No Energia-Buran - whither the Soviet space program?

From what I can tell, the Energia-Buran program that the USSR pursued from the mid 70s to 1989 was, while somewhat cheaper than the STS development program, still hugely expensive and produced a system that didn't really fit any need that the USSR would actually face in the 80s or (had the country survived) the 90s onward.

So WI the Soviet leadership are able to resist the temptation to copy the US shuttle and instead something like the following plan is decided on:

*Continued use of Semyorka variants for the smaller launches.
*"Zenit" (11K77) chosen as the medium-lift rocket
*A hydrolox upper stage plus appropriate engine to be developed for the 11K77
*Heavy lift variants of the "Zenit" are pursued like the proposals for the 11K37 vehicle or the later Sodruzhestvo proposals (depending on the exact variant, these were envisioned as being able to launch 25-75 tonnes to LEO)
*Development of a small space plane for launch atop a "Zenit" or "Proton" launcher (like OTL's MIG 105, the rumored Uragan, MAKS or the LKS) with military, crew transport and cargo transport variants being produced to cover
*Long term investigation of air-launch systems for the small space plane (as per the original MIG 105 plans and the MAKS plans).

This would, altogether, meet the USSR's own needs and desires at the cost of leaving it without their own shuttle-sized "orbital bomber" and short of the immense payloads that OTL's Energia could launch. The Soviets would gain experience with hydrolox, they would simplify their launch systems, gain the ability to launch larger payloads and increase the re-usability of their craft.

How useful do people think the Zenit-based heavy lift vehicles would be?

And how useful would a mini-shuttle be? Looking at some of the proposals, I wonder if they wouldn't run aground for similar reasons that Hermes did. Would an attempt at a mini shuttle mean no shuttle for the Soviets?

If the mini-shuttle were useful, how likely would they be to see use after in a post-collapse Russian space program?

Can the Soviets, or the Russians post-collapse, make air-launched mini-shuttles viable if resources hadn't gone into Energia-Buran?

fasquardon
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
This could work within Drew Rumsfeldia TL where the U.S shuttle Columbia blow up in November 1981. :cool:

You don't really need the Proton-launched spaceplane - the MAKS shuttle was progressing nicely as of 1988-89.

Zenit is a very good launch vehicle while Proton is unreliable and uses toxic propellants. Zenit major flaw is, it is build in Ukraine, not Russia.

I suggest a Moon base as the main goal - Glushko really, really wanted to do it, but Energia and Buran took all the funding away.
 
This could work within Drew Rumsfeldia TL where the U.S shuttle Columbia blow up in November 1981. :cool:

You don't really need the Proton-launched spaceplane - the MAKS shuttle was progressing nicely as of 1988-89.

Zenit is a very good launch vehicle while Proton is unreliable and uses toxic propellants. Zenit major flaw is, it is build in Ukraine, not Russia.

I suggest a Moon base as the main goal - Glushko really, really wanted to do it, but Energia and Buran took all the funding away.

So an earlier shuttle disaster convinces the Soviets to change the course of their program? I feel that Glushko would fight to keep the Energia and Vulkan launchers in such a scenario though. By 1981, enough development work had been done that sticking with Energia would provide him the best chance at getting the heavy rocket he wanted.

Proton at this point (the late 70s) was fairly reliable - still, Proton staying in service once the Zenit came online was mostly a political and economic decision driven by the collapse of the USSR. If the Zenit were developed earlier, giving it time to displace the Proton, or if the USSR does not collapse or collapses later, I think Zenit-derived hardware would replace Proton. (One of the Sodruzhestvo proposals had a Zenit mated with an asymmetric booster which as far as I can tell was to have been able to launch 25 tonnes to LEO - just right for a Proton replacement.)

Still, regardless of whether the Proton is actually phased out, I am curious what the Soviets could actually do if they fully developed one of the many mini-shuttle ideas they had, so I proposed that they stick with something the same sort of size as their OTL efforts.

And was MAKS really that far along? My impression is that it was mostly a paper study.

