>>10860955Oops, turns out that my math was wrong AGAIN! I was using the vacuum performance of the N1 Block A instead of the Sea-Level performance.
>With a N1-1969 stack on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stagePayload to LEO: 330.3 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 2.04
>With a N1 Block A Stage on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stagePayload to LEO:193.3 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.9
>>With a N1-1969 stack on top of 3 N1 Block A stages with two N1 Block A boosters cross feeding into the 3 N1 Block A stagesPayload to LEO: 420.72 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.08(!)
Note that the N1 full stack narrows down significantly the further up the rocket, so it might not be structurally sound to use the full stack. A more practical setup would be the second scenario.
>>10860986>that's some sick shit docThanks!
>Is the only difference between the first scenario and the third scenario the asparagus setup?Yes. The second scenario has each of the pairs Block A's act like a normal asparagus stage. The third scenario has the last pair be bolted to the core stage, acting like one big stage.
>>10860936>Saturn V full stack with S-IC boosters cross feeding into the core S-ICPayload to LEO: 194.7137 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.75
