Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing

[Athelstane]

I don't have any real artistic capability, so I wouldn't be able to illustrate the interior. Plus IIRC, in ETS, the keeping the extra living space in SpaceLab was retconned in.

I didn't *think* it was retconned in - or at least it was in the original text of the post:

Next was expanding the available pressurized volume. While the hydrogen tank that had been used by Skylab for the vast majority of its pressurized volume was very large and more than adequate for that station, NASA believed that Spacelab might be in use (indeed much more active use) for considerably longer. A permanently manned duration of at least several years was believed likely, and in conjunction with the ASTP II program more volume was desired for habitation. Adding additional volume would allow the gradual extension of Spacelab capabilities as necessary, whether that was more habitat volume for extra crew or more laboratory space for materials science experiments. The most obvious way to increase the pressurized volume of the station was to use the SIVB’s oxygen tank, with over 2,500 cubic feet of volume (similar to a 40-foot shipping container). Doing so would increase the pressurized volume of the Orbital Workshop section of the station by over 25%, and would be relatively easy to accomplish on the ground. Skylab and previous "wet workshop" studies had left the tank open to vacuum due to limited resources and planned to use of the tank as a kind of "dumpster" to store garbage, but the newly developed AARDVark could supply whatever might be needed to use the tank over time and be used for trash disposal by incineration during reentry.

It was just one more way in which NASA had failed (admittedly, on limited time and budget) to make full use of station volume and capabilities on Skylab, to say nothing of available lift capability of the Saturn V. Again, however, a lot of that was budget.

 

[fasquardon]

With the Soviets experimenting with H2/LOX designs, will they also be upgrading the N-11's upper stages? Just curious if H2/LOX pays off for launching ordinary payloads of satellites at this stage.

fasquardon

 

[Shevek23]

Keep something in mind.

The Soviets sent the first women to the Moon.
Why would the US send up a women on a Skylab mission to counter that.
hint hint.

For mere propaganda, it would be silly, lame, and late.

Considering how often NASA gets beaten in terms of mere stunts though, I'd think the official position at NASA is that the Americans are doing space right, doing it carefully and methodically and accomplishing more at each milestone.

With that in mind--the posts have stressed that one of the Skylab series major purposes is to gather data and devise strategies on optimizing human performance in space--in microgravity and in the radiation environment is what that boils down to.

At some point, NASA is going to have to either say that the US position is that women have no place in space--or far more likely given that feminism has made ongoing progress in every generation since 1970, that it is time for a female Skylab crew, to evaluate specifically how women perform in space, because in the near future there will indeed be a mix of men and women on all space missions. The women's Skylab missions then are not stunts at all but evidence of NASA's commitment to gender equity in its expanded future program.

The sooner they do it the better; OTL there were no crewed NASA missions between the Apollo-Soyuz mission and the first STS launch, here with missions continuing steadily the pressure is on with each launch.

Of course it takes years to train an astronaut; if they wait to recruit any women candidates to 1977 we can't expect to see them in orbit until the 1980s. I'm suggesting maybe they didn't wait so long to take that first step, and we might see some before 1980.

Naturally if NASA recruits some women for astronaut training then the Soviets will see the eventual first American woman's flight coming; they could rest on their Leninist laurels and say they already did that, but I think they'd also see that once Americans start launching women astronauts, we won't stop and they will be integrated into regular operations, whereas the grand total of two they have sent up, one for orbit, one for a curtailed Lunar landing, will start to stand out more as the PR stunts they were. So to stay ahead the Soviets too must start employing women more seriously, presumably sending up an all-women Zarya crew or some such just before the first American launches. Or they might hope the American women astronauts prove to be fiascos and then fall back on some Stalinist drivel about the Soviet worker's state protecting its precious women and reserving dangerous work for brave men and so on. But I figure if NASA does send up a woman she'll be quite competent for the job and fully employed--doubtless like Sally Ride she'll feel great pressure to perform to absolute perfection and go to great lengths to avoid controversy and shine. So an American fiasco seems highly unlikely.

Whereas if the Soviets do procrastinate and then panic and send up three complete rookies with no confidence the program is behind them and rushed preparation for a mission the planners don't really believe in--something awful seems more likely to happen to them. I'm sure they themselves will be pushing themselves to succeed despite all manner of shortcomings in their mission plan and probably will pull it off successfully.