As to the moon base, would it be possible to economically build a moonbase with a 11K37 type rocket able to deliver 54 tonnes to LEO? Most proposals I've seen for building a moon base have insisted that something like the Saturn V or Vulkan would be needed.

fasquardon
 

Archibald

Banned
MAKS went as far as the mockup stage, with the RD-701 tripropellant (kerosene + hydrogene + liquid oxygen oxidizer) engines being tested at component level

maksmu1.jpg


Most proposals I've seen for building a moon base have insisted that something like the Saturn V or Vulkan would be needed.

54 tons to orbit is not that bad. You could use LEO rendezvous, perhaps at the Mir space station, with MAKS replacing Soyuz as the crew ferry.

Launch the 54*2 tons lunar stack unmanned to Mir, then crew transfer after launch by MAKS before heading to the Moon.
 
The problem was that Soviets not understand the Shuttle program
They read the NASA press kit about the Economic value of Space Shuttle, but scrutinize why what USA launch so much hardware in space and for what ?
So came the Paranoid mindset, that USA real wanted expand there Military presents in space, since the USAF was working with NASA on Shuttle program.
It went even so far that a soviet study claim that space shuttle is really a USAF orbital bomber who will do nuclear raid on Moscow any time !
With this paranoid Mind set the Politburo and Military wished development in the Soviet Union of a "reusable manned spacecraft with analogous tactical-technical characteristics".
in simple words: "Build it like the US Shuttle" what let to Energia Buran, like Lunar program: again to late, under funding and allot improvisation, it was launch 1988
so to stop the Soviet Shuttle you have to stop US Shuttle...

MAKS Shuttle so nice the concept is, it's rocket engine that burn Oxygene with Kerosine and Hydrogen is extrem complex and expensive in R&D also in maintenance.

So what if Zenit is not build in Ukraine by Yuzhnoye Design Bureau, but in Russia by NPO Energija ?
After end of Energia program can Russia Space program survived with Zenit and it's 11K37 variant "Heavy Zenit".
 
Apparently much of the reason why the politburo wanted a shuttle so bad was that a particular paper was written about the shuttle's ability to act as a nuclear bomber - I think the author's name was something like "Kadylish". From what I read (which was only yesterday - I should have saved the link and remembered the fellow's name) it made some claims that implied the shuttle could apply stupendous amounts of delta V to bombing missions - quickly changing orbits once launched, entering a steep descent over the target (which could be anywhere in the USSR), loosing nukes, then ascending back out of Soviet airspace ready to bomb the next target...

So if that paper was never written, then perhaps Brezhnev never has the meeting in 1976 that scares him into throwing the kitchen into a massive Energia-Buran program.

To move Zenit production out of the Ukraine, perhaps this path would work:

*As per OTL, the RD-170 proves a tricky beast to develop, so the NK-33 is used instead (either as a stopgap or as a permanent change to the rocket design), this allows the Zenit to enter service 5 years earlier than OTL.
*The earlier start to use means the Zenit has time to displace the Proton, meaning in turn more bulk production is needed
*due to safety issues in the Yuzhnoye manufacturing facilities (which mainly supplied hypergolic rockets for the military and the Zenit used a particular alloy that was visually identical to the alloy used for similar parts in hypergolic rockets, but corroded easily when exposed to the toxic hypergolic chemicals making a mix-up of alloys potentially catastrophic), production is moved over to the production facilities of NPO Engergia.

If either the MAKS or the LKS were developed to the point where they flew, would either of them have much utility? I'm wondering if the Soviets would face a similar problem to that of Hermes, where it was found that crew transport and cargo transport packed into the same vehicle each undermined the other function.

fasquardon
 
IOTL, the Zenit LV was designed in part to have a non-toxic replacement for the Proton LV - which never happened thanks to the collapse of the USSR - and in part to test the Energia LRBs since the Zenit 1st Stage was effectively the re-purposed Energia LRB. When Zenit was test-flown, it did suffer early failures, but always in the second stage so they concluded that the first stage was fit for use.

