The Snow Flies: A History of the Soviet Space Shuttle

Fun, but it all seems like a big accident waiting to happen. Hopefully they will find a good reason to keep going despite the inevitable set-backs.

Regarding the demise of the ISS, wasn't there some sort of competition between the international space station and the Texas super collider over funding in the US and with the ISS winning led to the cancellation of the particle accelerator which left the collider at cern as the only alternative and the greater need for communication there led to the whole world wide web thing.

Something along those lines at least. You have to wonder what sort of changes a butterfly like this might set of.
 
Fun, but it all seems like a big accident waiting to happen. Hopefully they will find a good reason to keep going despite the inevitable set-backs.

Regarding the demise of the ISS, wasn't there some sort of competition between the international space station and the Texas super collider over funding in the US and with the ISS winning led to the cancellation of the particle accelerator which left the collider at cern as the only alternative and the greater need for communication there led to the whole world wide web thing.

Something along those lines at least. You have to wonder what sort of changes a butterfly like this might set of.
No, not really. The SSC was suffering from decisions made in the 1980s, both technical and political. In particular, it had been positioned from the outset as a way to reassert American dominance over high-energy physics, and between that and the project snubbing the "official" method of coordinating international collider construction (which had been set up in no small part through American pressure, note), they had trouble bringing on international collaborators. CERN in particular was never a realistic partner for that reason, and because they had already committed themselves to the LHC by the time the SSC was in progress. That obviously made it vulnerable to cancellation, since it had a smaller pool of support than other large projects, including the ISS. Combine that with the significant managerial problems the SSC was suffering as a result of being located at a greenfield site (i.e., no existing HR infrastructure to take advantage of) and being led, on the physics side, by people who were completely new to multi-billion dollar projects and, on the engineering side, by defense contractors and ex-military figures completely new to physics research, and it was pretty much doomed in any timeline that doesn't have changes specifically related to it.

The ISS also had some of these issues, but as bad as it got the managerial problems were less all-encompassing, and it was positioned as an international station from the the Freedom days. American-led, sure, but not an all-American project like the SSC. That meant that there was outside pressure on Congress to keep it going, and it was easier to keep expanding it to new partners like Russia when the opportunity arose. It certainly wasn't competing with the SSC for funding, except in a loose sense; after all, the Texas delegation was the lynchpin of support for both of them.
 
The SSC was suffering from decisions made in the 1980s, both technical and political.
The SSC stand for Superconducting Super Collider, means the magnets had to cooled down with liquid helium, in 1993 superconductors were not so advance as 2009 as CERN build the Large Hadron Collider.
Next to that were projected Power need for SSC of 20 TeV, in contrast LHC has only 13 TeV in total (2015).
SSC planned ring circumference was 87.1 kilometers (54.1 mi) again LHC is 27 kilometers (17 mi) in circumference or 1/3 of SSC.
also was project conceived in 1983 and after 10 years they start dig the Tunnel for construction to complete somewhere in 2003.
in mean time Capitol Hill jump on program "blaming" about the poor management by physicists and Department of Energy officials, made endless hearings about "usefulness" or "outrageous spending of 2 Billion Dollar" and finally killed the Program on October 31, 1993.

another victim in time was Space Station Freedom were Capitol Hill start same game, "blaming" the poor management by NASA and made endless hearings about "usefulness" or "outrageous cost" and almost killed the Program.
But in contrast to DoE had NASA a "trump card": the international Agreement with Japanese and European Space Agency and get the Russian also into project.

What happen physicists working on SSC ? they went to CERN and there Large Hadron Collider project, For Moment study CERN a upgrade into the High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider.
Oh are the Chinese building a large Collider for moment ?
 
Yeah. If the SSC had actually been set up rationally, there'd have been international cooperation and it would have been built near an existing accelerator, probably Fermilab, IMO. Politics meant it had to be in Texas, therefore a greenfield site, which led to its downfall.
Sort of like the Shuttle being the size it was for Defense purposes, which made it less viable as a real project.

So, Congress complains because of problems that Congress (or the necessity of congressional support) imposed in the first place....
 
Yeah. If the SSC had actually been set up rationally, there'd have been international cooperation and it would have been built near an existing accelerator, probably Fermilab, IMO. Politics meant it had to be in Texas, therefore a greenfield site, which led to its downfall.
Ah, well, it's a complicated story (I literally read the book on it last year, while writing Dancing with ISABELLE). There's a long series of decisions which led to the SSC being the size that it was, lacking international cooperation as it did, and being located in Texas as it was. First off, although American physicists had pushed the idea of international cooperation in accelerator construction since the 1960s, nothing much had been happening with the institutions set up to facilitate such cooperation, so they had been growing more skeptical of tying themselves to outsiders. Second, as I mentioned Reagan had been rather enthusiastic about the idea of promoting American science, and although he himself didn't get involved until pretty late in the project his appointees--the Secretary of Energy and his staff members--tended to steer physicists towards really big Big Science. Third, CERN was already working on the LHC when the SSC got rolling. The LEP dates back to the late '70s, and the LHC came in pretty shortly afterwards. That's important to note, the LHC was not a successor to the SSC, but a contemporary. Obviously that meant that CERN was predisposed to see problems in the SSC. Fourth, there was a combination of very little data and very much speculation that made a very large accelerator seem attractive, from a physics standpoint; the mass of the Higgs boson, in particular, was very badly constrained, and there were theories that put it up to about 2 TeV in mass. To create a particle that big requires a 40 TeV collider, more or less, which is exactly how big the SSC was chosen to be. Fifth, there was enthusiasm about new technology that would, in theory, allow building a big collider much more cheaply than expected from previous colliders (in other words, Robert Wilson was his usual self). All of these factors combined to make a really big accelerator really attractive, versus the kind of thing that you could easily build at Fermilab, and made it really hard to pull in CERN.