Then of course the Soviets could start with just one token woman, as they did OTL in the 1980s just before Sally Ride went up. The male cosmonauts would no doubt present her with the traditional gift of an apron, as they did OTL, and expect her to do all sorts of menial stuff...

There are good reasons the American integration of women into space flight will happen at pretty much the same pace as OTL--but I also think there are other reasons it could start sooner here too. It all depends on whether the Ford Administration (IIRC Nixon had to resign as per OTL here too) is a bit forward-looking and acts before 1977 and whoever comes in to take their place.

In fact I forget how far along we are with electoral politics and whether it has been said who wins in 1976; Carter OTL though far from the most progressive Democrat did represent the party that tended to include more feminists, so including women astronaut candidates was a predictable move for his administration's first year. I'd think a Republican president would be almost as likely to do so, but perhaps with a different political mood in 1976, it would actually be delayed relative to OTL. That's hard to see happening in '76 without some huge divergences though.

 

[SpaceGeek]

Well, you convinced me.
The first women in space will likely be flying to Skylab for research into long duration space flight on the female body.
Although trust me, a female on the Moon will happen shortly after.

Edite: Just looked up when the first Female Astronauts were selected. 1978. I think we can assume the selection of Astronauts one year earlier than that for this TL (1977). Given five years of training we could expect the first femal astronaut to come a year or two earlier than OTL (1981-1982).

 

[su_liam]

Shevek, I wouldn't worry too much about hydrolox harming N-11. OTL, the hydrolox S and R bloks were only meant to replace G and D kerolox bloks. N-1 and N-11 will still share kerolox B and V bloks. The later Sr blok which was intended to replace BOTH G and D bloks would be more problematical, but I think it could very plausibly be butterflied.

If I was working on this, I'd probably keep the kerolox D blok, especially if they're concerned with LOX boiloff. Of course, I figure Korolev and Mishin as well as E of Pi and co probably(!) know a lot better than me. A good high energy replacement for the D blok would surely be attractive for more than just moon flights. It could be small enough to sit on top of Proton-equivalent LVs or maybe even an R-7, giving a good bit of oomph as an EDS for interplanetary robot probes. An N-11 with a D-equivalent(R blok) hydrolox stage should be pretty impressive if the B stage can haul it off the ground.

 

[SpaceGeek]

By 1976 NASA was on quite a roll. The Skylab Programme was clipping along nicely, and despite further small delays, their next plan for the Moon, LESA, was finally ready.

The first launch of the Saturn VB[1] (the designated name of the Saturn V with its uprated engines) could not have been closer to textbook flawless, its improved engines pushing its payload first into LEO, then to TLI. Yet this launch had no crew onboard, the reason being that this one carried the first part of NASA’s mission, the LESA Surface Habitat. A few days later, it was landed between the Reinhold and Lansberg Craters in the Ocean of Storms. All that could be checked and assessed by remote (which was effectively everything needed for the crew to survive) was done, as the pressurised long-range rover that came with it was lifted down to the surface and its own checks conducted.

The early June of 1976 saw the next Saturn VB launch and it too, cleared both the launch pad and performed its Ascent-to-Orbit with no serious complaint. Taking its modified Apollo CSM/LEM with the first crew to spend an extended time on the Lunar Surface. Five days later, having checked out the CSM and LEM systems and preparing the CSM for it’s orbital storage period (namely the deploying of its small solar cell arrays[2] that would provide the admittedly reduced power it would need for the duration), they became the first three-man crew to land on the Moon in the same vehicle, the deep shadows of the early morning sun making finding a suitable landing point a simple affair - by Spaceflight standards.


Landing within the walking distance of the Surface Habitat (in the event that the open rover they had failed), they weren’t ready to head to it just yet, having to setup the LEM Taxi for its own protracted period of downtime until they were ready to return to the CSM in it. It’s own solar cell array and radiators deployed, and the open rover checked out, they could now make the short(ish) journey to their home for the next 41[3] days - that number being selected as the best compromise between having a large safety margin and securing a high science return value for this first LESA mission. The long lunar day was spent either around the LESA Shelter, or using the long-range rover for the first week-long excursion across the Lunar Terrain, a much greater quantity and range of science experiments conducted throughout. The long lunar night was spent inside the confines of their surface habitat, where basic maintenance on the habitat was conducted, while a small workstation allowed them to perform a limited number of smaller tests and analysis on samples collected, along with other ones with the habitat and crew themselves in mind.