I can't see the NK-33 being utilised in the Zenit (or whatever they decide to call it) as Glushko still had quite the Ego at that time - he only mellowed out near the end of his life IIRC - and the NK-33 was associated with the N1, which had suffered four launch failures in four launch attempts. However, not needing a reusable Closed-Cycle LOX/Kerosene Engine can mean a faster development so maybe its possible to have it online 2-3 years sooner than IOTL?

Another important factor to consider is that the Soviet Military was quite paranoid at the time, feeling the need to have constant parity with the US in all fields. So when the USAF support for STS was combined with the calculations that told them that the economic case for STS simply failed to add up, the conclusion that it had some ulterior purpose was quick to spread. Thus was the "need" for them to be able to match it decided. Hence, Energia/Buran.

So really, the only viable means of keeping Energia/Buran off is to kill off STS somehow.

Best example to date I've seen so far would be E of Pi's and Workable Goblin's Eyes Turned Skywards [1] which dealt with leveraging Saturn/Apollo Hardware and going with Stations instead of pursuing STS. Which sees the USSR make a very different response for parity which leads to massive changes down the line.

[1] - That link takes you to page 49 of that thread, where the Soviet Response becomes known.
 
Check Archibald TL "Explorers: my new space TL"

Here The Space Shuttle got Canceled, instead Big Gemini is launched, what let Soviets to another path to make N1 flyable.
but here you can go for Zenit

on NK-33 in Zenit
Glushko take over OKB-1 he was boss of Soviet Space program, but also leading Rocket Engine constructor in USSR
second was Kuznetsov Design Bureau constructor of NK-33, what Glushko consider as rotten, crap and other untactful words.
next to that gave Brezhnev (on Glushko advice) the order to destroy everything of L3 Lunar program: the N1 rocket, engine LOK and LK spacecraft
yes Kuznetsov hide his NK-33 engine but there found after USSR collapsed and Glushko was dead since three years...
 

Archibald

Banned
Apparently much of the reason why the politburo wanted a shuttle so bad was that a particular paper was written about the shuttle's ability to act as a nuclear bomber - I think the author's name was something like "Kadylish". From what I read (which was only yesterday - I should have saved the link and remembered the fellow's name) it made some claims that implied the shuttle could apply stupendous amounts of delta V to bombing missions - quickly changing orbits once launched, entering a steep descent over the target (which could be anywhere in the USSR), loosing nukes, then ascending back out of Soviet airspace ready to bomb the next target...
You are spot on. The guy was Keldysh, the top Soviet mathematician at the time (and a very paranoid man), and this is a true story (although entirely stupid with perfect hindsight)

The reason was the shuttle pad in Vandenberg, California. The Air Force wanted to launch Key Hole spy satellites in polar orbit and land after a single orbit, but the (paranoid) Soviets come to believe the shuttle from Vandenberg was to drop a single nuke on Moscow, sneaking between the SAMs and the ABM missile layers and landing after a single orbit, before it could be shot from the sky. Decapitation strike from above scared the hell out of the Soviets.

I don't know if Buran can be avoided if NASA (and the military) build the space shuttle from 1972. On the other hand, scrapping the U.S shuttle isn't exactly a bad thing.

It is a matter of Cold War balance of terror: every U.S weapon system needs a soviet equivalent, and that includes the shuttle (Ohio subs = Typhoon, Tu-160 = B-1, and on)

But the Soviets certainly hated the shuttle and did not wanted to build Buran. In fact they dragged their feets until 1976 while Nixon had started the shuttle program in January 1972.

Nobody (except Glushko, but he had dhis own reasons) wanted to build a Soviet shuttle because it was an hybrid of aircraft and spacecraft; and in the Soviet Union the two branches hated each other because in 1960 five aircraft shops had been brutally shut down and their engineers transfered to the missile industry. The Soviet leadership stated that ICBMs were much cheaper than strategic bombers or supersonic cruise missiles, so the axe fell on the (unfortunate) aviation OKBs like Lavotchkin or Tsybin.
The aviation minister (Dementyev) and the rocket minister (Afanasyev) hated each other. No way they would work together on a soviet space shuttle. It took Glushko a lot of energy (and political machinations) to overcome that roadblock.

