A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

We don't really know if the Soviet Union will collapse like in OTL or follow a similar path to nixonshead's Buran lives TL. Or something completely different. 1989 to 1991 were very turbulent years where simple decisions had vast repercussions.

Also, I am feeling a bit skeptical of the US pouring funds into the Soviet Space Program, they are already spending more than comfortable, if anyone would have the money and willingness to spend it, it would probably be France (in case Germany reunites), China (To gain experience, technical know-how and prestige by landing a Chinese person on the moon) and Britain (Either by the British Government or privately by REL given the recent cancellation of HOTOL - if there was one in TTL)
 
We don't really know if the Soviet Union will collapse like in OTL or follow a similar path to nixonshead's Buran lives TL. Or something completely different. 1989 to 1991 were very turbulent years where simple decisions had vast repercussions.
Nixon said in a reply that the Soviet Union would collapse, as it butterflying to surviving is too small ITTL, Gorbachev will still run the Soviet Union to the ground (reforms, openness, and stuff)
Also, I am feeling a bit skeptical of the US pouring funds into the Soviet Space Program, they are already spending more than comfortable, if anyone would have the money and willingness to spend it, it would probably be France (in case Germany reunites), China (To gain experience, technical know-how and prestige by landing a Chinese person on the moon) and Britain (Either by the British Government or privately by REL given the recent cancellation of HOTOL - if there was one in TTL)
Britain is too cheap to have a huge presence in space, France alone wouldn't be able to fund continued missions, China would likey fund some missions, but likely just reverse engineer everything in order to have their own moon rocket and landing
ESA might be able to fund a few missions, but the politics would be a nightmare as 3 person crews would mean that 1 or 2 ESA astronauts would fly per flight, and you can imagine the issues a country having with flying another country to the moon, Britain refused to support ESA in a huge capacity as "they didn't want to pay for a frenchman to fly". Good luck finding a private company to fund lunar flights on the N1 in the 90s, nobody can afford that and as there is no profit, will not waste the money

The US will likely provide funds for a similar reason to OTL, basically keeping rocket engineers employed and not looking for jobs in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and China. The Russian base can then be the first module in an international moonbase, so the Americans can send people to it and potentially land modules near it
 
Nixon said in a reply that the Soviet Union would collapse, as it butterflying to surviving is too small ITTL, Gorbachev will still run the Soviet Union to the ground (reforms, openness, and stuff)
Where? I brought the point of the Soviet Union not collapsing because he brought up a few pages before the possible fate like in the Buran TL, where, even with Gorbachev, they managed to drag on the Union.
Britain is too cheap to have a huge presence in space, France alone wouldn't be able to fund continued missions, China would likey fund some missions, but likely just reverse engineer everything in order to have their own moon rocket and landing
ESA might be able to fund a few missions, but the politics would be a nightmare as 3 person crews would mean that 1 or 2 ESA astronauts would fly per flight, and you can imagine the issues a country having with flying another country to the moon, Britain refused to support ESA in a huge capacity as "they didn't want to pay for a frenchman to fly". Good luck finding a private company to fund lunar flights on the N1 in the 90s, nobody can afford that and as there is no profit, will not waste the money

The US will likely provide funds for a similar reason to OTL, basically keeping rocket engineers employed and not looking for jobs in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and China. The Russian base can then be the first module in an international moonbase, so the Americans can send people to it and potentially land modules near it
I never said anything about a huge presence in space, even just a mission every 4 years, be it a moon landing or a Baikal one as it was during that time they were interested in human rated spaceflight, TTL it might be more intense with the moon landings.

Though you bought up an interesting point, how much is actually the cost for a lunar landing (non-US)? The N-1 program costed something like 30% of the Saturn V if I remember correctly, and with the high tempo of N-1 launches and mass produced modules that price should be driven down.
 
Only here ESA and JAXA have already gone to their space station. Maybe it's just me, but both platforms could be a good point for expansion in the Tiangong style, which would be quite interesting.