Part of this revolved around assessing how the body adapted to the lower-gravity environment, and how fluids would behave in it. The latter being very useful for those not wanting the hot coffee to bounce out the cup and end up scalding them. They found that it was quite easy to manage, provided that they took their time with their every task. Later, the crew would witness something that no-one else had before. Full Earth. For three days, they were gifted with the sight of the rich blue world, shining over the Moon’s grey landscape. The Fourth of July of that year was a very special one, being the Bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence. And for the US, they had a crew living in a Lunar Base who in the Lunar Night, delivered a message of their own to them, a live broadcast that was watched by over half of US households.

By the 20th of July, as the next Lunar Day neared its end for them, they returned to their LEM Taxi and prepared to return to the waiting CSM. Though the Shelter was still switched on to allow NASA to monitor its condition over the months and years to come. In the event that either the LEM or CSM would fail, they had another Saturn VB with a CSM/LEM waiting in the VAB back on Earth, ready to be rolled out and launched to rescue them. Needing only to rendezvous with them (with the stranded crew performing the final delicate manoeuvres) they could send it without a crew with a high degree of confidence in their equipment. However, they both performed well after their lengthy time without a crew, returning them to the Earth a few days later, to a heroes welcome unseen since Apollo 11.

But perhaps more importantly for NASA, not only had they demonstrated to the world that their LESA Lunar Base was an extremely capable (and rather comfortable, according to its crew) base, but they had also accomplished the task ahead of the Soviet Union. NASA, and by extension the US, had finally completely pulled ahead of the USSR in the Space Race - though many now tended to refer to it as the Space Marathon.

[1] The name for the Saturn V with uprated engines ITTL

[2] Four small solar cell arrays fitted to the rear of the SM - of which only two are needed to work

[3] Based on the lunar phases of 1976, this would allow them to land in the early morning of the selected landing site, and return in the late evening of the following Lunar Day.

 

[Athelstane]

Spacegeek,

What the designation for this mission? Apollo 21?

Did you have anyone in particular in mind for the crew?

P.S. You've done yeoman's work with the photos, though I think it should be noted that the Saturn VB used for the LESA launch would look different. The fins would have been removed, the SI-C stage would be stretched, and the top shroud would probably end up looking more like the Skylab launch vehicle.

But I understand that you may not have the graphic software and time to mock up appropriate shots for that.

 

[brovane]

Great update. Happy to see that we beat the Soviets with the LESA base.

What is powering the LESA surface habitat?

 

[Shevek23]

I like the terminology "Saturn VB," although the conjunction of a Roman numeral with a letter of the alphabet is a bit confusing--but by now, everyone in the world is deeply familiar with pronouncing the rocket as "Saturn Five," so people won't forget--but they might slip into saying "VeeBee" anyway.

Since the Saturn 1B uses an Arabic numeral I wonder if NASA would consider writing the upgraded vehicle as "Saturn 5B" and referring to the older one as "Saturn 5."

For that matter I don't know why they ever used the dang Roman "V" for "five" in the first place, unless the Saturn 1B was actually always written "Saturn IB" but the Roman numeral "I" looked enough like a "1" that people just started slipping to writing it that way. Roman numerals look impressive, but perhaps NASA should avoid them in future with things they are going to make B, C, D etc sub-models of. Or use lower case letters--Saturn Ib, Saturn Vb, and so on--but I'd vote for the Arabic numbers, perhaps with the lower-case letters to boot--Saturn 5b. I don't know that sort of lacks dignity, but the capital B makes it look a bit more like a military airplane.

As for the mission itself I'm glad it went so well.

I am also curious about details of the LESA such as what powers it at night. Can there have been enough hydrogen and oxygen shipped to enable fuel cells to do the job?

I wouldn't think staying warm during the Lunar night would be a big problem, except for the evidence of what happened to Apollo 13 when it had to power down--though the main reason the crew suffered hypothermia was that they didn't have any clothing designed to deal with a nippy interior. Still with that spacecraft fully bathed in sunlight and yet its crew shivering, it suggests that while temperatures inside the LESA would stabilize at a much higher temperature than the surface rocks outside, due to the LESA not being a solid mass but layered and with a surface no doubt chosen to minimize radiation of heat, still it might get cold for human crew without a substantial power input, much more than their own bodies would supply--with three astronauts that's about 300 watts of heat, but presumably the LESA will radiate a lot more than that with the interior at a nominal 70 degrees Fahrenheit or so. During the day the problem may be more to prevent it from shooting up to much higher temperatures! Then there is plenty of solar power available. But batteries to store that power would be very heavy.

