WI: Proton rocket more reliable, 1967 - 1970

[Archibald]

Chelomei Proton rocket flew for the first time in 1965 after a very rushed development. The result was a very abysmal failure rate over the first five years: 25 launches, 12 failures. One out of two !

FTO = Failed To Orbit

07/16/65 Proton 20701 Proton 1 (N-4 1) 12.20 TB 81/23 LEO

11/02/65 Proton 20901 Proton 2 (N-4 2) 12.20 TB 81/23 LEO

03/24/66 Proton 21101 Proton (N-4 3) 12.20 TB 81/23 [FTO]

07/06/66 Proton 21201 Proton 3 (N-4 4) 12.20 TB 81/23 LEO

03/10/67 Proton-K/D 22701 Kosmos 146 (L-1 2P) 5.40 TB 81/23 EEO

04/08/67 Proton-K/D 22801 Kosmos-154 (L-1 3P) 5.40 TB 81/23 [LEO]

09/27/67 Proton-K/D 22901 Zond (L-1 4L) 5.39 TB 81/23 [FTO]

11/22/67 Proton-K/D 23001 Zond (L-1 5L) 5.39 TB 81/24 [FTO]

03/02/68 Proton-K/D 23101 Zond-4 (L-1 6L) 5.14 TB 81/23 EEO

04/22/68 Proton-K/D 23201 Zond (L-1 7L) 5.375 TB 81/24 [FTO]

07/15/68 Proton-K/D 23301 Zond (L-1 8L) 5.375 TB 81/? [PAD][1]

09/14/68 Proton-K/D 23401 Zond-5 (L-1 9L) 5.375 TB 81/23 TLI [2]

11/10/68 Proton-K/D 23501 Zond-6 (L-1 12L) 5.375 TB 81/23 TLI

11/16/68 Proton-K 23601 Proton-4 (N-6 1) 17.00 TB 81/24 LEO

01/20/69 Proton-K/D 23701 Zond (L-1 13L) 5.979 TB 81/23 [FTO]

02/19/69 Proton-K/D 23901 Luna (E-8 201) 5.60 TB 81/24 [FTO]

03/27/69 Proton-K/D 24001 Mars (2M 521) 4.85 TB 81/23 [FTO]

04/02/69 Proton-K/D 23301 Mars (2M 522) 4.85 TB 81/24 [FTO]

06/14/69 Proton-K/D 23801 Luna (E-8-5 402) 5.60 TB 81/24 [FTO]

07/13/69 Proton-K/D 24201 Luna-15 (E-8-5 401) 5.60 TB 81/24 TLI [3]

08/07/69 Proton-K/D 24301 Zond-7 (L-1 11) 5.979 TB 81/23 TLI

09/23/69 Proton-K/D 24401 Kosmos-300 (E-8-5 403) 5.60 TB 81/24 [LEO]

10/22/69 Proton-K/D 24101 Kosmos-305 (E-8-5 404) 5.60 TB 81/24 [LEO]

11/28/69 Proton-K/D 24501 Kosmos (L-1e 1) 10.38 TB 81/23 [FTO]

02/06/70 Proton-K/D 24701 Luna (E-8-5 405) 5.60 TB 81/23 [FTO]

Among the failures are a lot of Zond circumlunar manned ships and a good number of Lunar sample return ships.

As of spring 1970 after loosing three sample return Lunas in a row (!) the Proton was grounded, reviewed, tested in a suborbital flight. And things went better. Except that Moon race was already lost.

One of the glaring reasons for so many failures in Luna, Zond, Venera and Mars
missions in the late 60s and early 70s was poor performance of the Proton vehicle.
Succeeding in its initial launch and in two of its next three launches in 1965-66, its
initial performance appeared promising. But its record in the 3 years from March
1967 to February 1970 was abysmal. Ten of nineteen spacecraft were lost when the
Proton failed to deliver the Block D to Earth orbit. Another three achieved orbit but
were stranded when the second burn of the Block D failed. Only six of the nineteen
launches were fully successful. Sixteen were interplanetary, and the Proton failed in
eleven cases- four failures out of eight Zond launches to the Moon, five failures out
of six Luna launches, and the failure of both Mars launches in 1969. Unfortunately,
the failures were distributed throughout the vehicle including all stages, so it was
very difficult to make the vehicle reliable.
NPO-Lavochkin was so concerned at the Proton failures that General Designer
Georgi Babakin met with the Minister of General Machine Building in March 1970
to demand action. After the rocket underwent a full engineering review a number of
improvements were made, and the vehicle was re-qualified in a successful test flight
in August 1970. After this, the success record improved dramatically and eventually
the Proton became one of the most reliable workhorses in the Soviet launcher fleet.
Indeed, it today enjoys an excellent reputation and a large share of the commercial
launch market.

Had the Proton been more reliable, Zond could have gone slightly faster, and the Lunar sample return ships, too. In summary: a slightly more interesting lunar race, perhaps with all kind of interesting butterflies.

 

[plenka]

Just googled it, and realized that it is still used today! Well, I am always up for a good space TL with numbers and big words I barely understand.