It would be interesting if the ISS was created based on option C from 1993 plus the large Zarya module.

optionc3.jpg
 
Where? I brought the point of the Soviet Union not collapsing because he brought up a few pages before the possible fate like in the Buran TL, where, even with Gorbachev, they managed to drag on the Union.
I forgot that
I never said anything about a huge presence in space, even just a mission every 4 years, be it a moon landing or a Baikal one as it was during that time they were interested in human rated spaceflight, TTL it might be more intense with the moon landings.
Sorry, but still countries would want to fund missions without giving concessions namely seats, i doubt that ESA would be able to maintain the funding coalition where everybody pays for a German to fly to the moon (or Italian, French, Dutch)
Though you bought up an interesting point, how much is actually the cost for a lunar landing (non-US)? The N-1 program costed something like 30% of the Saturn V if I remember correctly, and with the high tempo of N-1 launches and mass produced modules that price should be driven down.
i know its lower than the Saturn V, the V had expensive engines, huge overengineering (gotta love the Germans) on the first stage, and insulation that needed surfers to put on on the second stage. And the V program also had to deal with the F-1 engine blowing up constantly, which was one of the main criticisms of NASA pre-Apollo-1
Flight rate and experience is a huge factor here, we are at launch 20 something for the N1, which gives lots of proven flight experience, as well as lots of manufacturing experience, where the costs go down because of proven techniques. the V didn't have this (as much) as the stages were built from 67 till 68, and issues like Pogo still popped up from time to time (ten had it due to a brace accidentally left on, 13 had it causing engine 5 S-II shutdown).

The N1 was more low-tech, both in materials and technology, the engines are cheap, even though theres 30 of them. even 1 lunar flight every 2-3 years would be doable. And with the aforementioned 20 years of production already, would be better.

The Saturn V was good for its time, but the sheer cost made it usable as long as it was needed, by Apollo 15 Nixon wanted to axe further flights, as the risk of another 13 would be a disaster, and more importantly, nobody really gave a shit about people going to the moon anymore AND the perceived cost was a negative for publicity. "if you ain't first, your last" really set in after 11, As good as it would be to keep the rocket flying i always ask what it would have launched, Lunar flights would only have continued with a Soviet landing (first or second), and as Apollo would be canceled anyway, keeping the V flying would be pointless unless NASA decided to fly TKS's on steroids with the fairing and SM being replaced with a habitation module similar to the FGB. Not to mention that 2 billion per rocket is fucking expensive,i doubt it would cheapen out lower then 1.5 billion a flight
Only here ESA and JAXA have already gone to their space station. Maybe it's just me, but both platforms could be a good point for expansion in the Tiangong style, which would be quite interesting.

It would be interesting if the ISS was created based on option C from 1993 plus the large Zarya module.
The US would want the nuclear reactor gone, it creates issues in regards to radiation, the biological shielding the US would require would be insane, with the weight it would be too heavy to launch either (lead is the only good one), not to mention the lack of experience or knowledge of the effects sustained radiation has on space modules would basically make this an outright requirement
 
The US would want the nuclear reactor gone, it creates issues in regards to radiation, the biological shielding the US would require would be insane, with the weight it would be too heavy to launch either (lead is the only good one), not to mention the lack of experience or knowledge of the effects sustained radiation has on space modules would basically make this an outright requirement
After all, there will be experience from almost 10 years of using Zarya 3. The Russians will sell any information so that the Americans will finance their next flight.

Especially since it would solve OTL's problems with the lack of energy in the Russian part of the ISS.
 
After all, there will be experience from almost 10 years of using Zarya 3. The Russians will sell any information so that the Americans will finance their next flight.

Especially since it would solve OTL's problems with the lack of energy in the Russian part of the ISS.
Still, the sustained effects might shorten the lifespan of the station, and radiation messes with electronics and stuff, i doubt the Americans would want to deal with the shielding and other stuff required, not to mention biological shielding for astronauts, both inside the station and during EVA
Its a headache the US will not want to deal with
OTL Russian segment uses both the huge arrays and their built-in panels for power, the Russians were going to have more modules, same as the US, but budget cuts pre and post-Columbia canceled a lot, from what i know the power is enough for the whole station to run, the Russians just negotiated for the big arrays power to be shared.
 
OTL Russian segment uses both the huge arrays and their built-in panels for power, the Russians were going to have more modules, same as the US, but budget cuts pre and post-Columbia canceled a lot, from what i know the power is enough for the whole station to run, the Russians just negotiated for the big arrays power to be shared.
The problem with power resulted from the failure to launch NEP for the Russian segment, which is why they had to buy some from the West.