Does the LESA land on hydrogen-oxygen engines? If so, there is a lot of now-empty tankage to store hydrogen and oxygen in, so if there is a stock of water it can be electrolysized during the day and then reconverted back to water while generating power overnight; would that be enough power storage to get through two weeks of no solar input? How much water would have to be carried, leaving the crew a reserve to drink until the fuel cells have put some back out?

You see I'm going rather far out on a limb in the hope of avoiding the answer, "oh it uses radionucleide decay thermal generators!" Those are a legitimate option to be sure but I'm not sure about the mass of one heavy enough to power the LESA overnight, and the bigger it is the more the hazard posed if something goes wrong with the launch.

Does the upgraded LM, which now has to carry three astronauts (though not house them for a great length of time) and therefore needs a somewhat heavier ascent stage (maybe not much more, considering that all three astronauts on Apollo 13 could gather there, and that there is no need for consumables except for air to be stored there) also landing on new hydrogen-oxygen engines, or did NASA stick closer to the proven hypergolic fueled LM? I like hydr-oxy propellant but I'd think the great bulk of the hydrogen would require a major redesign of the descent stage, one that would take up more volume hence height in the launch stack. Since the LESA is presumably a clean-paper design it can much more easily--or rather, with little extra design difficulty include hydrogen tanks and engines. I assume the ascent stage of the LM rises on hypergolics, the same as the earlier edition did.

 

[e of pi]

For that matter I don't know why they ever used the dang Roman "V" for "five" in the first place, unless the Saturn 1B was actually always written "Saturn IB" but the Roman numeral "I" looked enough like a "1" that people just started slipping to writing it that way.

This is essentially what happened. If you look, you can actually find such inconsistencies in Eyes posts depending on whether Workable Goblin or I was writing, and whether whoever was paid close enough attention (naturally, this lapse occurs most often in my writing ).

I am also curious about details of the LESA such as what powers it at night. Can there have been enough hydrogen and oxygen shipped to enable fuel cells to do the job?

That's probably it, since fuel cells and enough reactant would be only a few hundred kg.

Does the LESA land on hydrogen-oxygen engines? If so, there is a lot of now-empty tankage to store hydrogen and oxygen in, so if there is a stock of water it can be electrolysized during the day and then reconverted back to water while generating power overnight; would that be enough power storage to get through two weeks of no solar input? How much water would have to be carried, leaving the crew a reserve to drink until the fuel cells have put some back out?

LESA was IOTL planed to be hydrogen-oxygen. IIRC from when I worked this out for Artemis in Eyes, it's only about 350 kg for the fuel cells reactant tanks, and the actual reactant for an overnight heating system. The power demand (and thus the required reactant and tanks) might be a bit more since it's being occupied at night here, so maybe more like a ton, but way, way less than a RTG in the many-kW capacity. I'd imagine they charge off solar panels in the daylight, but...not sure from the stuff on Astronautix.

Does the upgraded LM also land on new hydrogen-oxygen engines, or did NASA stick closer to the proven hypergolic fueled LM? I like hydr-oxy propellant but I'd think the great bulk of the hydrogen would require a major redesign of the descent stage, one that would take up more volume hence height in the launch stack. Since the LESA is presumably a clean-paper design it can much more easily--or rather, with little extra design difficulty include hydrogen tanks and engines. I assume the ascent stage of the LM rises on hypergolics, the same as the earlier edition did.

It could be a really lightweight, stripped down variant of the existing LM--cut out the lunar surface payload and you have an extra 500 kg down, cut consumables from 6 mandays to maybe 3 and you can trim some more, and some slight mods could get you something capable of getting three guys down to the LESA, then back up, but not much more. Call that option 1, which the post seems to imply.

Option 2 would be to replace the entire LM descent stage with the LESA descent stage--combined with using the LESA LOI stage for Apollo's LOI and trim Apollo's fuel to just enough for TEI, and you could carry the LM ascent stage and another 5-7 tons of payload to the surface on each crew run, depending on which variant of the Saturn V they use. Obviously, getting much more for each Saturn VB launch, this is the option I'd prefer.