And that's just the decisions that led up to the initial decision to pursue a big accelerator; I haven't even gotten into the issues that led to Texas being selected, or why international partners other than CERN (meaning Japan, basically) never joined the project, much less how it ran into problems after that decision! So, like I said, you really have to dig deep to fix the SSC's problems. They emerged directly from the way it came to be.

The SSC stand for Superconducting Super Collider, means the magnets had to cooled down with liquid helium, in 1993 superconductors were not so advance as 2009 as CERN build the Large Hadron Collider.
Ah...that's not really true. Remember, CERN was working on the LHC at exactly the same time that the United States was working on the SSC, so both projects were designed around magnets that looked feasible to develop in the early-mid 1980s. In fact, the SSC magnets were much less aggressive than CERN's contemporary targets, as CERN was aiming for 18 TeV at that time. That would have required considerably (infeasibly, as it turned out) more powerful magnets, because they were also aiming to fit LHC inside the LEP tunnel. The United States, in this case, had the luxury of space and could therefore trade magnet strength for a longer tunnel, which it did, aiming at only 6.25 Tesla in the central field. For comparison, the actual CERN magnets for the LHC develop over 8 Tesla, and contemporary magnets suitable for mass production could relatively easily generate about 5 Tesla. So the SSC was pretty conservative in its magnets, so far as field strength was concerned.

What happen physicists working on SSC ? they went to CERN and there Large Hadron Collider project, For Moment study CERN a upgrade into the High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider.
Oh are the Chinese building a large Collider for moment ?
Maybe, maybe not. They're talking about building the FCC (essentially), but that's going to be really expensive; I don't see why it would be any cheaper than building the SSC (which was a bit smaller and more conservative, even). I am very skeptical that the Chinese are going to be able to swing that on their own, and I say that as someone whose whole career in particle physics has been with a joint Chinese-American project, and who greatly respects my Chinese colleagues. The trouble isn't their capabilities--I'm sure they could build it if they had the money--it's getting the money. The Politburo has to be convinced to hand over billions of yuan to IHEP, and to keep doing every year for many years, even a decade or two. Sure, the bigwigs over there aren't accountable to voters, but that just means that there are different forces pulling on them, not that there are no forces pulling on them. When a big particle collider conflicts with PLAN or expanding clean energy or whatever other priorities that the Chinese leadership might have, will they stick with it, or will they just go ahead and let CERN take the lead and spend the francs while the Chinese get some of the glory reflected on them?
 
Fifth, there was enthusiasm about new technology that would, in theory, allow building a big collider much more cheaply than expected from previous colliders (in other words, Robert Wilson was his usual self). All of these factors combined to make a really big accelerator really attractive, versus the kind of thing that you could easily build at Fermilab, and made it really hard to pull in CERN.
??? why would it be hard to put an SSC sized ring at Batavia? Looking at Google maps, it doesn't look like there's a much in the way that would have to be moved for such a ring. Use OTL's ring as a booster. Or am I missing something?
 
??? why would it be hard to put an SSC sized ring at Batavia? Looking at Google maps, it doesn't look like there's a much in the way that would have to be moved for such a ring. Use OTL's ring as a booster. Or am I missing something?
They would have had to buy a lot of land, much of which was suburban and therefore relatively expensive, compared to cow pasture. And the locals (well, some of the locals) really didn't like Fermilab (there were protests when the evaluating committee showed up). It was felt that going to a greenfield site, the "desert" option, would be cheaper and easier than expanding Fermilab, especially when Waxahachie gave them a warm welcome and showed considerable enthusiasm for the project. They were wrong about that (well, they might have been right thinking about purely land-purchasing and tunnel-digging costs, but of course those aren't the only important things...), but that's how they felt.

That being said, it would certainly have been possible to build the SSC at Fermilab; after all, it came within an ace of winning the site competition IOTL. It was just that there was a feeling in the early 1980s that they needed to break out of the limitations of Fermilab and move to a new site, which fed into and was reinforced by the desire for the SSC, versus a feeling that they needed to take full advantage of what they could build at the existing site.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
No, not really. The SSC was suffering from decisions made in the 1980s, both technical and political. In particular, it had been positioned from the outset as a way to reassert American dominance over high-energy physics, and between that and the project snubbing the "official" method of coordinating international collider construction (which had been set up in no small part through American pressure, note), they had trouble bringing on international collaborators. CERN in particular was never a realistic partner for that reason, and because they had already committed themselves to the LHC by the time the SSC was in progress. That obviously made it vulnerable to cancellation, since it had a smaller pool of support than other large projects, including the ISS. Combine that with the significant managerial problems the SSC was suffering as a result of being located at a greenfield site (i.e., no existing HR infrastructure to take advantage of) and being led, on the physics side, by people who were completely new to multi-billion dollar projects and, on the engineering side, by defense contractors and ex-military figures completely new to physics research, and it was pretty much doomed in any timeline that doesn't have changes specifically related to it.

The ISS also had some of these issues, but as bad as it got the managerial problems were less all-encompassing, and it was positioned as an international station from the the Freedom days. American-led, sure, but not an all-American project like the SSC. That meant that there was outside pressure on Congress to keep it going, and it was easier to keep expanding it to new partners like Russia when the opportunity arose. It certainly wasn't competing with the SSC for funding, except in a loose sense; after all, the Texas delegation was the lynchpin of support for both of them.

In my researches for Explorers I never found any trace of a budget battle between SSC and ISS circa 1993. It's more or less an urban legend.
 
fasquardon said:
So what you've written in the updates is quite plausible, but I think the economic events that you hint at would be quite different from OTL's economic events, even if their effect on the space program is similar.

Fair enough, I'll take that :)

Michel Van said:
That ISS is dead in this TL is not surprise for me
In OTL ISS almost was killed by US Capitol Hill, would not be for "the little international agreement" NASA sign with Europeans and Japanese...