However, I still believe that after modifications the reactor could be safely used in the future ISS. For example, by removing the usable part of the station and moving some of the systems to a dedicated module to increase radiation protection.
 
Would there be an optimum number of engines for a Saturn V / N1 size vehicle to have in terms of ease of manufacture, reliability etc?
 
The problem with power resulted from the failure to launch NEP for the Russian segment, which is why they had to buy some from the West.

However, I still believe that after modifications the reactor could be safely used in the future ISS. For example, by removing the usable part of the station and moving some of the systems to a dedicated module to increase radiation protection.
The NEP was needed if Russia would have had all the modules it planned on having put in orbit, as a bunch of them were cut the added power was not needed, and due to similar cutbacks on the American end with a node, US hab, Centrifuge and even the inflatable module, meant that the US Arrays and Russian arrays (that are still deployed and not folded) were more then enough power for the station
Russia had all kinds of funding issues with its space program, its why Nauka was delayed for 15 years, and why the US funded a decent percentage of the Russian Segment, as without US money its likely no Russian module would have made orbit (without significant delays). Nowadays funding is kinda better, but sanctions make anything besides manned flight more risky (recent lunar failure)
Though Russia giving a deadline for Soyuz flights to ISS did light a fire under the US's ass to actually fund commercial crew properly

Would there be an optimum number of engines for a Saturn V / N1 size vehicle to have in terms of ease of manufacture, reliability etc?
Ten-ish engines, the F-1s were expensive as fuck to fly, not to mention the amount destroyed in testing (40-something engines), N1 had issues due to the sheer amount of small engines, they were good and cheap, just the plumbing required caused issues

Saturn V was made with a blank check, hence why it was expensive and needed specialized parts for everything. N1 was made in a country where money IS an issue, so it was made with lesser materials and technology.
In the US most think NASA takes like 30 percent of the budget when its barely a percent, but the Soviets didn't have that issue (they could control criticism in the press). As a result, they had more stuff going on in space (Salyuts and MIR)
 
The problem with power resulted from the failure to launch NEP for the Russian segment, which is why they had to buy some from the West.

However, I still believe that after modifications the reactor could be safely used in the future ISS. For example, by removing the usable part of the station and moving some of the systems to a dedicated module to increase radiation protection.
Not to mention nuclear reactors require refueling to keep them operational for extended periods of time, ITTL with a launch in 83, and any potential ISS like station not likely to happen until the late 90s at minimum (development time), it would mean the reactor would have 15 years in space (by 97) and be operating at a severly reduced power generation capability
Refueling on orbit would be a headache at minimum
Modifications would be expensive and take time, not to mention be risky as fuck and give EVAing astronauts and cosmonauts radiation exposure (Uragan didn't dock ittl due to concerns over radiation damaging electronics). the only way i could see an iss like station is if you put every module inline (one long stick of modules) and thus in the biological shield cone
Protection on the ISS for electronics in space is a few thermal tarps or metal to reduce weight, the sheer amount of radiation protection and hardening for everything would make the modules heavy as fuck, likely too heavy for the Shuttle to lift them.
The sideeffects of constant radiation exposer to metal is brittleness, a big no-no in space, electronics are stripped due to atoms destroying stuff in chips, and worse, can cause electrical inputs, basically it could cause a engine to fire, robot arm to move, or mess with experiments and electronics aboard
 
Not to mention nuclear reactors require refueling to keep them operational for extended periods of time, ITTL with a launch in 83, and any potential ISS like station not likely to happen until the late 90s at minimum (development time), it would mean the reactor would have 15 years in space (by 97) and be operating at a severly reduced power generation capability
Refueling on orbit would be a headache at minimum
Modifications would be expensive and take time, not to mention be risky as fuck and give EVAing astronauts and cosmonauts radiation exposure (Uragan didn't dock ittl due to concerns over radiation damaging electronics). the only way i could see an iss like station is if you put every module inline (one long stick of modules) and thus in the biological shield cone
Protection on the ISS for electronics in space is a few thermal tarps or metal to reduce weight, the sheer amount of radiation protection and hardening for everything would make the modules heavy as fuck, likely too heavy for the Shuttle to lift them.
The sideeffects of constant radiation exposer to metal is brittleness, a big no-no in space, electronics are stripped due to atoms destroying stuff in chips, and worse, can cause electrical inputs, basically it could cause a engine to fire, robot arm to move, or mess with experiments and electronics aboard
That's why I'm talking about a module derived from option C from 1993. That is, one super module and one super module on the Soviet side, so there will be plenty of room for a possible shield.
NASA has access to Shuttle-C, which is partially funded by DOD.

