Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing

I ran a version of N-11 through the calculator too--just shifted the two upper stages of the N-1 a place to the left, used the ISPs for the bigger stages for the smaller ones (on the theory that the engines have to be reoptimized to lower atmospheric conditions) and replaced the former third stage with the smaller Ghe stage I inferred from the canon statement that 75 tons makes it to orbit on the current edition of the N-1. If I could only keep my posts shorter, more people might recall that I inferred from delta-V requirements that stage would be about 50 tons all up--this is the first big deviation from the OTL figures Wade gives--the Ghe and De stages are necessarily smaller,

The Silverbird calculator confirms that N-11 configuration would indeed deliver 20 tons to LEO.:)

Oh, that's with a 4500 kg shroud ejected 160 seconds into the launch. So part of that 20 tons would be a Soyuz or some other manned vehicle.

I have to acknowledge that doesn't prove anything, since the Silverbird calculator has no way to input aerodynamic factors (which we don't know anyway, nor how they compare to Saturn V) nor Soviet stuff like firing an upper stage before the lower one finishes.
----
A nitpick re the latest post--"Salyut" I believe means "salute;" the OTL space station series was a name belatedly picked either in honor of Korolev or I think most likely, Yuri Gagarin, both recently deceased when Salyut 1 was launched. "Soyuz" means "Union;" it is in the Russian version of the name USSR--from Wikipedia's article on the Soviet Union:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Other names
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик
Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik

As it stands the post is just not correct but of course the LK can be named Salyut in tribute to something or someone--it can hardly be named "Soyuz" though!:p

I continue to look forward to future developments. I've been trying to evaluate incremental improvements in the N-1 but it all depends on how good a job the designers can do with hydrogen upper stages--the problem is as I've said, the tanks for hydrogen must be much larger than those for kerosene, and insulated and pressure-tolerant too; trying to extrapolate from the stage masses I inferred, I find it hard to justify less than doubling the dry mass, but doing that eats up pretty much all but a tiny portion of the gain from using hydrogen. On the other hand, the Americans managed, as I recall well from Eyes Turned Skyward, to get the dry mass of the third stage of the Saturn V (second stage of the Saturn 1B and taken with slight modifications to be the second stage of the ETS Saturn 1C and Multibody) down to about 10 percent of the propellant, about 110 tons all up, 10 tons dry. If the Soviets can match that kind of mass economy then the gains in replacing the three middle stages would be considerable.

I don't know if it is wise to replace the De stage with a hydrogen one, since it has to loiter around the moon either waiting for a crew to come land an LK or to finish its job by shoving their Soyuz off to TEI. But replacing the Ghe stage with a hydrogen TLI stage will raise the mass sent to the moon beyond 25 tons--how much beyond depends on how heavy the Ghe stage is dry of course, but potentially up to ten tons more! That's with no improvement in the orbital launch at all; any tonnage we can add to 75 can raise the TLI load stlll more.

I don't see really tremendous, dramatic improvements, even reaching the 90 ton goal seems dubious.

But a lot can be done with more efficient TLI and lots of launches! For instance if instead of inserting an LK or bigger lander into orbit we wish to send supplies directly to the Lunar surface instead, we might land as much as 13 tons out of 75 placed in orbit, if the final stage is hydrogen--since a lander won't be waiting around, the hydrogen boil-off problem might be manageable. Instead of a crasher stage, have the whole 25+ ton payload of a hydrogen Ghe replacement be a supply lander with a hydrogen landing engine; don't bother to enter Lunar orbit at all but go directly for a landing at the chosen site. 13 tons landed on the Moon is a heck of a lot bigger than any single mass NASA would have hitherto landed there.
 
While it still appeared as if the Soviets were leading in the eye of the public the engineers at TsKBEM knew that it would be difficult just to keep up with the Americans in the coming years of the late 1970s. While they maintained the appearance of a strong lead with L3 lunar landings, and now the launch of Zarya-3, their future was bleak. On the lunar front LK-Shelter was inferior to the LESA habitat as was the current Zarya design to the Skylab. The most recent manned Skylab mission had shattered a 13 year streak of unbroken Soviet duration records. Mishin was powerless to do anything about it as his real competition to the Skylab (the second Generation Zarya) wasn't scheduled for launch until 1976. In the mean time it was considered desirable for one more first Generation Zarya to further build spaceflight experience.
salyut.jpg

The now common sight of an N11 launch (which was now routinely delivering Mars and Venus probes along with various satellites to orbit) wasn't very exciting in and of itself, what was really interesting was what lay hidden behind the Fairing.
images
images

