Talk:N1 (rocket)

message: In  this section the article says: "There was also the factor that the N1's Baikonur launch complex could not be reached by heavy barge so for transport by rail all the stages had to be broken and re-assembled. Because of this, the complex and destructive vibrational modes (which ripped apart propellant lines and turbines) as well as exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems (causing vehicle roll, vacuum cavitation, and other problems) were not discovered and worked out before flight."
Is there proof that transport by heavy barge could have identified these failure modes?  Also the way the article is currently written, it sounds exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems may have been part of the lack of transport by heavy barge - which I assume wasn't the case. This paragraph could use clarification by someone familiar with the N1. - Thanks.
:Is the point of the comment that the N1 stages had to be built in small sections for transport, so they couldn't be tested all-up until they were assembled at the launch site?
:: I believe that's the case. NASA test-fired the Saturn V stages before the all-up launch tests, but the Soviets couldn't do the same for the N1 stages (though presumably they could have done after they arrived at the launc site?) Mark Grant 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You hit the nail on the head with the lack of test stands. The last launch 7L almost flew to Block A burnout. In fact they could have staged it early and burned Block B longer for a successful mission. The problems were not unsurmoutable. It's just that the testing of Block A was carried out in flight and they did slowly get there. In James Harfords book (Korolevs biographer), most of the Soviet rocket scientists interviewed agree that vehicles 8L and 9L with the newer NK-33's would have probably delivered a successful launch finally. I tend to agree. The Saturn V had the benefit of static test firing the entire S1C cluster of 5 F1s, the N1 Block A did not. Lets not forget that there were massive problems that had to be solved with the S1C during those static tests, it was no "walk in the park" so to speak. ☭Soviet☭ 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems? 

message: What is the word one Russian government images from the USSR period, are they copyrighted?Chris H 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: N-1 images

message: All of soviet space systems (spacecrafts, launchers etc) after development under letter-figure designation obtained the open name in the form of any word.
What open name intended for N-1 if program N1-L3 not be cancelled?
: According to some sources, official open name for N-1 in case of success intended to be 'Raskat' (peal on Russian)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.119 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As with all new Soviet spacecraft and launch vehicles at the time, no name would have been officially designated until the N1 launch vehicle was fully qualifed and deemed a success. Before that point it had no official name so it could be 'wiped from the slate', as it was after it was cancelled in 1974. ☭Soviet☭ 20:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: N-1 full naming

message: I know it was the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry, could we get a pic of that on here? It'll look cool. 207.199.222.64 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any pics of the July 3rd, 1969 explosion? 

message: Hope I get this right, I am new to wikis!
I have been doing considerable reseach on the N-1, and would like to propose that the article here links to it. 
The main page is here:
http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/
And I have found a great many images, not generally known, here:
http://www.starbase1.co.uk/n1/images/index.html
Is this suitable?
I'd also recommend linking to the 'Novosti Kosmonavtiki' galleries showing amazing photos of the remains of the launch facilities:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_077/index.shtml
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_076/index.shtml
Nick
155.136.80.173 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-1 reference material 

message: The text says 10 m while the side table says 17 m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a good explanation for the discrepancies and have to do with the fact that the first vehicle, 3L didn't have a skirt around the 24 outer engines as wide as the later and more definitive vehicles such 7L (and 8L and 9L which were ready for an August launch at the time of cancellation in May 1974) Essentially every N1 model, mostly Block A, the first stage, was improved in some way after each test flight revealed flaws. I have added a reference with diagrams that backs up the almost 17m (16.9 actually) diameter that the table specifies. Block A was actualy 10m wide at the top near the inter-stage, I've corrected that text and will add that aforementioned reference there. ☭Soviet☭ 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter? 

message: I have removed the section about possible name because it seems consisting mostly on groundless claims ("some sources" is not a reference) and original research. It is possible to put back after any citation would be found.
START OF THE REMOVED SECTION
According to some sources, it was intended to be Raskat (, "peal"), but other sources say that this name was for a military version of N1, with a few tens of super-power nuclear warheads, only. Western analysts and journalists earlier supposed and wrote that the public name was intended to be Nauka (, "Science"), Lenin (), Rossiya (, "Russia"), Gerkules (, "Heracles"), or Gigant (, "Giant"), but all of these were unlikely.
END OF THE REMOVED SECTION
::I agree. As I explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N1_(rocket)#N-1_full_naming ☭Soviet☭ 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section about the official name 