I do not expect N-1 flights after the collapse of the USSR, apart from those already ready or partially in production, and they will probably be missions to the Moon financed by NASA.

Now the question is what the Vulcan looks like, whether it uses Kuznetsov engines or other ones. It is also a question of further cost optimization on the Soviet side.
 
Do we know anything about this nuclear reactor? How it operates, it's position, passive systems, what fuel it uses and how long it takes for depletion? Some reactors could consume all their fuel and if they spend decades working on it I assume they studied every possibility it might encounter, from manual to automatic refueling, cosmonaut exposure, radiation influence on material strength and integrity.
 
Would there be an optimum number of engines for a Saturn V / N1 size vehicle to have in terms of ease of manufacture, reliability etc?
Number of first stage engines of historical, current or currently in development Super Heavy launchers, with track record of the first stage during ascent
5 (Saturn V) 13/13*
5 (Space Shuttle) 133/135
6 (SLS) 1/1
7 (New Glenn - expendable) -/-
8 (Energia) 2/2
21 (Long March 10) -/-
27 (Falcon heavy - expendable) 9/9
29 (Starship - B4) -/-
30 (N1) 0/4
33 (Starship - current) 1/2

To which i could add, notable unrealised SHLV.
7 or 8 (Ares V as of cancellation, depending on 1st stage engine)
6 (TsKBM's lunar rocket Bid/UR-700)
20 (SAST's Long march 10 Bid)
30 (Lastest Long March 9 design)


So historically, it clusters toward the high single digit or around 30 or so, 10s doesn't seem like a good choice.

Saturn V's production facilities were designed for 6 vehicles a year, but IIRC, the average during the actual production was a bit under 4; N1 was, toward the launcher's cancellation, gearing for 4 launcher a year, there probably was some margin for improvement.

*or 12 if you consider the Apollo 6 S-IC as having failed due to being the root cause of the partial failure
 
Last edited:
Do we know anything about this nuclear reactor? How it operates, it's position, passive systems, what fuel it uses and how long it takes for depletion? Some reactors could consume all their fuel and if they spend decades working on it I assume they studied every possibility it might encounter, from manual to automatic refueling, cosmonaut exposure, radiation influence on material strength and integrity.
From what is described its shielding is infront of the crew portion, basically providing a safe "cone" of area where the crew can live without being exposed to radiation. As Uragan docking was a concern due to the radiation affecting the tail my guess is that the protection is really only for the crew part, the containment vessel around the reactor itself is not enough to keep radiation from leaking out. Cosmonauts would be limited on where they can go during EVA's.
Personally i would think refueling the reactor would be asking for issues, from radiation to disposal of the spent fuel. if we take the ISS development time from start to first module launch its about 8 years, which unless nixon starts the program in 88 for a module in 96, the reactor would spend 15 YEARS on orbit
A nuclear submarine and carrier gets refueled every 20-30 years, power nuclear reactors usally 15-20 (depends on where and what reactor)

The Voyagers power system is nuclear (if i'm not mistaken), and by the late 90s the power was already a fraction, which was why alot of components were powered down, Cassini i think had more, just ran out of fuel for gravity assists
Any potential ISS including Zarya would have to deal with radiation hardening on every component, and a nuclear reactor that is past its prime as guarenteed after 2000 it will be a fraction of its full output.
Its like the Martian, Mark Watney uses an RTG for heat, the author himself said that the radiation leaking would give Mark a higher chance of radiation based illness
That's why I'm talking about a module derived from option C from 1993. That is, one super module and one super module on the Soviet side, so there will be plenty of room for a possible shield.
NASA has access to Shuttle-C, which is partially funded by DOD.

I do not expect N-1 flights after the collapse of the USSR, apart from those already ready or partially in production, and they will probably be missions to the Moon financed by NASA.