This book is the best reference on Buran http://www.springer.com/br/book/9780387698489
 
Last edited:
IOTL, the Zenit LV was designed in part to have a non-toxic replacement for the Proton LV - which never happened thanks to the collapse of the USSR - and in part to test the Energia LRBs since the Zenit 1st Stage was effectively the re-purposed Energia LRB. When Zenit was test-flown, it did suffer early failures, but always in the second stage so they concluded that the first stage was fit for use.

Hmm. I wonder if, with the lack of Energia to give the Zenit 1st stage a use no matter what, the Zenit would in fact end up cancelled.

And from what I can find out, Zenit was at first going to use hypergolic fuel - the first Zenit designs were improve economic efficiency by reducing complexity:

In the late 60's - early 70-ies. in the USSR there were 7 types of launch vehicles developed on the basis of 4 different combat missiles, which used 13 types of missile units, 15 types of propulsion systems on 8 different fuel components, among which played a large part toxic, 7 control systems. For the preparation and launch of carrier rockets used 12 technical and 10 starting positions, in which more than 5,000 people were employed.

The decision that Zenit had to be non-toxic only came in 1971. The decision to also make the 1st stage of the Zenit the booster for Energia then came in the late 70s.

Another important factor to consider is that the Soviet Military was quite paranoid at the time, feeling the need to have constant parity with the US in all fields.

They certainly were paranoid, but how paranoid is a different question. I was surprised to find out how much resistance there was to Brezhnev's policy of equaling the American nuclear warhead stockpile, for example.

And certainly the Soviets weren't unwilling to adopt weapon systems that they thought suited their purposes better, rather than to always adopt clones of American systems.

So, in the absence of Keldysh's rather generous paper, would a mini-shuttle like the MIG Spiral (which was cancelled in 1978, so well after the point where Brezhnev made his decision for a shuttle clone in OTL) look like a superior weapon for the needs and capabilities of the Soviets?

next to that gave Brezhnev (on Glushko advice) the order to destroy everything of L3 Lunar program: the N1 rocket, engine LOK and LK spacecraft
yes Kuznetsov hide his NK-33 engine but there found after USSR collapsed and Glushko was dead since three years...

It seems like the NK-33 was considered as a replacement for the RD-171 in OTL, so the secret of the preserved engines must have been at least somewhat of an open secret among rocket scientists... Or maybe the people advocating a switch to the NK-33 were assuming they'd need to build new engines from the blueprints.

You are spot on. The guy was Keldysh, the top Soviet mathematician at the time (and a very paranoid man), and this is a true story (although entirely stupid with perfect hindsight)

Keldysh! That's it! Man, I tried spelling his name so many different ways trying to find his paper...

But the Soviets certainly hated the shuttle and did not wanted to build Buran. In fact they dragged their feets until 1976 while Nixon had started the shuttle program in January 1972.

Nobody (except Glushko, but he had dhis own reasons) wanted to build a Soviet shuttle because it was an hybrid of aircraft and spacecraft; and in the Soviet Union the two branches hated each other because in 1960 five aircraft shops had been brutally shut down and their engineers transfered to the missile industry. The Soviet leadership stated that ICBMs were much cheaper than strategic bombers or supersonic cruise missiles, so the axe fell on the (unfortunate) aviation OKBs like Lavotchkin or Tsybin.
The aviation minister (Dementyev) and the rocket minister (Afanasyev) hated each other. No way they would work together on a soviet space shuttle. It took Glushko a lot of energy (and political machinations) to overcome that roadblock.

This book is the best reference on Buran http://www.springer.com/br/book/9780387698489

Hmm. My impression was that the USSR always had a much greater interest in getting themselves a spaceplane. Though most of the effort was from Chelomei himself and the airplane design bureaus (particularly MIG, from which many of the designers for the Buran were taken when the decision to shut down Spiral was taken).