 

[SpaceGeek]

Option 2 would be to replace the entire LM descent stage with the LESA descent stage--combined with using the LESA LOI stage for Apollo's LOI and trim Apollo's fuel to just enough for TEI, and you could carry the LM ascent stage and another 5-7 tons of payload to the surface on each crew run, depending on which variant of the Saturn V they use. Obviously, getting much more for each Saturn VB launch, this is the option I'd prefer.

That's a very interesting possibility. The Americans could then resupply their LESA lunar base with each crew launch. Brillant! I'l talk to Bahumut-255 about incorporating that into the TL.

 

[Patupi]

I'm curious, I know standard Hydrogen and Oxygen tanks for either rockets or fuel cells boil off, as with all cryogenic fuels in space travel, but such tanks can include refrigeration equipment, thicker chamber walls etc to cut it out. I'm sure there would be a huge penalty in mass, but for something that can be permanently stationed in orbit, say a tug to get from Earth to the Moon, has any research been done on space capable equipment like that by NASA? That and how long such equipment would last before needing servicing? It would be interesting to get some kind of base near the cratered polar ice deposits, crack your own fuel, then ship it up to a tug in orbit to refuel it, and it could stay there until needed without worrying about boil off. I know the equipment to do all that is prohibitive in mass, but the long term benefits...

In this timeline, (if such things are really feasible this early on!) it would be amusing if the Russians managed such a feat, and the Americans kept a more gradual development of lunar architecture. It would cost a bomb, but mean huge savings later on.... if they could keep the equipment running!

 

[e of pi]

I'm curious, I know standard Hydrogen and Oxygen tanks for either rockets or fuel cells boil off, as with all cryogenic fuels in space travel, but such tanks can include refrigeration equipment, thicker chamber walls etc to cut it out. I'm sure there would be a huge penalty in mass, but for something that can be permanently stationed in orbit, say a tug to get from Earth to the Moon, has any research been done on space capable equipment like that by NASA?

Research on both minimal boil-off and active cryo-cooling that would reduce losses to less than 0.2% per day, and plans for a demo were included in the FY2010 budget, which would have seen a prototype system launched in 2015. However, that was cut by COngress since it would eliminate much of the need for the jobs progra...I mean, HLV that key congresspersons and senators want to see remain in their districts.

That and how long such equipment would last before needing servicing? It would be interesting to get some kind of base near the cratered polar ice deposits, crack your own fuel, then ship it up to a tug in orbit to refuel it, and it could stay there until needed without worrying about boil off. I know the equipment to do all that is prohibitive in mass, but the long term benefits...

The storage depot (at least an all-passive one) could have a lifespan measured in decades. The equipment you're proposing on the surface to collect and crack ice would have much shorter lifespans between maintenance, more like a bulldozer or truck in a mine--months between major overhauls by humans. Also, as long as the depot isn't expected to also act as a tug, then a mass increase isn't killer--especially not on the lines I've seen proposed for passive depots.

In this timeline, (if such things are really feasible this early on!) it would be amusing if the Russians managed such a feat, and the Americans kept a more gradual development of lunar architecture. It would cost a bomb, but mean huge savings later on.... if they could keep the equipment running!

It's the sort of thing the US has done a lot more work in than the Russians in OTL--depots don't seem to have ever played much of a role in Soviet plans, where they turn up constantly in US ones.

 

[Patupi]

Research on both minimal boil-off and active cryo-cooling that would reduce losses to less than 0.2% per day, and plans for a demo were included in the FY2010 budget, which would have seen a prototype system launched in 2015. However, that was cut by COngress since it would eliminate much of the need for the jobs progra...I mean, HLV that key congresspersons and senators want to see remain in their districts.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about any of that... well, of course I knew about cuts for Congressional paybac... I mean certain congressional issues. Hadn't heard of any specific research into long term rocket usage.

The storage depot (at least an all-passive one) could have a lifespan measured in decades. The equipment you're proposing on the surface to collect and crack ice would have much shorter lifespans between maintenance, more like a bulldozer or truck in a mine--months between major overhauls by humans. Also, as long as the depot isn't expected to also act as a tug, then a mass increase isn't killer--especially not on the lines I've seen proposed for passive depots.