Now the question is what the Vulcan looks like, whether it uses Kuznetsov engines or other ones. It is also a question of further cost optimization on the Soviet side.
Read my above interpretation of the reactor biological cone, that huge module design would not work with the Zarya 3 "as is" as the solar array's would be exposed with radiation. basically the solar cells would be damaged from the atoms from the reactor
 
Oh wow, this update blew me away! Anyway, here are some (well, maybe a lot) of my questions surrounding it.

With o-rings and better insulation foam, is there really any other big problem that could endanger the rest of the shuttle fleet? I mean, there is always a lot of things that could go wrong, but was there any other major hazard for space shuttle IOTL?
I'm sure there are many, probably a lot of them described in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, but I don't have them to hand right now. Wiki gives a list of risks for a typical mission as:

  1. Micro-Meteoroid Orbital Debris (MMOD) strikes
  2. RS-25-induced or RS-25 catastrophic failure (the Space Shuttle Main Engine)
  3. Ascent debris strikes to TPS leading to LOCV on orbit or entry
  4. Crew error during entry
  5. RSRM-induced RSRM catastrophic failure (RSRM are the rocket motors of the SRBs)
  6. COPV failure (COPV are tanks inside the orbiter that hold gas at high pressure)

Beyond the specific though, one of the big take-aways from both Challenger and Columbia is the shuttle was inherently risky by nature.

How will americans execute the Freedom program? Will it be firstly just short visits on the surface and then right away the Freedom base? And will they be sending any probes to map the surface, or will they be alright with the Apollo maps? Y'know, they might find some lunar water ice and that could change their plan about where to land the base...
First priority is boots on the surface, period. After that the plan is to pretty quickly start building up a small crew-tended base in one location. Missions (cargo or crew) need 1 Shuttle-C and 1 Orbiter launch each, so target sorty rate is 2/year, ideally more. Cargo missions can put around 10 tonnes on the surface, so the base will be gradually built up over time. Freedom is being supported by a number of small lunar science missions from the mid-80s onwards (smaller than e.g. OTL's Mars Observer, but larger than Clementine and the 'Faster, Better, Cheaper' probes it inspired).

And I reserve the right to change any and all of that as I write Part 3 :D

What were the reasons to land the base there?

No special reason, other than I half-remembered reading a short SF story set there, and it's a pretty name.

And the last one, when/where Moon Town render? The Skylab-B's looks terrific, I can't wait to see Lunyy Gorodok on the Moon!

I'd love to see close up of that Freedom capsule Model.
Sorry to say I don't have any renders of the Soviet moonbase ready for this Part, too many other things going on in my life. That's the same reason you're not going to see any close-ups of the Freedom capsule for a while.
In general, the Soviet lunar base modules will look broadly similar to these OTL plans.

Nixon said in a reply that the Soviet Union would collapse, as it butterflying to surviving is too small ITTL, Gorbachev will still run the Soviet Union to the ground (reforms, openness, and stuff)
Yes, the fact that there is no USSR in the present day was established by a throwaway line from our good friend Steve Maitlis. However, there is still scope to play with the details. As quoted by one of my all-time favourite alternate history timelines, What If Gordon Banks Had Played?:

Jeffery: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down
Richard: When the fall is all that is left, it matters a great deal
- The Lion in Winter

Though you bought up an interesting point, how much is actually the cost for a lunar landing (non-US)? The N-1 program costed something like 30% of the Saturn V if I remember correctly, and with the high tempo of N-1 launches and mass produced modules that price should be driven down.

Trying to put a meaningful dollar value on National Priority military projects of the late USSR is something well beyond my capabilities, and it's not clear to me that any meaningful comparison to US costs is possible. In writing the timeline, I've generally used units of "Buran Equivalent Cost" and compared what they're paying for ITTL compared to OTL. The lunar missions I'm considering to be about 1BEC, with Baikal coming in at around 0.66BEC (no Energia development). Zarya is roughly equivalent to OTL's Salyut/Mir. So they are definately spending more ITTL.

Now the question is what the Vulcan looks like, whether it uses Kuznetsov engines or other ones. It is also a question of further cost optimization on the Soviet side.
TTL's Vulkan looks a lot like OTL's Zenit or RLA-120. Sorry, Vulkan also fell victum to my time-drought.
The engines are kerolox closed-cycle engines developed by Glushko. One of his aims ITTL's Vulkan rocket was to try to re-claim the crown of Builder of the Greatest Rocket Engines Ever!!! from Kuznetsov. There's no way Glushko is using Kuznetsov's engines.