On April 1st 1975 the Zarya-3 space station took it's place in the long line of Soviet space station that would bear the name "Zarya", meaning Dawn. Meanwhile the first crew to board it was already in preparation. It's goal as with all first flights to Soviet space stations, would be to test and certify it for a longer duration mission to follow. Valentin Lebedev was eager to fly into space for the first time, he never dreamed he could ever see a Space Station in his lifetime let alone visit one himself. Pyotr Klimuck meanwhile had significant experience behind his belt. He was one of the original cosmonauts to fly the L1 around the Moon in 1968 before landing on the Moon himself on the L3. Now his role of commander would serve him well onboard Zarya-3 as they activated the station and perform any necessary EVAs.
images
images
images

The April 5th launch went perfectly just as all previous ones, at least that's what it seemed. The launch proceeded according to plan until T+288.6 seconds at an altitude of 145 kilometres (90 mi),when the second and third stages of the booster began separation. Only three of the six locks holding the stages together released and the third stage's engine ignited with the second stage still attached below it. The third stage's thrust broke the remaining locks, throwing the second stage free but putting the booster under unanticipated strain that caused it to deviate from the proper trajectory. At T+295 seconds, the deviation was detected by the Soyuz's guidance system, which activated an automatic abort program. As the escape tower was long gone by this point, the abort had to be performed with the Soyuz's own engines. This separated the spacecraft from the third stage booster and then separated the orbital and service modules of the Soyuz from the re-entry capsule.
soyuz-18a_rn.jpg

Experiencing over 15G of strain on their bodies the cosmonauts luckily did not lose consciousness and lived to see their descent module plough onto a snowy hillside and slide several hundred meters until the parachute became tangled in a dead tree. Thankful that they didn't end up like the tree (dead n a snowy hillside) the cosmonauts worry only switched to another serious matter. Where were they? Initially there was a serious concern they had landed in China (which was a bad place for Soviet cosmonauts to be since the Sino-Soviet split). Luckily they were several hundred km from the Chinese border and help came shortly after the conclusion of their 22 minute joyride. Soyuz 13 would now be rescheduled to perform Soyuz 12's original mission while Soyuz 14 made the 60+ day duration expedition.
250px-Earth_from_space.jpg

A picture of Earth taken from 145 km altitude, the height when problems developed on Soyuz 12. To date it is the only known Soviet suborbital spaceflight.
 
You are harking to an OTL event of course. But while I'd have to research it, I'm pretty sure that either their launch abort happened earlier and the SAS tower was involved, hence the very high 15+ G acceleration--or if as in your alternate mishap, it was late enough in launch that the SAS was gone, the Soyuz main engine can't deliver that much thrust. I'd have to look things up but I'd be surprised if it can manage much over 1 G. Ditching the orbital module would raise that a bit, but not a lot.

Here, I happen to still have the Encyclopedia Astronautica page for the OTL Soyuz-LOK open. According to you and Bahamut, your TL's LOK is smaller--not to be a pest but this OTL LOK is just exactly the size I think you can get to the Moon, and it has the delta-V to come home on its own...OK enough of that; also clearly a Soyuz launched on a Semyorka type rocket as you show for a mere shuttle mission to the Zarya station would be smaller--it would need a lot less fuel anyway.

Well, then, it would be under 7 tons, perhaps less, given the limits of the R-7 derived Soyuz launcher rocket. And it might have a weaker engine than a LOK too. Say it doesn't; the thrust of the Lunar version of Soyuz is a mere 33.22 kNewton, which can push three tons at one G, but even at a petite 6 tons all up (too scanty I think!) it can only shove the orbital Soyuz at half a G or so. So the question would be whether they'd get away from an exploding upper stage or not and not getting mashed by their own escape engine--since we are dealing with a Semyorka upper stage here I think they'd be quite safe, and could have considerable control over their flight path.

