> N1 was a technical blunder on many levels Why? It had pretty advanced engines, conservative fuel choices, architecture optimized for low requirements at manu

> N1 was a technical blunder on many levels Why? It had pretty advanced engines, conservative fuel choices, architecture optimized for low requirements at manufacturing. And it was originally planned for Mars missions, not LEO missions. > Korolyov opted to a novel design which was too wide (17m!!) Why too wide? Technical decisions were made with all degrees of justifications available at the time. That it's wider than anything else till today, including Starship, doesn't make it "too wide". > Combine this with other technical mistakes (the shape led to the extra weight while the modularity wasn't required, too much drag, etc) Extra weight in weight-carrying construction is compensated, at least to a degree, by lesser weight of spherical tanks. Modularity was present so even N-11 was considered - two upper stages of N-1. Too much drag - comparing to what? N-1 was quite state of the art technically when it was created. I don't see how calling it a technical blunder can be justified.