NASA save it's Space station with help of that agreement, but based on 1993 Option A-3
Far scale down version of planned Freedom or today ISS.
but still NASA has to launch more stuff in space as for ISS like US Habitat module.

In fact the Hab Module for Alpha is a "Common Core/Hab", so a mixture of an OTL Node module with an extension based on the lab module, but kitted out with crew systems. More on that in the next post.

Michel Van said:
on Euromir
one of problem of Euromir was lack of soviet module to modified for ESA, since MIR was complete in orbit and it rest sell to foreign countries, in TL this not happens.
another problem was death of French ESA Hermes program what had offer ESA access to Euromir module,.but since the Buran flies making it attractive for ESA.

I just wonder were are the French "Spationaute" ?
the French space agency CNES has a arbitrary way, with close ties with USSR.
there Astronaut group was incorporated into ESA team only in year 1999 !
while first french went 1982 into space to Soviet Space Station.

I had expect that French CNES "Spationaute" would do the Euromir mission in behalf of ESA.
while the germans and other ESA astronauts work on NASA space station module "Columbus".

"Euromir" (IOTL and ITTL) refers to not just Mir-2, but to missions by European astronauts to Mir-1. These haven't been explicitly called out in the TL, but a few have occurred, and likely include a Spationaut.

Michel Van said:
and there also the Chinese going into space and since US Capitol Hill made that idiotic ruling "no cooperation with China"
USSR will be willing to let Chinese into Station Mir-2 from 2005 on...

I'd say the Soviets would be willing to allow Chinese visits, so it's just a question of whether China wants to do them, or wait until they've developed their own systems.


Ato said:
Is it possible that the Soviets could end up selling Burya to another party? Like the ESA perhaps.

Shevek23 said:
Far too big a complex I'd imagine.
Yeah, Burya is just a museum exhibit unless one can make another rocket as big as Energia to lift it on. This also means making facilities to handle the big components.

etc...


As Shevek23 points out, the way in which Energia is constructed (major components flown in to Baikonur for final assembly - the core is just too big to be freighted in one go by road, rail or air, and the factories don't have access to sea ports) means ESA would have to build their own assembly facility to launch from Kourou. It's just not practical, even assuming ESA members were willing to fly an outsourced shuttle and forego all those lovely deveopment euros (or "Accounting Units" before 1999).

The option of keeping it at Baikonur would effectively be an agreement similar to the current US arrangement to buy Soyuz seats, but for whole crews at a time. ESA already an agreement to fly their astronauts on Soviet vehicles as part of the deal to fly Magellan (similar to the arrangement arkades proposed). Buying Burya or paying for dedicated launches would be a very expensive way of gaining a very marginal additional benefit, aside from the fact (as Shevek23 points out) that by 1999 Burya is being used as a source of spares that are otherwise unavailable (or at least very expensive). This is also a factor against China buying the shuttle, plus the fact China after 1992 is already committed to building their own Project 921 capsule.


On the topic of the SSC and its competition or not with the ISS, I don't have anything to add to the very thourough discussion already explored by Loki-L, Workable Goblin, Michel Van, Dathi THorfinnsson and Archibald. Based on the general consensus there I'd say it's highly likely the SSC was cancelled ITTL just as IOTL.
 
Mission 1K4: Buran-Mir-2
Mission 1K4: Buran-Mir-2, March 1999

31938149914_cc2850dca4_b.jpg

Space Truckers

By 1999 Low Earth Orbit had become a busy construction site, in which winged shuttles were finally able to fulfill the role envisaged for them since before the dawn of the Space Age: orbital trucks, hauling the cargo and supplies necessary to assemble and maintain large, permanent space stations. The US was leading the way, as starting with the launch of Atlantis on STS-86/Alpha Assembly Flight 1 in September 1997, the Americans used their shuttle to first build an unmanned “Power Station” before going on to develop a man-tended capability with the addition of the first Common Core/Lab pressurised module (“Destiny”) [1] on STS-90/AAF-4 in June 1998. Less than one year later, in May 1999, Alpha reached its Initial Permanent Crew Capability, with Discovery delivering the first of two Soviet-built Soyuz-ACRV lifeboats to the station on mission STS-93/AAF-4a. With this addition the crew of Alpha Expedition 1, James Voss and Ellen Ochoa, began a permanent US crewed space presence which continues to this day. With this milestone achieved, attention next shifted to providing an “Initial International Crew Capability” through the addition of the European Columbus and Japanese Kibo modules. Assuming no unexpected problems arose, NASA was on course to achieve their objective of a permanent crew of six before the end of 2002, when AAF-13 was scheduled to deliver the second Soyuz-ACRV.

32781341695_d537a4cbc5_b.jpg


Mesh modified from “ISS (Mesh Only)” by ChrisKuhn

In comparison, the Soviets had placed much more emphasis on unmanned launchers to support the assembly of their space station, reflecting their previous experience with Salyut and Mir. While NASA’s fleet of four shuttle orbiters were supporting five or six assembly flights per year, VKA’s single operational orbiter, Buran, was assigned to carry only the largest and most complex components for Mir-2, where the shuttle’s heavy lift capability and support for complex human-guided operations would have the greatest value. The first such mission came in March 1999 with the launch of mission 1K4.

Following her flight to Mir in mid-1997, Buran had undergone a comparatively rapid and trouble-free turnaround, and was ready to support another mission as early as December 1997. Her carrier rocket, Energia vehicle 7L, was not far behind, with all components integrated at Baikonur in January 1998. However, on this occasion the problem was with the payload. The two large Science Power Platform trusses (“Nauchno-Energeticheskaya Platforma”, or NEP) had been starved of funds during the financial crisis as meagre resources were diverted to the critical initial modules of the station. The design was not finalised until late in 1995, with construction only starting at RKK Energia in early 1997.