Whereas if the unfortunate event were more like the one of OTL, it would be a failure of the first/booster stages, the SAS would still be in place and would operate with brutal force to whisk them away from a very likely otherwise fatal fireball, and result as you have the outcome here--the capsule is tossed on a not-very-predictable path that might well have landed them in China instead.:eek:

Not that I think the Chinese would have failed to return the wayward Soviet cosmonauts had they landed there--well they might, Sino-Soviet hostility was bitter, but I'd think the Chinese would rather be smug and grandiose in their generosity, rescuing two otherwise helpless Russians whose technology had failed them.:rolleyes: Of course I'm not sure if your timeline has butterflied the immediate post-Mao years so that instead of OTL's pragmatists under Deng, ITTL the extremism of the Red Guards and the Gang of Four might still hold the upper hand--but I suspect even they would find the opportunity to humiliate the Soviets by kindly returning their Russian strays too delicious an opportunity to pass up.:D

Of course they might hold them a few days, in scary circumstances, and put forth rhetoric about how the Chinese people have not compromised themselves with effete treaties with the West like the decadent Soviets have and have no obligation to return Soviet spies--but after this grandstanding I think the cosmonauts would be sent home. Perhaps along with warnings a second batch of them might not be. To hold them indefinitely would put China in a bad light; holding them briefly lets them have it both ways, reaffirming their independence and power and then demonstrating that they can be reasonable if it suits them.

This is precisely why the launch trajectories aim to miss China of course; whether it is an incident of two or more hero cosmonauts being held in some Maoist Bastille or work farm, or one of having to tolerate being forced to kowtow to Chinese condescension, either is a result the Soviets would devoutly avoid!

By the way, are the Chinese and Americans feeling their way to a rapprochement as per OTL, or has that been butterflied? I think it's in the geopolitical cards even if the more radical faction has the upper hand--then it would be a colder and more under-the-table matter than in OTL, but China and the USA have mutual interests against the Soviets, especially if Nixon's humiliation by the successful Soviet moon landing soured the possibilities of US/Soviet detente in the early '70s. After all Mao himself replied to Nixon's overtures OTL so if he isn't simultaneously wooing Moscow as well, his proteges could honor that precedent--and Americans could face a left-handed, tentative alliance of sorts with an extreme Maoist China.

The American/Soviet space rivalry would then have a slightly grimmer edge to it.

But again, returning to the plight of Soviet cosmonauts stranded in China somehow, any connection between the US and China would tend to favor the Chinese returning lost Russians back to Russia, because the Americans would be rather unsettled to learn that American astronauts who came down on Chinese soil might also be held prisoner there. The Chinese might not sign the treaty that promises to return stray space travelers, but they would be under some pressure to honor it as an international norm anyway, unless they wanted a reputation as a complete pariah state no one could do business with.
 
You are harking to an OTL event of course. But while I'd have to research it, I'm pretty sure that either their launch abort happened earlier and the SAS tower was involved, hence the very high 15+ G acceleration--or if as in your alternate mishap, it was late enough in launch that the SAS was gone, the Soyuz main engine can't deliver that much thrust. I'd have to look things up but I'd be surprised if it can manage much over 1 G. Ditching the orbital module would raise that a bit, but not a lot.
According to Wikipedia, the Soyuz 18A flight went as follows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_18a
The launch proceeded according to plan until T+288.6 seconds at an altitude of 145 kilometres (90 mi),[4] when the second and third stages of the booster began separation. Only three of the six locks holding the stages together released and the third stage's engine ignited with the second stage still attached below it. The third stage's thrust broke the remaining locks, throwing the second stage free but putting the booster under unanticipated strain that caused it to deviate from the proper trajectory. At T+295 seconds, the deviation was detected by the Soyuz's guidance system, which activated an automatic abort program. As the escape tower was long gone by this point, the abort had to be performed with the Soyuz's own engines. This separated the spacecraft from the third stage booster and then separated the orbital and service modules of the Soyuz from the re-entry capsule.
At the time when the safety system initiated separation the spacecraft was already pointed downward toward Earth, which accelerated its descent significantly. Instead of the expected acceleration in such an emergency situation of 15 g (147 m/s²), the cosmonauts experienced up to 21.3 g (209 m/s²).[5] Despite very high overloading, the capsule's parachutes opened properly and slowed the craft to a successful landing after a flight of only 21 minutes.
The capsule landed southwest of Gorno-Altaisk at a point 829 kilometres (515 mi) north of the Chinese border.[4] The capsule landed on a snow-covered slope and began rolling downhill towards a 152 m (499 ft) sheer drop before it was stopped by the parachutes' becoming snagged on vegetation.[5]
The launch abort you are thinking of was the Soyuz T-10A. In this case the vehicle was still on the pad when a major fire occured. The crew was saved via the LES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L
 
Speaking of failures, how bad is the record of N-1 and N-11 at this point? One would expect something like 10-20% failure if they've achieved a 70's-era Proton record.
 
Worst place for Cosmonauts to Land?

In OTL 1976, what would have been the worst possible place (from a Political standpoint) for Cosmonauts to crash? Cambodia? , Libya?