Do we know anything about this nuclear reactor? How it operates, it's position, passive systems, what fuel it uses and how long it takes for depletion? Some reactors could consume all their fuel and if they spend decades working on it I assume they studied every possibility it might encounter, from manual to automatic refueling, cosmonaut exposure, radiation influence on material strength and integrity.
Some more on this topic coming up next...
 
Interlude: Graveyard Orbit

2A9AKbfXlFR7247sVMWKu2X_8NskQG0MkQYMuvrHIZRoov5fL3cI0TUQ-0-9rz3ki72r7Jt7GZ91sqbD6YDMjiPg5CEANOSgmw0fg2NLvhA8NTRpd6mNuhmtvDBfiQ820z8oh849

Interlude: Graveyard Orbit​


The Earth was bright beneath Kostya’s feet, and a blue more intense than any he had seen before. White clouds sped past 300 km below, and he could make out the wakes of ships on the surface of the ocean. Thousands of people must be in his field of view right now. Even with no land in sight, Earth teamed with life.

Above was blackness. With his sun visor down, no stars were visible. The black above was as intense as the blue below. As black as death. But that was okay. Kostya had done his duty, to his motherland and to humanity. He had kept that blue orb safe from the follies of mankind.

There were worse ways to die.


++++++++++++++++++++​

It was the Novaya Gazeta paper that first publicly broke the story of the Zarya 3 accident. Official TASS reporting of the mission had noted the successful return of the crew of Slava 35 the previous week, marking the end of permanent habitation of the space station after more than six years in orbit. They had further reported the successful separation of the station’s EYaRD nuclear reactor a few days later, which was to be boosted by its built-in propulsion system into a graveyard orbit, high enough that it would remain in space for hundreds of years, until its radioactive core had safely decayed. Then the reports stopped.

Novaya Gazeta had been founded in Moscow just a year earlier, one of the first independent newspapers to emerge under the Glasnost reforms. With the Soviet population starved for anything but official news, its circulation had increased rapidly, and it had expanded to cover most of western Russia and parts of Ukraine and Belarus. Following a model well known to Western tabloids, sensational stories of political scandals and the corruption and immorality of the ruling classes formed the bedrock its coverage. But it also employed a science editor who took a keen interest in the space programme, and had a number of contacts at Kaliningrad, Star City, and other space centres. It was one of those contacts, looking to supplement his state salary with an unofficial bonus from the press, that had reached out with news that all was not well with the Zarya 3 decommissioning mission. After making some calls (from public phone boxes, just in case) and a clandestine meeting in Gorky park, the editor had been convinced of the public interest and commercial merits of the story. So it was that the morning edition of Novaya Gazeta on Tuesday 28th June 1988 led with the headline: “Nuclear Reactor Stranded in Orbit”.

++++++++++++++++++++​

Kostya spun slowly in space. Just a gentle turning, maybe three revolutions per minute. It helped to even out the heating of his suit while he was in the harsh sunlight of space. But now he had crossed the terminator, and was about to pass into the shadow of the Earth. By bad luck his spin was such that, when the sun finally passed below the horizon, it was hidden behind the bulk of his backpack and manoeuvring unit, and so Kostya missed the beauty of an orbital sunset. Well, there would be another in ninety minutes, if he should choose to wait for it.

With the sun now hidden, Kostya was able to raise his visor and finally see the stars. So many! So bright and steady! Kostya had grown up in Leningrad, where the clouds and the city lights conspired to make the stars invisible most nights. But he remembered visiting his grandfather in the country, and piercing clear winter nights on the shore of Lake Onega, when it seemed there were more stars than grains of sand on a beach. Now, as his eyes adjusted to the dark, Kostya was treated to the same glorious sight.

It was awesome, but at the same time it made him feel queasy. An uneasy feeling in his stomach that Kostya could not remember feeling since his first days in cosmonaut training, when they’d strapped him to a spinning metal frame to test his balance - or to try to drive out those not suited to life as a spaceman. Kostya had never been bothered by motion sickness after that, whether flying high performance jets, piloting the Baikal Shuttle Aero-analogue, or on his two missions to Zarya. But now…

Ah. Of course. It had started.