The main assembly of NEP-1 did not arrive at Baikonur’s MIK 2B payload processing facility until October 1998. This consisted of a pressurised module containing gyrodynes and control systems; a fixed truss containing batteries, propellant tanks and a deployable radiator; and an extending truss section terminating in the solar array drive assembly. The solar panels themselves were stowed in separate packages tied to the side of the truss, to be unpacked and connected by spacewalking cosmonauts. Folded tightly against the side of the truss were the two VDU propulsion units, larger versions of the experimental unit that had been tested on Mir’s Sofora truss. The final item to be shipped with the NEP was the ESA-supplied European Robotic Arm (ERA), which had been delivered to the Soviets earlier in the year. ERA was an important part of plans for Mir-2 as it would enable the repositioning of heavy station modules and other payloads when Buran and its twin SBM manipulators were unavailable.

Integration and testing of the NEP-1 package proceeded over the following two months before the entire assembly was moved to the MIK RN and carefully lowered into Buran’s cargo bay. At almost 22 tonnes, NEP-1 was by far the heaviest payload yet for the Soviet shuttle, and together with the SM docking module completely filled the orbiter’s cargo bay. [2] In an unusual step, fuelling of NEP-1’s propellant tanks was carried out in the MZK along with Buran’s own on-board propellant loading. This was done in order to minimise the amount of time that the poisonous UDMH/N2O4 propellants would be present in the stack, necessitating special precautions when working on the spacecraft. With this hazardous task completed, the payload bay was re-sealed and the Buran/Energia-7L stack rolled out to Pad 38 for final preparations and fueling of the Energia rocket.

Controversial Crew

One positive aspect of the enforced delay in launching mission 1K4 was that it gave time for the necessary remodelling of Buran’s mid-deck Habitation Compartment to allow the fitting of ejection seats in the BO. The number of crew members carried could therefore be expanded beyond the initially planned four, to potentially as many as ten. In the end however, it was decided to include only three additional crew members, bringing the total up to seven (coincidentally the normal maximum crew complement of the US space shuttle).

Commanding the spacecraft would be Ivan Bachurin, who had been part of the GKNII-1 group of pilot-cosmonauts selected for the shuttle programme back in 1979. Piloting Buran would be Valeriy Maksimenko, a member of the 1990 GKNII-4 intake of cosmonauts, with the remaining two flight deck seats taken by TsPK flight engineers Valeriy Illarionov and Sergei Avdeyev. Taking the first of three seats in the BO was Vladimir Dezhurov, veteran of Mir expedition EO-18 during which Buran had docked with the station on mission 1K2.

The next seat was assigned to NASA astronaut Jerry Linenger, whose participation in the mission was part of a series of US-Soviet crew exchanges that had been agreed to alongside the signing of the contract for Alpha’s Soyuz-ACRV lifeboats back in 1994. The programme had previously seen astronaut John Blaha visit Mir on Soyuz TM-24 in 1996 (to be picked up by the shuttle Atlantis later that same year) and cosmonaut Yelena Kondakova join the crew of Columbia as part of STS-83 in 1997. Linenger had originally been planned to fly to Mir-2 aboard Soyuz TMA-5, but the opening up of mid-deck seats on Buran was an opportunity that neither the Soviets nor NASA wanted to pass up, and he’d switched to training for 1K4 in mid-1998.

Linenger’s participation in the mission had however been put into some doubt when NASA discovered who was to fly in Buran’s final available seat: MirCorp investor and the world’s second space tourist Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria. NASA (with no apparent sense of irony) considered the Soviets’ commercial sale of berths on their spacecraft to private individuals to be in some way demeaning to NASA’s own state employed astronauts. The announcement that Indian-American businessman Kathuria would be sharing a ride with Linenger caused some diplomatic tension between Washington and Moscow in the winter of 1998/99, with pressure also being applied to US-based MirCorp to withdraw from the mission.

Despite the fact that many in the Soviet space programme privately agreed with NASA’s view, in the end these efforts came to nothing, and the American agency grudgingly accepted Kathuria’s presence on the mission (though they insisted on referring to him as a “citizen astronaut” in NASA press briefings, while everyone else continued to use the term “space tourist”).

Journey to Mir-2

Buran experienced a trouble-free launch on 20th March 1999. The surplus of time available for pre-flight servicing, combined with the heightened media attention surrounding the launch of Linenger and Kathuria, meant that there had been a special focus on quality during pre-launch processing of the orbiter and and its launcher to ensure no embarrassing systems failures would marr the mission. In particular, the word came down from the central government that any repeat of the engine trouble seen on mission 1K3 would result in criminal prosecutions of all involved. This crude threat appeared to have the desired effect, as 1K4 went on to have the fewest number of reported anomalies from any Energia launch to date.

Once on orbit, the seven-man crew were able to stretch their legs, with Buran’s accommodations easily able to support the enlarged crew. Whilst Bachurin and Maksimenko were occupied with putting Buran on a trajectory to intercept Mir-2, Illarionov and Dezhurov busied themselves by checking out the shuttle’s NEP-1 payload. Avdeyev and Linenger were tasked with activating the experiments hosted in the BO, whilst Kathuria made himself useful performing various housekeeping tasks, alongside his main objective of filming promotional videos for MirCorp’s publicity efforts. For sleeping arrangements, Bachurin and Maksimenko both remained in the KO, with all of the other cosmonauts sharing accommodations in the BO.

On the morning of 22nd March, Buran was ready to make its final approach to the new Soviet space station. After making a brief fly-around of the station, Bachurin lined the shuttle up with the APAS-89 port of it’s SM facing the axial port of the Yedinstvo module. During final approach Mir-2’s resident crew, Vasily Tsibliyev and Aleksandr Kaleri, retreated to their Soyuz TMA-3 spacecraft, but remained docked to the station, ready to separate only if an emergency demanded it. In the event their caution was not needed, as Buran gently nudged up to the station. Thirty minutes after hard-dock, the two crews greeted one another in Yedinstvo, forming the largest on-orbit crew of any space mission to date [3].