Regolith dozers sounds very cool, though you'd have to pick your terrain carefully until you'd got practiced at it. That side of it I can see Russians attempting. 'Glorious Soviet tractors reap windfall on Lunar soil!'

It's the sort of thing the US has done a lot more work in than the Russians in OTL--depots don't seem to have ever played much of a role in Soviet plans, where they turn up constantly in US ones.

True, traditionally Soviet machinations tended towards the short sighted, near term goals, political one upmanship, or purely showy stunts. I just thought it would be ironic with them gaining ground on one particular effort.

Hmm, actually, how about that being a joint effort? Russians building a planetary side mining facility (or tractors ) and working with, or *gasp* being all capitalist and selling fuel to, the Americans?

 

[SpaceGeek]

The LK-101 crew during training.

The engineers at TsKBEM including Mishin himself were obviously highly demoralized by the American victory with LESA. They had always hoped that even if it was smaller and less capable, the LK-Shelter would fly first. However perhaps in a way it was a blessing in disguise, it's unclear whether the Soviets would have taken so much care and patience with the vehicle if they hadn't already been beat. The first N-1 in the series (January 21st 1976, nearly 7 years to the day of the first Soviet lunar orbital mission) launched the most important component of the entire complex, the shelter itself. Such a launch was only necessary once in a decade or so as the LK shelter could be reused over and over again.

The second launch delivered a "Heavy Lunakhod" rover to the lunar surface (April 12th 1976) This was the Soviet Union's answer to the MOLAB pressurized lunar rover the Americans had developed and used. With it they would be able to truly explore the Moon in depth on missions ranging hundreds of kilometres away from their own landing sites. The third N-1 launch on July 2nd 1976 sent the all important consumables that would allow the cosmonauts to stay on the Moon thirty times longer than they ever would have been able to with just the LK's own consumable reserves.

The LK launch on September 1976 was, unfortunately, a complete disaster! In an incident without comparison in the entire Soviet Space Program (or spaceflight in general) the N1's various engines shut off 5–9 seconds after liftoff at 150–200 meters above the pad. The N1 fell back onto the launchpad and was promtly destroyed in a fireball of epic proportions. While nobody was killed it did acheive a different spaceflight record than the one they were hoping for, "Largest Non-Nuclear Explosion in Human History !!!". Suffice to say the tower was destroyed. It would be another 18 months before the launchpad was rebuilt and the Soviets could resume launches. It was later discovered that a computer programming error caused the unintended shutdown.

Finally on December 9th, 1977 the Soviet's launched the final two components of the puzzle, namely the LK lander, Soyuz 7K-LOK and the cosmonauts themselves. After four days of transit next generation cosmonauts Vladimir Kovalyonok (Commander) and Valery Ryumin (Flight Engineer) both transferred by EVA to an LK who's hatch refused to budge thanks to a faulty safety mechanism. Once inside the cramped cabin the dynamic duo began their descent and watched the Block D fall from below them towards it's inevitable fate of making one more small crater on the Moon. When the dust cleared the crew stepped out Commander first (a tradition already present on US flights and only now being adopted by Russians). They made a "short" (in the stiff Russian suits it didn't feel like that) walk towards the LK shelter, their home for the next month of their lives, on the Moon. While they were the first long term residents they were not the first visitors. Irina Solovyova (the first and at the time, only Women to walk on the Moon) had scouted that same area four years prior. Nothing from original stay was left but some long defunct experiments the LK's landing legs and the Soviet flag still standing proudly in what was the first inklings of a lunar base.

The cosmonauts galloped and drove along the dusty surface of Clauvius Crater for four weeks until finally with consumables nearly drained they said their goodbyes and left the base camp behind. As their LK spacecraft achieved it's orbit around the Moon the Soviets peered out of the LK's sole, tiny window to see the now empty Soyuz. They returned to find a vehicle powered down and so frigid cold they see their own breath. The activation of the Soyuz was a critical activity necessary for ensuring the survival of the crew and their stories, Trans-Earth-Injection. Their landing was less than ideal to say the least as they ploughed into the ground without the cushioning blow of the Descent Capsule's Retro-Rockets. The capsule tumbled down a hill only to come crashing into an Icy Siberian lake. It was a full day until the cosmonauts were rescued while the families and world watched anxiously.