And from an orbital mechanics/possible climate standpoint, would there have been anything that would have put a Soviet Mission into an orbit that would pass over Antarctica without killing the crew?
 
Speaking of failures, how bad is the record of N-1 and N-11 at this point? One would expect something like 10-20% failure if they've achieved a 70's-era Proton record.

You're pretty spot on, the N1 currently has a 14% failure rate.

21 launches so far,
3 failures.

As for the N11, I can't really tell you. We essentially stoped counting N11 launches after 1968. Beginning in 1969 it's safe to assume the N11 has (like the Proton did) entered service launching satellites, space stations, space probes and other payloads. Some failed during launch, some succeeded. But we aren't counting any of these N11 launches except for the Space Station launches because the focus of this TL is mostly manned exploration.

Here is a compilation of all N11 launces and failures as of present.
1965:
1:partial failure (LEO test)
2:Success (LEO test)
1966
3:failure (GSO Satellite)
4:Success (GSO Satellite)
1967
5: Partial failure (Zond 3)
6: Partial failure (Zond 4)
7:Success (Zond 5)
8:Success (Zond 6)
9:Success (First Manned Circumlunar flight, L1-1)
1968
10: Success (L1-2)
11: Success (L1-3)
12: Success (LK test flight)
13: Success (LK test flight)
14: Success (Manned Soyuz 7K-LOK test flight)
After this there are presumably more failures and successes between 1968 and 1975 but this is where I stopped counting
1972:
Success (Zarya-1)
1973:
Success (Zarya-2)
Failure (Marskhod)
1975:
Success (Zarya-3)
 
In OTL 1976, what would have been the worst possible place (from a Political standpoint) for Cosmonauts to crash? Cambodia? , Libya?
Off the top of my head I'd have to go with Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge were still in full form then, and Pol Pot was sort of a protege of Peking--but not enough of one that the Chinese could rein them in from doing something stupid. It was more of "an enemy of my enemy" thing, with Vietnam being the mutual enemy. Later, in the early Eighties when the Vietnamese came in and deposed them, this put the USA, as a power courting China, in the interesting position of indirectly championing Pol Pot in exile.:eek:

At this time there'd be little to stop them from just chopping the cosmonauts to little bits, except whim.

Almost anywhere else, the thought of world opinion would tend to restrain even the loonier regimes--counting North Korea among them, the NK's had much stronger ties to both Moscow and Peking, so they'd just send them home. I don't think many Western nations, even among the more extremist anti-Communist ones like Franco's Spain or some the Latin American CIA-backed regimes like Pinochet's Chile, would fail to simply rescue them and send them home promptly. (Franco is about to die or just has died anyway.:rolleyes:) Perhaps Uganda's Idi Amin or Zaire's Mobutu are wild cards, but while Amin might have been totally out of control I think Mobutu would respond to under the table suggestions from Western powers.

As for Libya, Americans of the time (such as me) thought of Khadaffi as a Soviet ally. I daresay the relationship was much less close than we believed or the Kremlin wanted, but I hardly see him doing anything to deliberately alienate the Soviets at this time. Perhaps American astronauts might be in trouble landing there, but I daresay then the Soviets would mediate so as to put themselves and their patron relationships in the Third World in a good light--with a bit of the swagger I figured the Chinese might adopt returning cosmonauts from their territory.

I wonder how much trouble Soviet cosmonauts would be in if they came down in Saudi Arabia though.:eek: Especially if the timeline parallels the OTL Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. (Which I think they might plausibly avoid, either by more effectively propping up the pro-Soviet government that took over their spontaneously, or by writing it off if it fails).

And of course if something close to OTL does happen in Afghanistan, then insurgent-held parts of it would probably be the worst place they could possibly land! Just a stone's throw, geopolitically speaking, from their launch site.
And from an orbital mechanics/possible climate standpoint, would there have been anything that would have put a Soviet Mission into an orbit that would pass over Antarctica without killing the crew?

I'm not sure what this question is. It should be quite easy for the bigger Soviet rockets to put quite a lot into a polar orbit. Why would passing over Antarctica be any particular hazard? (The Van Allen radiation belts do come down much closer to Earth in the high latitudes to be sure--is that what you are getting at?)

I might be off base believing an N-11 could put most of its nominal 20 ton payload into a perfect polar orbit, but I'd think it could surely could put a Soyuz there. The stresses of launch, if the payload can attain that orbit at all, would be the same as any other launch of the same payload, in any direction.