message: Astronautix lists 70,000kg, Russianspaceweb lists 86,182kg and the wikipage lists 75,000kg, so which is it?
--Craigboy (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Energia page gives 75,000 - see also here. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  75 tonnes to LEO is for the original 24 engine design, which was never built nor flown. After Korolev decided to go for a single launch scenario like the US Saturn V Apollo, the N1 was upgraded on paper by the addition of 6 centre engines, the reduction of the initial orbital inclination to save energy, the super-cooling of propellants to increase total propellant mass and the reduction of the lunar orbit as well as increasing the thrust on Blocks B and V by a small marign (2% I think off the top of my head). All this gave the 30 engine N1s 95 metric tonnes to LEO. I've added references from good sources to back up the new figures. There are sources that state 88, 90 or 93 metric tonnes but these are interim improvements and not the definitive article as flown on the 4 test flights that sadly failed. ☭Soviet☭ 17:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payload to LEO 

message: The comparative drawings photo is way off. The Saturn was 20 feet taller than the N-1. In the drawings it shows them to be equal in height.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.171.178 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 363 - 345 = 18 feet, but you're essentially right; that makes the N1/L3 llaunch stack 5% shorter than the Saturn V stack (including the payloads). The picture (which comes from a NASA publication) isn't scaled quite properly. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, that assumes that the height of the N1, with the launch escape tower (which isn't quoted), is accurately known. A better judge of the scale might be with dimensions that are known, such as the stage or spacecraft (Apollo and LOK SM) diameters. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Vick essentially solved all these mysteries when he interviewed Vassily Mishin back in the late 90's I think and got him to actually sign off and review his drawings comparing not only the Saturn V in its 2 configurations (Skylab and Apollo) and N1/L3 but also Chelomeis UR-700 -- Saturn V Apollo 110m and the N1/L3 with the Safety Assurance System (SAS - Soviet nomenclature) included is 105m -- http://fas.org/irp/imint/94vol47_vick.htm ☭Soviet☭ 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After having a good hard long look at that picture in question, I think the scale is correct. There is a little man at the bottom of the picture. If you put that little man on top of himself 2 times, assuming he's rougly 6 feet tall, you could fit about 3 of him on top of the N1 SAS tower for the 18 feet in question! The scale is correct IMHO. ☭Soviet☭ 21:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale on comparative sizes drawing 

message: This just has to be wrong: "When Gemini missions put the US in the lead in space development, Korolev pressured Nikita Khrushchev into making a lunar landing before the US."
*Khrushchev was kicked out of office in November 1964
*Gemini didn't start flying until 1965, and only started to achieve the lead in late 1965 and 1966.
*According to what is known, it was Khrushchev who bullied Korolev into not pursuing his Soyuz lunar program, in favor of trying to kluge Vostok into a Gemini competitor. History shows how well that worked out.
It is much more likely that Korolev persuaded (pressured?) Khruschev's successor to allow him to pursue the lunar program. (As with much of this article, citations are still needed.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space race 

message: The bulk of this article documents the N1/L3 manned lunar space vehicle; that is the major reason the subject is notable, as opposed to just being something on the Soviet drawing boards in 1959. The intro must summarize all information contained in the article, including why it was terminated (failed). The article cannot be improved by just taking a hacksaw to it. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper removal of lead information 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:N1 booster lp.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: This article says:  "...a direct ascent profile similar to Apollo was selected."
But Apollo used a lunar orbit rendezvous profile, not a direct ascent profile -- right?
User:Jayintheusa  —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, even though Apollo originally chose direct ascent for a relatively short time. The sentence as written makes little sense, so I've moved it here. It's uncited and essentially OR. If this was 1966, Korolev must surely have been able to figure out that a direct-ascent three-man lander would have required something the size of the US's planned Nova rocket, or else the lunar payload would have had to be scaled down to land fewer men. They might have been forced to decide direct ascent by the fact that they had wasted time with Voskhod and so were behind in demonstrating rendezvous and docking, but this isn't stated very well. And in fact, they also ended up selecting lunar orbit rendezvous, but since their propulsive efficiency was much lower than the roughly equal-sized Saturn V, they could only take two men and land one. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect comparison to Apollo program 

message: Because this event is cited elsewhere, more info is needed concerning it & the vehicle.
1. The infobox should list launch weight of propellant & LOX
2. The flight paragraph should find a source for the amount of stuff remaining that blew up. It could also explain the theoretical energy of that size explosion.
165.121.80.134 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 1969 explosion facts 

message: Per ordinance from the Church of XKCD, can someone please delete all the "one of the" before man-made non-nuclear explosions?
Flymousechiu (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pet Peeve -- ONE OF THE 

