As we know, during the Space Race, the United States and the Soviet Union were in fierce competition. Each trying to best the other by creating their idea of a moon rocket. While the United States's aprroch was to increase the size of their engines(resulting in the F-1 engine), the Soviet Union simply decided to add more engine to each stage.
Each design choice at first may seem equal, however, the records of both rockets tell otherwise. While the succes to failure rate of the Saturn V was nearly perfect, the N-1 failed on every one of its four launches.
While it may be tempting to simply say the Soviet's rocket design was dumb, it seems that many other prominent factors played a role in the failure of the N-1 program. Such as this excerpt from Wikipedia states:
N1-L3 was underfunded and rushed, starting development in October 1965, almost four years after the Saturn V. The project was badly derailed by and the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966.
Along with above, there seemed to be strife and disagreement between certain, key project leaders, which also probably caused friction in the project. Furthermore, from what I've read, the engines used on the N-1 were fairly well designed and tested.
In short, it seems that the failure of the N-1 rocket was a result of many external problems, instead of it simply having a "dumb" design.
This brings me to my question. If The problems above were eliminated, and a N-1 rocket design was given proper funding, R & D, etc., then could a working N-1 rocket(or a rocket of similar design)be successfully constructed and flown today? Or does the N-1 simply have a bad design?
NOTE: my use of the word "modern" in the title is a little different from its actual meaning. When I say "a modern N-1 rocket", I simply mean a rocket which would be designed, built, and tested today, without all of its past design problems.