Or are you referring to a situation where cosmonauts might be forced to land in Antarctica?:eek: They'd be in a bad situation then--but the Soviets did maintain a substantial Antarctic base, and surely all the other powers with bases there would help as they were able. A lot would depend on weather conditions permitting aircraft to fly.

They'd be worse off still landing in the oceans that surround Antarctica, or even in considerably warmer parts of the Indian Ocean or Pacific where the nearest help might be a continent's breadth away. The Pacific makes up half the Earth, so :eek:.

But vice versa it is hard to think of a purpose to a manned mission in a polar orbit! Back in the early 60s it was a major thing they planned for, but even Soviet microelectronics is surely by now such that any reasonable mission for a polar satellite-be it Earth mapping for civil purposes, weather satellites, low altitude comsats or something like GPS, or of course strategic surveillance--would be served with unmanned craft. As it is being limited to 51 degrees plus inclinations by their differences with the Chinese every manned mission they launch already surveys most of the globe anyway. I'm at a loss why they'd want a manned platform of any kind in polar orbit.

And no, it doesn't help in getting to the Lunar poles to start from a low Earth polar orbit! The idea that if a tropical orbit can be the basis of a translunar trajectory that has a free return around the Lunar tropics then an Earth-polar orbit can be the basis of one around the Lunar poles ignores the dynamics of the situation--the Moon is orbiting Earth, at a bit over 1000 meters/sec. If we approach more or less in the plane of the Lunar orbit, we wind up, for reasons of conservation of angular momentum, arriving at the Moon's radius with only a fraction of that velocity in the direction the Moon is going--however much more kinetic energy, hence velocity, it has is going to be outward. That outward component, plus the 800 m/sec plus difference between their velocity and the Moon's in the direction tangential to the Moon's orbit, make up the craft's relative motion with respect to the Moon. If that relative velocity is in the plane of the lunar orbit, more or less, then we can get a free return orbit, if it instead is parallel to the axis of the Moon's orbit, the tangential velocity the Moon sees will be all the greater (the full 1000 m/sec instead of most of it as the spacecraft's component of orbital angular momentum along the axis of the lunar rotation would be zero) while there would also be velocity along the axis, as well as outward--it is easier for me to see how to approach the Moon so that the orbit goes over the poles when coming from ahead of the Moon than it is to see how it would do that heading out from Earth in a plane at right angles to the Lunar motion vector..

Even if it could be done I'm sure it would be more costly in delta-V than a low inclination orbit, even starting out from a 51 degree one, and while I'm sure Soviet rocketry is up to putting big payloads into polar orbit, the same rocket could put a bigger one into a perfectly suitable lower inclination orbit. So it is the opposite of advantageous to use a polar orbit as a parking orbit on the way to the Moon.

So why would they go there?
 
A question has occurred to me relevant to TTL and OTL. I'm given to understand that one of the limitations the Russians/Soviets face/d in building large rockets was the maximum diameter that could be transported by rail. The Energia core, IIRC, had to be flown in on a dedicated carrier plane, and the modern proposals for a Russian SLS equivalent are facing the same issues. So my question is, how does N1 deal with this transportation problem? Is the first stage manufactured at Baikonur?
 
A question has occurred to me relevant to TTL and OTL. I'm given to understand that one of the limitations the Russians/Soviets face/d in building large rockets was the maximum diameter that could be transported by rail. The Energia core, IIRC, had to be flown in on a dedicated carrier plane, and the modern proposals for a Russian SLS equivalent are facing the same issues. So my question is, how does N1 deal with this transportation problem? Is the first stage manufactured at Baikonur?


Yes, it was. Or, rather it was assembled there from prefab parts built elsewhere. The Astronautix article talks about shipping 'gores' (slices) of the spherical tanks to Baikonur to be assembled there.
 
Yes, it was. Or, rather it was assembled there from prefab parts built elsewhere. The Astronautix article talks about shipping 'gores' (slices) of the spherical tanks to Baikonur to be assembled there.

I would think that would impact reliability of the overall system. To have parts shipped and then assembled onsite. Probably the assembly as not as precise as assembly of the entire system at the build site.
 
I would think that would impact reliability of the overall system. To have parts shipped and then assembled onsite. Probably the assembly as not as precise as assembly of the entire system at the build site.
Not necessarily. Done right and with good quality control, the manufactured parts can be held to standards so they go together well. I worked at a site where we took complete engine cores from one site, bolted fan cases from another supplier onto them, then put on the fan, and tested it. The completed engines then went on to the airframers who actually put them on planes. In a way, it requires more precision and reliability, not less--when everything's at one site, it's easier for everyone to talk and make something slightly out of spec work.