31938150014_45daa7cbdd_b.jpg


Putting it All Together

The next few days saw Mir-2 become a hive of activity, starting with the removal of NEP-1 from Buran’s cargo bay and its attachment to Yedinstvo’s Y- mid-point docking port on 23rd January. With docking confirmed good, Kaleri entered the NEP’s pressurised module and commanded the full extension of its truss, ready to receive the solar arrays. This relatively straightforward task was then followed by one of the most complex EVAs ever attempted, as Bachurin and Illarionov exited Buran’s SM airlock whilst Dezhurov and Kaleri egressed the Pirs docking module, with Maksimenko controlling Buran’s two SBM arms from the Command Compartment to move the four spacewalkers to the newly installed NEP-1 truss. Over twelve hours, this record-breaking spacewalk saw the VDUs deployed and the solar arrays connected to the rotary joint at the end of the truss.

The next day saw the NEP’s radiator deployed and internal connections made, before Kaleri and Illarionov once again ventured outside the station on 25th January to wire up the solar panels and run external mechanical and electrical connections between the NEP and Yedinstvo modules. With this task completed after an exhausting 8-hour spacewalk, NEP-1 was finally given the command to unfurl its solar wings and began feeding 40 kW of electrical power into the station’s systems.

32781447395_a0bc5a59ec_b.jpg

While the Soviet cosmonauts focussed on expanding their station, NASA astronaut Linenger spent most of his time installing and tending experiments in the Mir-2 Base Block. These were primarily related to human health and space environment issues, designed to provide comparable datasets of human reactions aboard both Mir-2 and Alpha. An example of this was the IREX experiment, which was designed to measure the radiation environment within Mir-2 whilst a similar detector installed on NEP-1 would relay measurements from outside the station. Identical instruments were already in place aboard Alpha’s Destiny module and S1 truss, allowing scientists and engineers to directly compare how the different orbits and construction of the two stations affected the radiation fluxes experienced by the crews.

Although the results of this and other experiments were received positively, Linenger himself proved to be a more disruptive element. With electrical power aboard the station limited before the deployment of the NEP-1 arrays, the US astronaut found his activities frequently disrupted by power shortages. Also frustrating was the Soviet approach to undertaking mission tasks on a largely ad-hoc basis, in stark contrast to the detailed timelines and procedures defined by NASA for its astronauts. Any activity that required the support of the Soviet cosmonauts was subject to their own, often shifting priorities, which played havoc with Linenger’s carefully crafted schedules. The fact that the American astronaut was not shy in voicing his displeasure did nothing to encourage his Soviet comrades to go out of their way to help him.

Nor did it help that Linenger managed to alienate his only other potential assistant, space tourist Dr. Kathuria. Kathuria had early on volunteered to support Linenger with any routine, non-specialist tasks, only to be sharply rebuffed. Part of this was a reflection of NASA’s official disapproval of space tourism, but part seemed to have been a simple personality clash. In either case, the result was Kathuria devoted more time to his promotional activities and Earth-watching, whilst Linenger fell further behind in his scheduled activities.

Back to Earth

After five days docked to the station, Buran’s crew of seven re-boarded the shuttle and prepared for departure. The mission had been by far the most intensive of any previously flown by the Soviet shuttle, setting new records for the number of man-hours of EVA in such a short period. Despite their exhaustion though, the crew of 1K4 could look back with satisfaction at a job well done, with the fruits of their efforts clearly visible as the shuttle pulled away from the station. Mir-2 had gone from a small collection of linked modules into a true building in space, a complex structure spanning almost 30 metres, capable of supporting the new laboratories now under preparation on the ground. The next Buran mission was scheduled to complete the station’s main truss with the addition of NEP-2, and with the Soviet economy finally starting to turn around there were expectations that the tempo of shuttle missions might finally increase to something resembling a regular service. Old plans for long-duration, high altitude orbital missions with the shuttle were being dusted off in Kaliningrad as programme managers dared to hope that Buran may fly twice a year or more from 2001 onwards.

It was not to be.

32740591846_6f2ed9e7f5_b.jpg


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

[1] The Common Core/Lab modules are - literally - a merger of the planned Freedom Resource Node and Lab modules, which substitute the Forward Cylinder of the Lab module with a Node Radial Port Cylinder. This was part of the 1993 Space Station Redesign Report’s Option A, intended to save money by building just one type of US pressurised module instead of the two planned for Freedom.


[2] IOTL the version of the NEP that was planned for the ISS came in at around 15 tonnes on launch and 20 tonnes when all its extra systems were installed. TTL’s NEP is larger and manages to squeeze all of the necessary systems into a single launch. The SM docking module masses around 3.5 tonnes, meaning Buran will on this occasion be carrying 25.5 tonnes out of a designed 30 tonne maximum payload. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the largest OTL shuttle payload was the Chandra X-ray telescope at 22.8 tonnes, so it seems likely that Buran mission 1K4 will take the record for the heaviest ever shuttle-launched payload.


[3] IOTL the record is thirteen people aboard the ISS via missions STS-127, Soyuz TMA-14 and Soyuz TMA-15 in 2009. ITTL the previous record was the eight person crew of STS-61-A in 1985, although there have almost certainly been more people on orbit at once (but not docking, so not forming a single crew), as happened in 1995 IOTL when thirteen people were on orbit with Soyuz TM-20 and -21 docked at Mir during STS-67. ITTL, Alpha’s current minimal volume (one pressurised module only) means its maximum crew is currently limited by how many supplies can be squeezed in with the crew, so although the Soyuz-ACRV could allow up to three people, Alpha will have an initial permanent crew of two.
 
Last edited:
It was not to be.
Oh oh, Launch failure or political changes, we will see next post.