That makes me wonder if the USSR is, for reasons of this rivalry, is either doomed to be stuck with capsules, or doomed to have an aircraft-launched space plane that can give the fliers "revenge" against the rocket men...

fasquardon
 

Archibald

Banned
MiG Spiral led to System 49, system 49, to Bizan, and Bizan to MAKS. As you said Spiral gave its team of engineers to Buran. If Buran is not build in the first place, there are chance that a space plane is put into service ALONG capsules - the TKS was developed even if Soyuz was flying. Unlike the U.S shuttle that slained Apollo, I think there is room for both a space plane and a capsule in the Soviet Union.

In the late 60's - early 70-ies. in the USSR there were 7 types of launch vehicles developed on the basis of 4 different combat missiles, which used 13 types of missile units, 15 types of propulsion systems on 8 different fuel components, among which played a large part toxic, 7 control systems. For the preparation and launch of carrier rockets used 12 technical and 10 starting positions, in which more than 5,000 people were employed.

Great God... and to think many people complain about NASA standing army...
 
MiG Spiral led to System 49, system 49, to Bizan, and Bizan to MAKS. As you said Spiral gave its team of engineers to Buran. If Buran is not build in the first place, there are chance that a space plane is put into service ALONG capsules - the TKS was developed even if Soyuz was flying. Unlike the U.S shuttle that slained Apollo, I think there is room for both a space plane and a capsule in the Soviet Union.

Huh. It looks like System 49 used the NK-43 (the upper atmosphere version of the NK-33). The Bizan in turn looks to have used some variant of the NK-43 - astronautix calls it the NK-43A.

So it looks like the NK-33 was something of an open secret.

I think a big factor influencing whether capsules survived in the mini-shuttle age is if the mini-shuttle chosen could be launched as an automated cargo vehicle. According to this page, it looks like MAKS was to have a cargo-only version (the MAKS-T) that could launch 18 tonnes to LEO. Against that, I'm not sure that the Zarya capsule can really compete.

Anyone have any thoughts about whether a mini-shuttle could be sold to the Politburo and the military as a more effective orbital bomber than the US shuttle?

Great God... and to think many people complain about NASA standing army...

Yes. And much of the plethora of launchers and components came after Korolev's death. An example of the battle for supremacy of those years as well as Brezhnev's tendency to give everyone a little bit of what they wanted. The USSR suffered a similar multiplication of IBCM systems in the same period.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
So reading "Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle" by Hendrickx & Vis on Google Books, I found on page 262 a description of Energia's chief designer, Boris Gubanov, flying to the Kuznetsov plant where he was shown a warehouse with 90 NK-33s - so clearly it was a very open secret.

Also, it appears that over the 70s, the NK-33 had been improved from 170 tons of thrust to "just over" 200 tons of thrust, which gives the engine a pretty stonking thrust-to-weight ratio.

EDIT: On page 68 in the same book, it mentions that in 1974, there was a competition for proposals for next-generation launch vehicles. Among the entrants for this competition were upgraded versions of the Semyorka and Proton rockets, each to be using NK-33 engines and burning ker-lox propellants. (The proposal for the ker-lox Proton is particularly interesting.)

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
So reading "Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle" by Hendrickx & Vis on Google Books, I found on page 262 a description of Energia's chief designer, Boris Gubanov, flying to the Kuznetsov plant where he was shown a warehouse with 90 NK-33s - so clearly it was a very open secret.

Also, it appears that over the 70s, the NK-33 had been improved from 170 tons of thrust to "just over" 200 tons of thrust, which gives the engine a pretty stonking thrust-to-weight ratio.

EDIT: On page 68 in the same book, it mentions that in 1974, there was a competition for proposals for next-generation launch vehicles. Among the entrants for this competition were upgraded versions of the Semyorka and Proton rockets, each to be using NK-33 engines and burning ker-lox propellants. (The proposal for the ker-lox Proton is particularly interesting.)

fasquardon

yes OKB-52 proposed in 1975 the UR-500MK to change Proton design from UMDH/NTO to Kerosine/Oxygen propellant
 
Top