Now, this is in general, and relies on good systems and logistics engineering, with a careful eye on interfaces. Soviets...didn't do that, and their QA record shows the difference. OTOH, you always have suppliers, and in a way having the LVs manufactured at the launch site puts the most critical users of spares in the same location (assembly and ops), instead of separating them. I guess my point is it can go both ways, but bad QA can ruin either, and the Soviets had bad QA.
 
Not necessarily. Done right and with good quality control, the manufactured parts can be held to standards so they go together well. I worked at a site where we took complete engine cores from one site, bolted fan cases from another supplier onto them, then put on the fan, and tested it. The completed engines then went on to the airframers who actually put them on planes. In a way, it requires more precision and reliability, not less--when everything's at one site, it's easier for everyone to talk and make something slightly out of spec work.

Now, this is in general, and relies on good systems and logistics engineering, with a careful eye on interfaces. Soviets...didn't do that, and their QA record shows the difference. OTOH, you always have suppliers, and in a way having the LVs manufactured at the launch site puts the most critical users of spares in the same location (assembly and ops), instead of separating them. I guess my point is it can go both ways, but bad QA can ruin either, and the Soviets had bad QA.

I just got done reading Stages to Saturn and they mentioned in the book how the original Saturn 1 was built if necessary to be taken apart to be transported to sites that didn't have barge access. However the MSFC was glad that this process never had to be tested in real life. I would just be concerned with doing this with rockets. One of the great things about the Cape from a logistics stand-point is the easy barge access the launch sites.
 
images

The crew sitting in their Soyuz Descent Module before all hell breaks loose.

The utter failure of Soyuz 12's launch resulted in the backup crew flying just months later. Finally, on June 26th the crew of Soyuz 13 were sitting on the launch pad. Anatoly Filipchenko who had previously flown on Soyuz 6 in 1968 wasn't trained to fly either the L1 or L3 vehicles, instead being reserved for LEO missions onboard the Soyuz. After seven years of waiting he was finally ready for what was to be his last and greatest adventure in his spaceflight career. The Flight Engineer, Vladimir Dzhanibekov was a rookie who had not yet experienced the thrill of spaceflight with his entire long career ahead of him. While their R-7 was in the process of refuelling the crew sat cramped in their Soyuz capsule, fully fitted each in bulky pressure suits with just one thought running through their mind, Destination: Zarya.
qsoy10b.jpg

Unfortunately that thought was dashed quickly when at T-90 seconds, a valve failed to close, causing liquid kerosene propellant to spill onto the pad and ignite.
qsoylest.jpg

Mission control quickly activated the escape system but the control cables had already burned through, and the Soyuz crew could not activate or control the escape system themselves. Just 20 seconds later, launch control was finally able to activate the escape system by radio command, by which time the R-7 rocket was engulfed in flames. Explosive Bolts fired to jettison the descent module from the service module and the launch fairing/shroud. Then the launch escape system motor fired, dragging the orbital module and then descent module, encased within the upper launch shroud, free of the rocket with an estimated acceleration of anywhere between 14 to 17g (137 to 167 m/s²) for up to five seconds. As Dzhanibekov and Filipchenko had no possible means of seeing what was going on outside, the cosmonauts did mention the sensation of "complete disorientation". Just seconds after the escape tower pulled the descent module away, the rocket exploded while it's burning remains raged in fire on the pad for nearly 20 hours. Impact occurred about four kilometres from the launch pad. The two crew members were badly bruised after the high acceleration with several broken bones, but were otherwise in good health and did not require any serious medical attention. Thus for two times in a row the Soviets had failed in their attempt to launch the Soyuz to Zarya-3. It appears that 13 is an unlucky number.
 
5093206_1_l.jpg

The Beirut Space Suit was used between 1965 and 1968 originally for the Voskhod program. First worn on the Voskhod 2 mission the suit became the workhorse for the Soviet Space Program for years. The Voskhod 3 mission also saw the suit take action (although it had since been modified to prevent the near-fatal balloon experienced on Voskhod 2 that nearly prevent Leonov from making it back inside). Another design improvement made was the extension of the life support to 2.5 hours (up from the previous variants 45 minutes). While on the Voskhod and the first two Soyuz flights the suit was worn from launch to re-entry later Soyuz missions saw the suit stored in the Orbital Module to allow for three unsuited cosmonauts to fit inside. The suit was also worn on the first L1 manned circumlunar flights in 1967 and 1968. It was worn for Intra-Vehicular Activity for the first L3 missions as well.