In my researches for Explorers I never found any trace of a budget battle between SSC and ISS circa 1993. It's more or less an urban legend.
There never was a battle between SSC and ISS
it's was more of a Capitol Hill politicians "To do List of expensive stuff, that must be cancelled"

Next, ISS, SSC were the A-12 Avenger II, SDI, Virginia-class nuclear guided-missile cruisers and more victims of Capitol Hill politicians...
 
I would think that using Soyuz craft--even if these lifeboats are purchased and fully US owned--on the American station as lifeboats would be more controversial in an ATL where separate Soviet and US space stations exist. There would be more pressure to develop suitable escape vehicles Made in the USA.

Of course, in the contingency of Freedom just barely squeaking past Congress in an atmosphere of general budget austerity, combined with the desire to have some cooperation between the blocs to discourage the Soviets from becoming dangerous again, it makes fiscal and political sense to have a concrete inter bloc deal like this, to encourage more deals (such as Linenger's inclusion). Soyuz works after all, a clean sheet US design would have to be expensively developed and tested.

Still, by the time the two stations become operational a lot has happened since the early '90s. It is now the late '90s, and the Western economies have boomed. Might this not lead to a push for an American made and launched lifeboat? Note that while the USA has no crew-rated launchers other than STS, a suitable lifeboat ship could be a Shuttle cargo bay payload, indeed with enough focus on minimizing the mass strictly for the emergency return to Earth mission, perhaps even merely a partial cargo. (Though I suspect a good approach would be to have more than one; even with two in a bay, that gives each one a mass budget comparable to Soyuz). This might have gotten support not only for patriotic reasons but also pork barrel ones.

To fit in a Shuttle bay it would have to be a modest project, falling back on the capsule idea that Soyuz relies on. OTL winged spaceplanes of some kind were not abandoned and the fashion for reviving capsule approaches did not arise until a decade later, in the mid-2000s after Columbia's loss. I suppose this alone might scupper a mid-90s push for a US made lifeboat, since we already had one on paper OTL (and I believe pre-POD here)--HL-20, another spaceplane though far smaller in mass. We had rockets that could lift one of these but they were not man-rated. And of course we'd have to actually build them. They'd never fit in a Shuttle cargo bay.

The other thing that saddens me is that the Soviets are lifting their largest rather than smallest Mir components in Buran! Given the tremendous capabilities of the Energia launch system, I'd have thought it might be the other way round, with a more Skylab type approach--Skylabski plus add-ons. Launch a great big core in the 80-100 ton range, maybe hope to launch a second one like that someday later; develop a lighter cheaper form of Energia (already exists on paper of course) using 2 Zenit boosters and fewer than 4 of the hydrogen main engines, perhaps as few as one, for a "medium" lifter still leaving US single launch capabilities in the shade--this saves wear and tear on Buran while leapfrogging a really big station into orbit. Then Buran can carry smaller modules to round it out.

I forget if these options were already raised, considered and rejected (with I presume some sadness) on financial grounds already. Still, to put Buran up costs an entire Energia complex to be made and disposed of. Why not use the same thing for a really big module and send up a Soyuz crew to dock and run initial startup? It means making the big module all in one shot instead of incrementally adding, but the Russians have been there and done that with Salyuts and original Mir already, and we see here that it takes over half a decade from decision to first construction mission anyway--could not a Skylab-like single module have been designed and made in that time?

To develop a medium mini Energia in reality rather than on paper of course requires yet more investment, but might there not be a return on it if the reduced payload is closer to right-sized for foreign purchasers of launch services?

Was there ever by the way a scheme to take this down to the lowest level, with a single Zenit booster pushing a shrunken hydrogen stage with a single core engine? Parallel firing would be out of course, raising the question of whether the Soviet hydrogen engine would present problems being air-started, and the geometry of the relatively narrow Zenit pushing a presumably much plumper upper stage with a payload on top is a bit alarming--but no worse than the Ares 1 proposal, in fact far better because the stick up that rocket's rear end was to be a Shuttle SRB derivative, which presents nasty vibration problems--Pogo is sort of built in to solids, it would seem--whereas Zenit is liquid fueled and gives a smoother ride.

I should go take another look at Anatoly Zak's pages or other sources for a more comprehensive refresher on OTL Energia plans I guess.

The whole advantage of Energia in my view was precisely the ability to use it as a generic launcher and not have to send up an Orbiter every time, and by golly with Mir, the Soviets have a need for the capability! Why then must they compromise it so much? Apparently because using Protons is so much cheaper per ton? And they can't really afford a Skylabski no matter how launched?
 
Shevek23 said:
I would think that using Soyuz craft--even if these lifeboats are purchased and fully US owned--on the American station as lifeboats would be more controversial in an ATL where separate Soviet and US space stations exist. There would be more pressure to develop suitable escape vehicles Made in the USA.

You're quite correct. The Soyuz lifeboats are only intended as an interim measure:

Mir-2: A New World said:
When the US Congress narrowly approved appropriations for the so-called “Option A-3” redesign of Freedom (now called “Space Station Alpha”) in 1994, it included an option to use Soviet Soyuz capsules as an interim lifeboat [1]. This would allow Alpha to be permanently manned from as early as the fourth assembly flight, rather than waiting for the 16th assembly flight and development of NASA's own Assured Crew Return Vehicle.

Of course, just how interim this solution will be is up for debate, similar to US access to the ISS IOTL.

Shevek23 said:
The other thing that saddens me is that the Soviets are lifting their largest rather than smallest Mir components in Buran! Given the tremendous capabilities of the Energia launch system, I'd have thought it might be the other way round, with a more Skylab type approach--Skylabski plus add-ons.