++++++++++++++++++++​

Zarya 3 had been designed for an operational lifetime of five years, and its EYaRD reactor had been sized accordingly. There was some margin built into the design that would allow that lifetime to be extended a little further, but operating the station beyond 1988 would mean either refuelling or replacing the reactor, neither of which was practical. At some point it would be necessary to abandon the station while they still had control to safely dispose of the reactor.

Boosting the entire space station into a high enough orbit for safety would mandate the use of an unreasonably large propulsion system, and so the reactor had been designed to separate from the station and put itself into a graveyard orbit using its own, dedicated propulsion system. This engine would have to remain dormant for the whole operational lifetime of the station, with most of that time spent in the increased radiation environment directly behind the reactor’s biological shield. It was therefore kept as simple as possible, with redundant control systems, and using the same self-igniting storable propellants as the main station propulsion system. The tanks would be kept empty for the most part, to be filled from the station’s main tanks by the final crew to visit the station. Once the crew were back on Earth and clear of any potential radiation hazard, the reactor and its propulsion system would separate from the station and push itself into a stable 1 500 km orbit.

When finally called into action, the separation system worked perfectly. The propulsion system did not. The highly radioactive Zarya 3 reactor was left stranded, with tanks full of pressurised, toxic propellant, in a low Earth orbit. Unless something was done, it would re-enter the atmosphere in just over a year.

++++++++++++++++++++​

The air in his visor was rancid now with the fumes of his vomit, but there was mercifully little liquid floating in his faceplate. Understanding what the mission ahead could entail - and knowing better than most what the consequences would be - Kostya had fasted before his mission, so there was little in his stomach to bring up. What droplets had emerged were streaked red with blood. They adhered to his visor, obscuring his view of the stars outside. The feelings of nausea had subsided for now, but Kostya knew they would be back, and that the aching in his muscles - in his very bones - would only get worse.

That was how it had been for his father. A worker at the Leningrad-1 power plant, his father had been on duty when a cooling unit had exploded, just a few months after the station came online. The blast had released a reservoir of contaminated water, and Kotsya’s father had almost drowned before the flood subsided as the radioactive liquid flowed out into the Baltic. He had been rushed to hospital, where Kostya had taken his mother and tried to visit him, but soldiers guarding the hospital ward had blocked their path. Kostya had caught a glimpse of his father vomiting blood, before they had been bundled away.

He had never seen his father again. Even at the funeral, three weeks later, the coffin had been sealed. The newspapers were silent, no official statement was made. It was more than ten years later that Kostya had finally found out what had happened, sharing an illicit bottle of vodka with one of his father’s old co-workers during Gorbachev’s temperance campaign.

Kostya was not going to die that way.

He reached for the oxygen valve.


++++++++++++++++++++​

The loss of the Zarya 3 reactor had placed the Soviets in an impossible position. The US had quickly confirmed the reports from Novaya Gazeta, and leaders from every nation on Earth were demanding to know what the Soviets planned to do about it. With no way of controlling its orbital descent, the reactor could come down almost anywhere. Although the reactor module had been designed to survive a launch explosion, there was no practical way to design a reactor that would remain intact after a fall from orbit, even if it somehow made it through the upper atmosphere without cracking open. Suppose it came down over a major city? Millions of people could be contaminated.

Unfortunately, the reactor was not cooperating. There was still no response to ground commands, and telescopic observations suggested that it had started to tumble, most likely as a result of a leak of either propellant or the cesium coolant gas. Even under ideal conditions, attaching a replacement booster under automatic control would be challenging. Trying to dock an uncrewed space tug (even assuming the Soviets had such a thing, which they didn’t) to a non-cooperative, randomly spinning target was just not feasible.

Even given all that and assuming a replacement booster could be attached, leaving the reactor in orbit - even a stable graveyard orbit - had become politically impossible. It would become a literal sword of Damocles over the world, a constant reminder of Soviet failure and recklessness. The leadership was clear that the reactor must be retrieved and safely disposed of, and there was only one possible means of doing so in the time available: Baikal.