Voskhod 2, Voskhod 3, Soyuz 1, Soyuz 2, Soyuz 3, Soyuz 4, L1-1, L1-2, L1-3, Soyuz 5, Soyuz 6, Soyuz 7, Soyuz Sn/7, L3-LOK, L3-1, L3-2, L3-3.
krechet1.jpg

The Krechet Space Suit was developed for the sole purpose of being able to EVA in Lunar Orbit and on the Lunar Surface as part of the L3 program. First worn on the January 1969 L3-LOK mission while in lunar orbit it gained greater recognition when Alexei Leonov used it to become the first person to set foot on the Moon. Worn both inside and outside the suit protected cosmonauts from the dangers of depressurization during re-entry without which the crew would surely perish. It consisted of flexible arms and legs connected to a rigid head-body unit. As of 1975 it was still being used for the L3 lunar program. It set the record for longest spacewalk (on or off a planetary surface) of nearly ten hours. Another use it has found is in the Zarya Space Station Program. Each Zarya station is equipped with Krechet space suits for the purpose of maintenance, repairs, experiments and any potential need for a spacewalk.
L3-LOK, L3-1, L3-2, L3-3, L3-4, L3-5, L3-6, L3-7, L3-8, L3-9, Soyuz 8, Soyuz 9, Soyuz 10, Soyuz 11

Sokol-K space suit
200px-SNC16515.JPG

Introduced in 1972 as a replacement for the outdated Beirut Space Suit. With an operating pressure of 5.8 psi and a suit mass of just 10 kg it was significantly more flexible and allowed the cosmonaut to work easier. First worn on the L3-4 mission it has also been used for Intra-Vehicular activity on Soyuz 8, Soyuz 9, Soyuz 10, Soyuz 11, Soyuz 12, Soyuz 13, L3-5, L3-6, L3-7, L3-8 and L3-9
 
The interesting thing about the Soviet moon suits is they wouldn't have the problem the Americans had of getting dust in the joint seals (and moon dust was really abrasive, so very troublesome), since rather than assembling the suit around the astronaut to put it on, the Soviet suits were something that the cosmonaut climbed into from the back, so the only seal wasn't a moving joint.

Does anyone know if the Soviets went through as much trouble as the Americans to make their suits fireproof? I've always been curious about that.

fasquardon
 
The Soviet leadership was becoming impatient with Mishin. Two attempts in a row to reach the Zarya-3 space station had failed. Meanwhile NASA was edging closer and closer to their new Skylab B space station (which they estimated would beat the Zarya-4 competitor). The future of many Soviet engineers was at stake with Soyuz 14 with future projects hanging in the balance. Commander Anatoly Filipchenko and Flight Engineer Vladimir Dzhanibekov were surprisingly eager to get back into the same R-7 rocket that nearly killed them just months earlier. Finally on June 7th 1975, the crew of Soyuz 14 were floating, swiftly and silently towards their ultimate destination: Zarya-4.
soyuz-24_pad.jpg

Docking came as smoothly as the launch did. Barely a day since their lift-off the cosmonauts were already activating the station for general use. They communicated with school children via a primitive form of what today we would call skype (although they said they enjoyed telephoning friends and relatives more). The Intensive bio-medical examinations of the effects of long duration spaceflight on the human body allowed the Soviets to continue the work begun by the first Soviet spaceflight pioneers on previous Zarya stations.
soyuz-18.jpg
images

A minor power surge on day 44 almost caused the mission to be aborted. Thankfully a quick EVA was able to localize the source of and fix the malfunction (this was the only spacewalk of the mission and involved both cosmonauts).Experiments in manned military reconnaissance and observation was also performed throughout the mission (providing conclusive proof it was inferior to satellites). Although Chelomei's "Almaz" military space stations were never seriously considered the question was still of significance to the Red Army. The overt military nature of the mission was kept hidden from the public despite it's otherwise extensive coverage by the press. The ability to grow plants in microgravity was also studied as was the possibility of space agriculture in the distant future.
images

The micrometeoroid damage to Zarya-3's hull was photographed by the receding Soyuz-14 spacecraft as it disembarked from the station. Seconds after the 67 day mark of the mission was reached Soyuz 14's descent module was sitting sideways on the cold Soviet plains (having toppled over as it hit). The crew was forced to wait twelve hours before they could be safely removed from the capsule but in any case were back home. Zarya-4's first and only residents had come, and gone. The unmanned Soyuz designated Kosmos 546 also docked with the decommisioned station to test the new "Progress" unmanned cargo vehicle. Unfortunately a circuit malfunction developed and the capsule was unable to undock from the station. After several attempts the engineers gave up and Kosmos 546 burned up with Zarya-4 as it's orbit uncontrollably decayed December 25th 1975
soyuz-t-10_eva-kizim_2.jpg
soyuz-29_eva_1.jpg
 