message: The table comparing the N1 with the Saturn V gives the Saturn V's primary units as English engineering, while the N1 gives SI as primary. This results in the SI units being center-most, which should make them easy to compare (which is the intent of this table). Since by default the primary units are unabbreviated while the converted units are abbreviated, I set abbreviation off which should make them easiest to compare. (You just have to ignore the existence of the parentheses in the left column.)
There is a display=table option in the convert template which puts the conversions in a separate table column; in theory this should make it easiest to read, but I tried it, and in practice it doesn't work because it doesn't print units header rows (because all the rows have different units.)
As the table stands now, is it really unreadable? (BTW, I have what should be the identical table in the Saturn V article. Someone already switched that so the units are in consistent order, but they're both English-first.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a rest-of-world engineering article and the purpose of the table is to compare the subject (N1) with the Saturn V, I think the units for both rockets should be SI-first with imperial units parenthetical. I think that will be easier to follow than having the unit order change between columns. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans have always used imperial system, so it seems more appropriate to use such for Saturn V ? Wasn't there a Mars probe that was trashed because NASA used imperial and ESA used metric, thus meters per second values were about 3 times feet per second values for de-orbit burn and this was the reason the probe ploughed into Mars rather than soft landed ? Not related to N1, but just using as an example of US imperial use and mostly rest of world metric use ? The table is quite readable as is. I found it useful. 5.56.31.175 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, primary units are decided per-article. See WP:UNIT. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up to this, I tried making some changes yesterday for readability, but they were reversed (however, the abbr=off for the first stage thrust was added back by a different user). My reason for changing the Total Impulse section for the N1-L3 under the orbital insertion stage was because in the converted values, the Apollo-Saturn V shows 1,733,600,000 pounds-force, and the N1-L3 shows 1.789 x 109. This prevents an easy comparison of pounds-force and requires either converting it in your head or using kilonewtons (which negates the reasoning for having the conversion listed). It can also be confusing for those not understanding scientific notation. Additionally, it is not consistent with the rest of the table (there are 12 entries that have pounds-force, and only 2 of them use scientific notation). If we aren't supposed to use lbf and flip it, is there a way to ensure lbf isn't switched to scientific notation in the conversion? (I noticed that in my original edit I missed the Total Impulse for the Earth departure stage as well.) Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the problem is the use of scientific notation in one column and not in the other, I'll see if I can find a way to fix it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The switch to scientific notation was not asked for, and seems to be a bug of the convert template. If you can fix it, Kendal, that would be appreciated (I'm not highly literate in template-programming.) Bassmadrigal, the only reason I reverted your abbreviation=on change is because it made the units fields inconsistent, which I think is more important. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my only current issue regarding the table. I tried to look for a way to prevent the scientific notation, but my google-fu skills are weak. Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: My initial edit included changing the abbv to off for consistency. I believe Kendall just reverted my whole edit rather than just changing back the Total Impulse section. As for the other edit, I assumed the scientific notation was a bug with the convert template, but since I had no experience with that, I figured it would just be easier to change the table to use lbf and then just flip it so it still shows the kilonewtons as the primary number. Visually, it would've solved the issue, but I guess the underlying information needs to relate directly to the sources without any conversion. Bassmadrigal (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I reverted the whole thing. The abbr param is correct now. I don't like changing the input numbers because I've seen several cases where primary units have gone back and forth and you end up with rounding error. I tried a few things and have asked at the template talk page. I could also change it to "million foot-pound." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hold off on changing it to million foot-pound, since the various thrust amounts range from "hundred thousand" to "billion" and I think it might make it more cluttered. Maybe the template can come up with a better solution. If not, I'd vote for leaving it as is. Bassmadrigal (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The latest would be my preference. Bassmadrigal (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion at Template talk:Convert, the convert template can't do that. I like using "million" myself but I can see why you don't. Should we just go ahead and convert manually to kN, and put the original number in a comment? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Actually the better solution is probably to not use the template at all for these two cases. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; not using the template is not a good option. What is wrong with using scientific notation on both sides? That makes comparison easy (I personally don't think it's that hard anyway, since the exponent is a multiple of 9 and we're talking about billions.) But I think you guys are beating this to death; notice essentially the same table exists in the Saturn V article (except there English units are first), and there the total impulse and payload momentum are given in scientific notation on both sides. Why don't we do it like that? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My only qualm with using scientific notation is that it isn't immediately obvious how big that number is for someone who isn't familiar with it. I still have to parse it in my head to try and make comparisons to other numbers that are not in scientific notation (which is why I originally edited them). As for the comparison to the table on the Saturn V article, looking at that corroborates my difficulty in quickly comparing those numbers (I'd imagine I'm not the only one). Since the template can't accomplish this, I vote for either not use the template at all (my preference for consistency on the table) or to use million/billion rather than scientific notation. I think almost anyone understands that, where not everyone will be familiar with scientific notation. Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I just thought of another point that you may be missing: the units kilogram-meter-per-second and newton-second are numerically equivalent to each other (ditto slug-foot-per-second and pound-second); therefore the total impulse and payload momentum should be formatted consistently with each other for easiest comparison (the ratio of the two is "propulsive efficiency".) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: As per my response above, I think I'd prefer to not use scientific notation and either not use the template (my preference for consistency on the table) or to use millions/billions. As for 106 kilonewtons vs 109 kilonewtons, I don't think it is a big deal. The comparison isn't being made against kilonewtons and lbf, it's between the N1-L3 and the Saturn V. As long as the kN matches on both sides, the comparison can still be made (even if you may not necessarily understand how big the number is, you can at least tell how big it is compared to other one. Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I changed my mind and agree the template shouldn't be used for the total impulse lines, since this far outstrips its ability, including how the hybrid units should be rendered. The units are "kilonewton•seconds" and "pound•seconds". I'd recommend typing these lines in manually. Don't use "millions or billions". JustinTime55 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: It should be good now; no scientific notation, and the total impulse units are written out properly. Same also applies to the payload momentum (which was done that way also). JustinTime55 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reasonably happy with this. I have a personal preference for scientific notation but for our general WP audience this may be best. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Thanks, everyone, for your time and input! Bassmadrigal (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability of comparison table 