This in fact was the plan in the mid-1980s, culminating in the approval of the 180GK station by the Council of Ministers in 1989 (IOTL & ITTL, mentioned in Mission 1K1). According to the 1987 Draft Plan, this would start with DOS-8, before adding three (or more!) Energia-launched 76 tonne core modules, attached to a large truss. However, IOTL this was cancelled in April 1991, before the break-up of the USSR. Aside from the expense of developing the huge new modules (all-new, not a re-use or evolution of existing modules), with a maximum crew of 12 it would have required a huge number of resupply and ferry launches, and likely development of new vehicles like Zarya for crew (though that had been cancelled in 1989), Progress M2 (which of course is developed ITTL) and perhaps even a new TKS-derived cargo ship. Add in the cost of the additional Energia launches needed for the cores and truss, and it just became untenable. All of this IOTL was before the cancellation of Energia and at the same time Energia-M was being actively pursued.

ITTL the same logic applies, with similar results. Buran is being kept flying largely for prestige reasons, so the VKA gets to use it, but funding for additional Energia launchers and - more importantly - development and support of large new modules is not forthcoming. Energia/Buran's low flight rate and high per-launch cost makes it unreliable as the main method for assembly of the station, hence the decision to go for smaller Zenit- and Proton-launched modules, only using Buran where complex assembly and integration support by cosmonauts is desirable. Incidentally, this is turned into a virtue, as the small, relatively cheap modules imply an ability to swap them out more frequently, so more experiments can be flown with more up-to-date equipment.
 
Mission 1K4: Re-entry
Mission 1K4: Re-entry, 26th March 1999

32628057072_8ae3cf9300_b.jpg


20th March 1999 02:30 Moscow Time (T-8h09m):
Fueling of the Energia 7L core stage commences at Baikonur Pad 38.

20th March 1999 07:30 Moscow Time (T-3h9m):
Fueling of the Energia stack is completed. Air temperature is -8 degrees Celsius.

20th March 1999 07:47 Moscow Time (T-2h52m):
Loading of liquid oxygen into the Buran orbiter’s ODA propulsion system is completed.

20th March 1999 07:55 Moscow Time (T-2h44m):
Buran mission 4K1 crew arrives at Baikonur Site 110 Pad 38 and enter the crew trolly system.

20th March 1999 08:23 Moscow Time (T-2h26m):
Commander Ivan Ivanovich Bachurin enters Buran, the first crew member to enter.

20th March 1999 08:45 Moscow Time (T-1h54m):
Flight Engineer Vladimir Nikolayevich Dezhurov enters Buran, the last crew member to enter.

20th March 1999 09:17 Moscow Time (T-1h22m):
Buran BO crew hatch is closed and locked.

20th March 1999 10:29 Moscow Time (T-10m):
Countdown switches to automatic control. All systems nominal.

20th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T-10s):
Energia 7L RD-0120 core engine ignition.

20th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T-6s):
Energia 7L RD-170 Blok-A booster engines ignition.

20th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T-5s):
A block of ice massing almost 5kg is shaken loose from the body of the Energia core near the top of the liquid hydrogen tank between core and the nose of the Buran orbiter. This block is significantly larger than the 2mm thickness dictated by mission rules and the 1.7mm maximum thickness predicted by pre-launch analysis.

20th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T-2s):
The ice falls 35.6m before ricocheting from the body of the core stage to impact the belly of Buran at the junction of two black TZMK-25 thermal protection tiles attached to the leading edge of the ONI-II antenna hatch, hitting a glancing blow at a velocity of 26 m/s. One of the impacted tiles is shed. The second tile is loosened by the impact but remains attached. The underlying felt pads remain in place, but the quartz fibre seal along the edge of the ONI-II hatch is damaged. This impact, coming near the bottom of the orbiter and between the orbiter and rocket bodies, goes unrecorded by cameras at the launch pad.

20th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T-0s):
Lift-off of Buran/Energia 7L.

20th March 1999 10:41 Moscow Time (T+2m8s):
Aerodynamic forces, acceleration and vibration cause the second impacted tile to fall loose of the ONI-II hatch. As it falls, it pulls with it a section of the underlying felt pad, exposing a 55cm^2 section of the aluminium airframe.

20th March 1999 10:42 Moscow Time (T+2m26s):
Blok-A booster shut-down and separation.

20th March 1999 10:46 Moscow Time (T+7m47s):
Core stage engine shut-down and separation.

20th March 1999 10:48 Moscow Time (T+10m03s):
DOM engines fire, boosting Buran into a suborbital trajectory with an apogee of 156 km.

20th March 1999 11:14 Moscow Time (T+35m12s):
DOM engines fire a second time, circularising Buran into a low Earth orbit.

-----------------------------------------------------​

26th March 1999 10:33 Moscow Time (T+6d23h56m):
Buran undocks from the axial APAS-89 port of Mir-2 Yedinstvo USM-1 module. Separation speed is 0.1m/s.

26th March 1999 10:39 Moscow Time (T+7d00h00m):
At 20m separation, the DO verniers briefly fire, increasing separation speed.

26th March 1999 12:17 Moscow Time (T+7d01h38m):
The ONI-I and ONI-II antennas are retracted in preparation for re-entry, cutting off real-time SHF communications with TsUP Mission Control via the Luch-2 relay satellites. Communications with TsUP are now only possible via VHF and UHF links when over Soviet ground stations. This means the crew will remain out of direct contact with TsUP until after they exit the re-entry black-out.

26th March 1999 12:25 Moscow Time (T+7d01h46m):
The ONI-II hatch on the orbiter’s belly is closed. The two missing tiles and damaged seal have gone unnoticed during the mission, as they had remained oriented away from the space station.

26th March 1999 12:38 Moscow Time (T+7d01h59m):
Buran’s payload bay doors are closed and locked.

26th March 1999 13:18 Moscow Time (T+7d02h29m):
At 20km separation from Mir-2, Buran fires its port DOM engine for 155s, initiating de-orbit.

26th March 1999 13:50 Moscow Time (T+7d03h11m):
Buran reaches the atmospheric entry interface at an altitude of 120km.