As the Soviet L3 Manned Lunar Programme finally began to wind up, NASA was well on its way in preparing for its next step in Manned Lunar Exploration. LESA.
saturnstage2.jpg

The J-2S engine had been completed some time before and the F-1A for the S-IC Stage was also ready now, with the S-II stage strengthened to cope with the greater loads being imposed on it (having failed its first two structural tests while it was first built). The improved performance of the Saturn V permitted the LESA Base with a longer-range Rover that could house the crew in an emergency if needed with just one launch, while the uprated Apollo CSM and LEM would follow.
images

Which is where the pacing items for NASA resided, while the launch vehicle itself had been improved in good time, the equipment it would send was not. The LEM, for instance, had to gain a radiator (since evaporative cooling would be hopelessly impractical for extended stays on the Lunar Surface, even in a powered-down state), along with additional redundancy and longer-life batteries that could last throughout the 14.75 day Lunar Night. With solar cells as well for electrical power during the equally long day.
csm.jpg

And if the LEM was tricky, the CSM was a different beast altogether. During the Apollo ‘H’ and ‘J’ Missions, O2/H2 Fuel Cells had proven to be more than sufficient for providing electrical power and water for the crew during each up-to 14-day mission. But the long-duration LESA missions, lasting over three months presented a serious failing in the Fuel Cells, the Oxygen and Hydrogen they needed was stored in the SM in liquid form to reduce the space they needed and the mass of the tankage for them, but their cryogenic nature meant that they would boil away before the end of the surface stay. This had not been a problem during the Skylab missions, where Skylab itself, even damaged, could provide the electrical power it needed, while its onboard batteries were sufficient for un-docking and re-entry. However, returning from Lunar Orbit required a transit time of 3.5 days, and that didn’t include the time needed in Lunar Orbit to rest and check out all the systems, which would add about another 36 hours to it.
fuelcell.jpg

While battery power alone could support the crew for up to 5 days, without a means of charging the batteries while it loitered in Lunar Orbit, it would be of little use to the crew. It was therefore decided, that the addition of small solar cells to maintain power while it was empty would be the best option, the only other practical one being to send a fresh CSM out to them to get them home, on another Saturn V, and all the costs associated with it.
apolmlab.gif

And before they would send a base to the Moon they wanted a far more detailed map of the entire Lunar Surface, to which an Apollo Telescope Mount was repurposed for. Aiming its cameras at the Moon while in orbit, it would provide the highest resolution images of the surface to date, which combined with the knowledge gained during their previous manned landings, would permit a better understanding of the chosen landing site ahead of the first launch.
spaceimages_2254_35438945

That’s why in the November of 1975, a Saturn V was launched, carrying Stuart Roosa (Cmdr), Paul Weitz (CMP), and Jack Lousma (Science Pilot) with an adapted ATM in tow on Apollo 20 to the Moon.

Unlike most other Apollo Missions that came to the Moon, this one would not send a crew to the it’s surface, but rather keep them all in Lunar Orbit for a 28-day orbital mapping mission, the lighter ATM allowing for the increased battery mass that this CSM would need.
images
images

During the long duration in Lunar Orbit, the ATM’s solar array provided the electrical power needed for the crew for not only staying alive, but to do their work. Work that went smoothly, and a distinct lack of substantial orbital correction work needed - it would later be determined that they had been quite close to a ‘frozen orbit’ which had made it reasonably stable for them.
images
images

Once the ATM’s work was done, the canisters of film were retrieved from it, and it was jettisoned to remain in lunar orbit until a remote command for Lunar Impact was given after the crew left. Now dependant on the batteries and its own small solar array that was being tested (though they were not dependant on them for survival during the Moon-Earth Coast), they were thankful that all the systems performed well and returned close to the end of the year with their film and other data that would aid in the next step of NASA’s plans for the Moon.
images

Which if there were no further delays, was now only a few short months away…
 
This sounds like the never-flown "I" class mission. Could your Apollo 20 have been flown by a two-man crew? This would mean a lower demand for power and consumable stores and probably fewer environmental impacts (eg., vibration) on the ATM, which would in turn mean superior imaging.
 
Top