message: Was it assembled/integrated vertically or horizontally ? Either way, how was it transported to the launch pad and was the mechanism made or modified especially for the N1 ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this wonderful page Differences between N-1 Variants which has images after horizontal integration, and showing the transporter/erector. Everything seems to be running on railway track. - Rod57 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That starbase URL sadly no longer works. Try Identifiying the different N-1 variants - Shows the first N-1 partly erected. - Rod57 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What launch facilities required - Transporter-erector 

message: Article says "During the N1's lifetime, a series of improved engines was introduced to replace those used in the original design. The first stage used an adaptation of the NK-15 known as the NK-33, the second stage a similar modification known as the NK-43, and finally the third stage used the NK-31. The resulting modified N1 was known as the N1F, but did not fly before the project's cancellation." Perhaps the 'stage's do not refer to the structure of the N1, but to sequential improvements in the engine design. If true, could we reword 'stage' to 'improvement' or 'variant' ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they were the physical stages, but see the engine details comment below. - Rod57 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify use of 'stage' 

message: I've tagged the statement as dubious and will remove it in a few days if nobody objects. Concerns have been raised in 2017 and consensus seems to be that it's widely inaccurate. I don't think the statement can be salvaged with something like "some estimates say...", it's just nonsensical. Isa (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed two sentences: "The telemetry system relayed data back at an estimated rate of 9.6 gigabytes per second on 320,000 channels on 14 frequencies. Commands could be sent to an ascending N1 at the same rate." The 9.6 GB/s part seems nonsensical and so the second sentence becomes irrelevant. I'm less sure about channels and frequencies, but since they're from the same source, I've removed the whole thing. Isa (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems reasonable. Also pertaining to the channels and frequencies calculation done 2 sections up. There usually there has to be a guard band in between each channel to prevent cross talk, which might reduce the possibilities even further. Seems like some serious capability for what was the first Soviet digital computer onboard a launch vehicle. I have found some good references from Vassily Mishin's actual diaries translated in english which will be very usefull in this article when I get time to integrate them and maybe remove more "waffle". Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  9.6 GB/s 

message: I was wondering if there is any info on the "lattice" interstage? Is it lighter than a "solid" (or sheet metal I guess it would be). Does it generate a lot of turbulence, not streamlined well? Why did the designer choose this design.
Similarly with the "conical" design verus cylindrical. Why'd they go that way? Are russsians still doing it this way?Feldercarb (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lattice interstage is very common in the Russian/Soviet designs, because these rockets "hotstage", in that the upper stage engines start firing before the lower stage burnout and separation, to avoid the need for ullage motors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardorejorge (talk • contribs) 08:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As someone who lives in the former USSR and has studied the space progrramme since childhood, yes I concur with Leonardorejorge. This is exactly the reasons for this tyoe of setup. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design decisions/aerodynamics 

message: I don't believe this is correct.  Voltage is not drawn, it is generated.  Electrical current is drawn.  I don't have the technical knowledge of this system to correct this line. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Also, the system ended up drawing 25V instead of its designed 15V" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: in the information below the picture it says "has use", is this some sort of translate error or am i reading it wrong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himini (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been changed. - Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does "has use" mean? - moot 

message: Just removed this statement, plus the corresponding July 3 statement as the reference does not mention anything about it being one of the largest explosions in history and / or  biggest explosion in the history of rocketry. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history 

message: N-1 was moved on rails to the pad, and then erected. Could mention/show what was used. No mention in Transporter erector either. - Rod57 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seen my similar 2018 comment above - So I've mentioned the transporter and given a link to images. I think images show it was on multiple rail tracks, but one source calls it a crawler-transporter. - Rod57 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How was N-1 moved to launch pad and then erected 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Fappy45 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science