++++++++++++++++++++​

It was quiet now, with the fans switched off. Dark, too, as he passed over the sleeping Earth. The pain in his limbs was slowly subsiding, though he was starting to develop a headache. Radiation, or CO2 poisoning, he wondered.

Not long now.


++++++++++++++++++++​

The space shuttle Tsiklon lifted off on the evening 14th November 1988. The N-1 rocket that carried her, vehicle 40L, had been hastily repurposed from the planned Zvezda 13/14 lunar mission. As she lifted from the pad, the roar of her rockets was joined by the clanging of dozens of lost tools and loose fittings left behind from the hurried preparations. No fewer than four of her NK-35 engines failed during ascent, but it was not enough to stop her. Almost two decades of upgrades had left the N-1 a far more resilient beast than that first, crude rocket. The fires were contained behind protective shields, soon extinguished by a dedicated suppression system. The twenty engines remaining extended their burns, compensating for their fallen comrades to push the stack to the brink of space, where the Blok-B engines could take up the burden. By the time the hydorlox engines of Blok-V-III shut down, the orbiter was left in a low but serviceable suborbital arc, peaking at just a few kilometres below its intended altitude. An extended burn from Tsiklon’s’s DOM orbital manoeuvring engines were enough to correct the shortfall.

TASS was reporting that Tsiklon had been specially modified to protect the crew during their mission, and that the habitable portions of the orbiter were lined with lead to block atomic radiation. This was not true, and all four members of the shuttle’s crew knew it. The sarcophagus in the payload bay, which would be used to secure and return the reactor, was heavily shielded. But with the reactor spinning, it would not be possible to approach in a way that would keep the shuttle within the radiation shadow of the biological shield, meaning they would all be exposed to an elevated dose that could trigger cancers in the years to come. The cosmonauts were aware of the risk, and all had accepted it as being necessary to protect people on the ground.

Tsiklon rendezvoused with the reactor on the day after launch. The plan was to approach within a dozen metres of the slowly spinning module and snare it with a type of improvised weighted net, fired by a compressed gas canister attached to the shuttle’s SBM robot arm. Once entangled in the net, it would be reeled in and placed into the sarcophagus. The net would then be cut loose of the SBM, while a series of cables within the sarcophagus tightened around the reactor and secured it in place for re-entry.

Tsikon’s SBM carried three of the snare net devices. The first two missed. The third hit, but failed to wrap around the module, instead slowly rebounding towards the orbiter. Tsiklon’s pilot was forced to back away from the reactor while a guillotine cut the net loose, to avoid it tangling on the orbiter.

Mission planners had considered the possibility that the jerry-rigged snares might not work, and they had prepared a back-up plan. Someone would have to go outside in a spacesuit and manoeuvring unit, grab the reactor, stop its spin, and attach a grapple point for the SBM to grab on.

Everyone knew this was a suicide mission.

++++++++++++++++++++​

There was no pain anymore, just a dreamy sensation. Ahead, through the soiled visor, Kostya could see the first hints of the coming dawn. A bright arc of light along the limb of the Earth, with only the occasional blot of a shadowed cloud marring that perfect curve. The arc spread and shifted in colour; a blue fringe of atomic oxygen, the rusty-red glow of sunlight scattered around the planet’s curve. Then the piercing white light of the sun rose above the horizon, blinding without his sun visor down. It moved steadily higher, spreading light and warmth and joy across the beautiful landscape below.

High above the planet he had given his life to protect, Konstantin Dmitriyevich Plushenko moved towards the light.


PQ8ZEe1OCIPjOL6EKEPow8TYhxHkDglJKX6nRaHfr08qMnqCvht2dkCCN9GqaEmMdoelZWS5PT0qfK2LB45q95j8lBIIUrTmPycFR8FOB3LljB-7aYYdPLPdcjrB3c__PSR43DTNsBZ96Akn4DF0I1o
 
Last edited:
Oh my God, I genuinely got chills reading this update. Space Chernobyl was genuinely not what I was expecting.

A salute to the brave cosmonaut who died to save the world (and the other 3 brave cosmonauts who will suffer health risks and potential death likely only a little while later).
 
Oh dear, well that guy was a hero and so are the others on the shuttle. However the SU has some explaining to do and I imagine orbiting nuclear reactors will be politically impossible worldwide from now on.
 
Top