if you already have some modeling experience. Just take your time and enjoy the process! The instruction manual (see next question) is very detailed and will walk you step-by-step through the whole process.

Answer

Excellent! A very detailed, full-colored instruction manual with high-quality photos is provided. Each step is clearly illustrated. I really want you to be successful in building a model that you will be proud of! Click this link to see a sample of the N1 Instruction Manual.

Answer

Surprisingly, the Interstages are relatively easy to assemble! The instruction manual provides great photos and clear instructions. Just make sure to get some contact adhesive like the Gorilla Clear Grip Contact Adhesive. It will make assembly MUCH easier. And if you mess up, you can rub it off and start over. And any leftover glue can be used for your home improvement/repair projects!

Answer

The markings are mostly based on the first launch (N1-L3) on February 21, 1969. If I had to estimate, I would say that the scale details are about 90 percent accurate. Unfortunately, the available references are not all consistent. Ralph Currell’s free cardstock model (which he based on drawings from Alex Shliadinsky) was an extremely helpful source of information. Check out his paper model of the N1. It’s quite extraordinary!

Answer

At this time, the only recommended engine is an Aerotech F67-4W for both the 34″ and 42″ N1 (other more powerful engines are being tested). This engine probably provides the safest and most reliable flight for the N1. Rocksim estimates a height of 251 feet for the 42″ N1 and 383 feet for the 34″ N1. Sure, these aren’t “stratospheric” altitudes. But, it will provide a fun and relatively inexpensive flight. And your chances of recovering an intact rocket are good.

Other Motors?

Right now, I am in the process of testing out various G engines and here is what I can tell you: I have not had any success with Single Use Loadable Engines (like the Aerotech G79 White Lightning). I had THREE engine failures with these motors. Call it stubbornness  but I probably should have moved on to a different engine after the first two engine failures. In all three cases, the propellant had a hard time igniting (it just sat on the launch pad sputtering for a while before launch) and by the time the rocket lifted off, most of the delay grain had burned away causing the ejection charge to go off prematurely.

For one rocket, this caused the parachute to eject way before apogee (but at least this N1 was recovered intact). For two other launches, this caused an early ejection and complete CATO from a “forward bulkhead rupture” (basically, thrust from the main propellant was also coming out the forward end because the delay grain burned through). It wasn’t pretty, but it was historically accurate!

The engine failures were likely from motors that were poorly stored (or stored for too long) so the propellant had a difficult time igniting. So if you want to try the Single Use Loadable Motor, make sure your vendor has “fresh” ones. Anyway… I’m moving on to a different engine (probably a reloadable engine or a prebuilt one). I’m done with Single Use Loadable Motors for now since I have a feeling they sit on the shelf for a while before being sold.

I’ll update this section as I gain more experience with different G motors.

Answer

Yes! For the 34″ model (1:122 scale), the file is available for both Rocksim and Open Rocket. For the 40″ model (1:100 scale), the file is available for Rocksim only. Please note that these simulators were only used to estimate the center of pressure. The final “launch ready” center of gravity and weight needs to be physically measured and entered manually (using the “manual override” feature) into either Rocksim or Open Rocket for an accurate estimate of flight stability. See the instruction manual for Rocksim and Open Rocket for more detail.

Answer

Not at this time. Here’s why…

Six “D” engines would add 248 gram of weight to the rear of the rocket (and provides 101 newton-seconds of total impluse). For comparison, a single composite “G” motor weighs in at a petite 124 grams (and provides about 108 newton-seconds of total impulse). Basically, you get slightly more power with only half the weight.

But it gets better!

Because the single composite motor can be recessed inside Stage 1, the center of gravity is moved forward. Also, unlike with cluster engines, with a single recessed composite engine, centering rings and engine tubes at the base can be removed. All this translates to less rear weight and therefore less nose weight needed to balance out the rocket.

Finally, the chance of launch failure is significantly reduced when lighting one engine versus six simultaneously. All in all, your launch success and your ability to recover an intact rocket should go up significantly!

But, I’ll fully admit… there is something insanely epic about launching the N1 on a cluster of six engines—even if it does follow the footsteps of the original! Check out Matthew Johnson’s kit on the Apogee website if you are up to the challenge of building a cluster engine version of the N1. It is ambitious, audacious, and extremely challenging!

Answer

That photo was the first test launch of the N1. The rocket has since been redesigned. Now the engine mount is recessed into Stage I. Also, the bottom engine plate is now only decorative and must be removed for launch. These changes help to reduce the weight of the rocket.

Answer

Yes! We love our international customers and have sent orders to multiple countries including Canada and Australia. Please contact me and I’ll provide a quote on the shipping and total price. If the quote is acceptable to you, then I’ll email you a PayPal invoice.

Answer

Sorry, not at this time. 3D printing these files would definitely push the limits of skill/patience of most modeler. I have a “graveyard” of failed prints as I worked out the proper settings and filaments. And trying to find all the correct tubes, paper centering rings, and wood centering rings would definitely be a chore (especially since the tolerances are very precise). But who knows, a bit down the line, if I ever get tired of making these kits, this may become an option.

Answer

Maybe. Proceed at your own risk. 😉

Maiden flight at the SRA (Spaceport Rocketry Association) Launch on September 19, 2020.