26th March 1999 13:53 Moscow Time (T+7d03h14m):
The three hydrazine-powered Auxiliary Power Units (VSUs) are activated and begin providing hydraulic power to the aerodynamic control actuators.

26th March 1999 13:55 Moscow Time (T+7d03h16m):
A plasma arc begins to form in the gap between the two tiles immediately in front of the damaged section of the ONI-II hatch. Plasma at a temperature of around 1000 degrees Celsius impinges directly onto the aluminium skin along the exposed seam of the hatch.

26th March 1999 14:01 Moscow Time (T+7d03h22m):
Buran enters the period of maximum heating. The plasma temperature at the ONI-II hatch is now approaching 1500 degrees Celsius. Part of the hatch skin has burned through and plasma is now entering the bay containing the ONI-II antenna itself. Temperature sensors in the bay and the neighbouring VSU Pressurised Instrument Compartment signal alarms to the Command Compartment. This is the first indication the crew have of a problem.

26th March 1999 14:02 Moscow Time (T+7d03h23m):
Plasma ignites material inside the ONI-II bay. The temperature sensors fail, cutting off the alarm to the flight deck. Spacecraft Commander Ivan Bachurin takes manual control of the shuttle and attempts to manoeuvre to reduce heating on the aft belly of the orbiter. However, this is of limited effectiveness as he is constrained to stay within a limited angle-of-attack in order to brake the spacecraft’s velocity.

26th March 1999 14:03 Moscow Time (T+7d03h24m):
The ONI-II hatch hinges fail and the hatch separates from the spacecraft. The ONI-II antenna is ripped out, impacting the aft wall of the bay and dislodging several more belly tiles as it exits the spacecraft. Plasma quickly burns through the aft wall and enters the airframe.

26th March 1999 14:04 Moscow Time (T+7d03h25m):
The VSU Instrument Module ceases functioning as re-entry plasma melts its components. Hydrazine fuel in one of the three VSU power units ignites. The fire suppression system automatically triggers, but is itself damaged and is unable to extinguish the fire.

26th March 1999 14:05 Moscow Time (T+7d03h26m):
The fire has spread to the second VSU and enters the ODU propulsion system’s Base Unit. The ODU oxygen tank is compromised and bursts, but the relatively low pressure of the gaseous oxygen in the tank at this stage of the mission means the force of the explosion is insufficient to compromise the outer skin of the vehicle. However, the released oxygen intensifies the fire, which is now out of control.

26th March 1999 14:06 Moscow Time (T+7d03h27m):
The third and final VSU power unit succumbs to the flames and fails. Buran is now without hydraulic power and the aerodynamic controls are rendered useless. In the Control Compartment, Bachurin attempts to use the RSU reaction control thrusters to maintain the orbiter’s attitude, but these obtained their oxidiser from the now destroyed ODU oxygen tank, and so are unresponsive.

26th March 1999 14:07 Moscow Time (T+7d03h28m):
With all control lost, Buran begins to tumble. Aerodynamic forces tear the shuttle apart and the spacecraft breaks up over North Africa. Speed at break-up was too high for ejection. All seven crew members are lost.
 
Last edited:
Now this is just cruel. Good update though! Is there a footnote missing btw? You inserted a [1] at T-5s but I don't see the actual footnote. Oh and also the apogee of the orbit at T+10m03s. Still though, terribly tragic but well-written!
 
Great timeline, nixonhead!

Concerning the tragic update: with Burya being mothballed and primarily used as a source of spare parts due to a lack of funds, this might be the end of the Buran program.

Aerospace industry of the USSR is undoubtedly in a better state in TTL 1990s than IOTL 1990s, however - the economic troubles of this USSR were not as bad as total economic collapse of OTL 1990s. The technological base is still there, the scientists are still there, but the costs of rebuilding the orbiter might be too high...

Some notes regarding USSR in general:
I doubt than the Union government could keep the Baltic republics in the USSR in 1990-91. They wouldn't agree to stay regardless of any possible concessions, and sending the military into Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn would seriously jeopardize the relations between USSR and the USA, which are apparently warm ITTL. In my opinion, the most likely turn of events could have been Nazarbayev letting them go under the condition of military and/or political neutrality.

Also, I think TTL USSR's economic system could resemble OTL Belarus under Lukashenko, especially in the 2000s: the state controls strategic and heavy industries and pursues interventionist policies; agriculture is heavily subsidized; everything else is often dominated by private sector, especially light industry and everything related to consumer goods.
 
Let face it, Spaceflight is not easy: it's hard and sometime deadly

See Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Apollo 1, X-15A, Challenger, Columbia - 22 died during there Mission of 564 Astronauts/Cosmonauts who went into Space.
and in future others will died during there mission, during training or simple accidents like car or aircraft crash.

It's obligation of NASA and others like SpaceX to minimize the Risk, so the fatalities keep under 3.9%

Back to Timeline
nixonhead you notice me, what I have overlook, the Soviet had copy the STS, also on it Heatshield and vulnerability to ice

And the sad thing is this wouldn't even butterfly Columbia.
on the contrary once the Soviet have found out what happen to Buran,
Alarm bells sound at NASA an they have take look on there Heatshield and mishap they encounter with debris
Here is Timing of importance
if Soviets need several months to investigate and publish there Finding there is a New President in White House in 2000
He or She could determine the Future of STS in this TL

NASA could with Challenger in memory, start to Retrofit the STS fleet and hope nothing bad happened, (those Safety modification made after Columbia in 2004)
But If in White House panic broke lose, it could be THE END for US Shuttle and NASA has to build Capsule sooner as OTL.
and Soviet union ?
They got second operational Orbiter and two unfinished / half Decay Orbiter in factory storage.
i'm curious how they gonna make the Energia saver for launch with orbiter...
...or will they not ?
 
Top