 

[SpaceGeek]

The launch of Zarya-4 on an N-11 rocket September 21st 1977 marked the switch from engineering development stations (Zarya 1, 2 and 3) to routine operations, and united the most effective elements from each of the previous stations.

The new Zarya space station was unique not quite like it's predecessors. Unlike the Skylab B space station was designed to last multiple years but would still have times of unmanned flight between expedition visits, the first of which arrived on September 22nd 1977. Soyuz 15 was the first Earth Orbital Soyuz in two years but it was well worth the wait. A crew comprised of rookies Vladimir Kovalyonok (Commander) and Valeri Ryumin (Flight engineer) became Zarya-4's first residents. While onboard they monitored various physical and biological aspects of the human body as it adapted to the weightless, higher-radiation environment of Low Earth Orbit.

The most important feature on Zarya-4 however, was the addition of a second docking port on the aft end of the station, which allowed two spacecraft to be docked at once. One would be the Soyuz that originally launched the long duration crew while a second one would be open to any visiting short-duration crew. This was utilized in a program called Inter-Kosmos which allowed foreign governments on good terms with the USSR to send their own cosmonauts into space.

The more interesting feature of this second docking port was the other vehicle that would be visiting it. While unmanned Soyuz spacecraft had been flying since before Komarov's near-fatal Soyuz-1 flight they had never really served any purpose other than testing out the capabilities of the Soyuz itself. Now a modified version of Soyuz had been developed which could carry 2.3 tonnes of pressurized payload to the space station. Work had begun on the design in mid-1973 and after over four years of work finally launched on November 7th 1977. Progress-1 delivered consumables such as Food, Water and Oxygen to a grateful Kovalyonov and Ryumin waiting above.

After leaving the Station on November 27th 1977 the Zarya-4 was left empty, unlike Skylab B which experienced constant crew rotations and was continuously occupied Zarya-4 would experience periods of unmanned service between manned flights. It wasn't long however until Soyuz 16's R-7 took off in a cloud of smoke and flames bound for the very same destination. While Soyuz-15 had set a new 96 day duration record (the first Soviet duration record in four years) Soyuz-16 intended to break this by staying for 140 days in space. This approached the one-way mission time to reach either of the nearby planets of Mars and Venus.

 

[brovane]

Great to see they are finally starting to use un-manned re-supply ships.

I enjoyed reading the updates to the timeline.

 

[fasquardon]

Still loving this.

And still wondering how the heck the scientists (particularly the Americans at this point) are justifying their programs to their political masters. Much as the new Saturn V variants are going to enjoy economies of scale, it is still going to be damn expensive to do each launch.

Are the Soviet launch failures seen as being bad enough that it has political reprecussions? Or are they seen as being the inevitable effect of bad luck when working with such dangerous technology?

fasquardon

 

[SpaceGeek]

Still loving this.

And still wondering how the heck the scientists (particularly the Americans at this point) are justifying their programs to their political masters. Much as the new Saturn V variants are going to enjoy economies of scale, it is still going to be damn expensive to do each launch.

Are the Soviet launch failures seen as being bad enough that it has political reprecussions? Or are they seen as being the inevitable effect of bad luck when working with such dangerous technology?

fasquardon

The Latter. What did you expect? The N-1 to launch perfectly everysingle time? The Proton failed IOTL and you didn't see political consequences. The R-7 failed and you didn't see political consequences.

As for the first question, the Soviets beat the Americans to the Moon in 1969 and were ahead for most of the 1960s Space Race. In 1970 the US decided they needed to beat the Russians to a Moonbase and Space Station. The Soviets launch a Space Station in 1972 which is successful (a 30 day mission and a 45 day mission). More Soviet space stations that compete with Skylab. The gap between 1972 and 1975 where the Soviets were the only ones landing on the Moon and reaping propaganda firsts.

Budgets are higher and the Space Shuttle is never developed (saving a large amount of cash). The Soviets also never have to develop Buran/Energia which saves them a ton of cash.

 

[SactoMan101]

Actually, what I think may happen during the 1980's is that instead of a big Space Shuttle carrying cargo, we'll have small spaceplanes developed during the 1980's that carry up seven astronauts to the Soviet and American space stations. The American version will be launched on top of an uprated Saturn 1B rocket, while the Soviet version will be launched from the ATL version of the Proton rocket.