 

[Michel Van]

it would improve Zond Program

1967 Zond A/B here the Proton failed
1968 Zond A (B it's Block D stage explode on Pad)
1969 Zond A/B/C

Also benefit Mars 69 project, the Two probe were blow up by exploding Proton rocket.
This would reach Mars in September and October 1970 and enter as First in mars orbit.
while Mariner 6 reach Mars in July and Mariner 7 in august, they just fly by mars and make 201 photos of 20% surface of Mars.

it gonna be Mars 69 A/B who taking better picture of Mars surface
and Soviet gonna label the surface feature first not Americans...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

The N-11 was the upper stages of the N-1. Therefore building the N-11 instead of the Proton would help the development of the larger rocket as the upper stages were being tested independently of the N-1 test programme. Therefore their bugs in the N-1 upper stages might have been sorted out before the faults in the N-1 first stage were cured. Therefore the N-1 becomes operational in the second half of the 1970s instead of being cancelled in favour of Energia.

It also has production advantages. Hundreds of Protons have been built over the last 50 years. If the N-11 was built in the same quantity it would be relatively cheap to make a few more on the same production line for use as N-1 upper stages. The N-1 first stage used the same engines as the second stage. Therefore if the N-11 been built in place of the UR-500 the cost of the N-1 first stage would be reduced because its engines were in production for other programmes.

I doubt that the N-11 would be any more reliable than Proton in the 1960s but in the 1970s it might have been cheaper due to having common components with the N-1. Furthermore if it results in the N-1 avoiding cancellation the USSR will acquire the capability to launch space stations 5-times heavier than Salyut 6 and 7. They could follow it up with a Super Mir built up from Skylab size modules than the Salyut size sections used in the real world.

 

[Archibald]

Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

The N-11 was the upper stages of the N-1. Therefore building the N-11 instead of the Proton would help the development of the larger rocket as the upper stages were being tested independently of the N-1 test programme. Therefore their bugs in the N-1 upper stages might have been sorted out before the faults in the N-1 first stage were cured. Therefore the N-1 becomes operational in the second half of the 1970s instead of being cancelled in favour of Energia.

It also has production advantages. Hundreds of Protons have been built over the last 50 years. If the N-11 was built in the same quantity it would be relatively cheap to make a few more on the same production line for use as N-1 upper stages. The N-1 first stage used the same engines as the second stage. Therefore if the N-11 been built in place of the UR-500 the cost of the N-1 first stage would be reduced because its engines were in production for other programmes.

I doubt that the N-11 would be any more reliable than Proton in the 1960s but in the 1970s it might have been cheaper due to having common components with the N-1. Furthermore if it results in the N-1 avoiding cancellation the USSR will acquire the capability to launch space stations 5-times heavier than Salyut 6 and 7. They could follow it up with a Super Mir built up from Skylab size modules than the Salyut size sections used in the real world.

Amen to that, excellent reasonning !

Incidentally, Korolev thought alike and did his best to kill Proton, but unfortunately he was on the way to his grave, and Chelomei was Mister K favorite...

 

[Michel Van]

Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

The N-11 was the upper stages of the N-1. Therefore building the N-11 instead of the Proton would help the development of the larger rocket as the upper stages were being tested independently of the N-1 test programme. Therefore their bugs in the N-1 upper stages might have been sorted out before the faults in the N-1 first stage were cured. Therefore the N-1 becomes operational in the second half of the 1970s instead of being cancelled in favour of Energia.

It also has production advantages. Hundreds of Protons have been built over the last 50 years. If the N-11 was built in the same quantity it would be relatively cheap to make a few more on the same production line for use as N-1 upper stages. The N-1 first stage used the same engines as the second stage. Therefore if the N-11 been built in place of the UR-500 the cost of the N-1 first stage would be reduced because its engines were in production for other programmes.

I doubt that the N-11 would be any more reliable than Proton in the 1960s but in the 1970s it might have been cheaper due to having common components with the N-1. Furthermore if it results in the N-1 avoiding cancellation the USSR will acquire the capability to launch space stations 5-times heavier than Salyut 6 and 7. They could follow it up with a Super Mir built up from Skylab size modules than the Salyut size sections used in the real world.

2001: A Space-Time Odyssey and Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing by SpaceGeek deals with N-11

irony in ASTO the N-11 is called after it's first payload launch: "Proton"

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

If you want to debug the N-1, this is the way to go. But I'm not sure why it would appear any faster/have fewer bugs than the Proton.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Originally Posted by NOMISYRRUC
Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

The N-11 was the upper stages of the N-1. Therefore building the N-11 instead of the Proton would help the development of the larger rocket as the upper stages were being tested independently of the N-1 test programme. Therefore their bugs in the N-1 upper stages might have been sorted out before the faults in the N-1 first stage were cured. Therefore the N-1 becomes operational in the second half of the 1970s instead of being cancelled in favour of Energia.

It also has production advantages. Hundreds of Protons have been built over the last 50 years. If the N-11 was built in the same quantity it would be relatively cheap to make a few more on the same production line for use as N-1 upper stages. The N-1 first stage used the same engines as the second stage. Therefore if the N-11 been built in place of the UR-500 the cost of the N-1 first stage would be reduced because its engines were in production for other programmes.

I doubt that the N-11 would be any more reliable than Proton in the 1960s but in the 1970s it might have been cheaper due to having common components with the N-1. Furthermore if it results in the N-1 avoiding cancellation the USSR will acquire the capability to launch space stations 5-times heavier than Salyut 6 and 7. They could follow it up with a Super Mir built up from Skylab size modules than the Salyut size sections used in the real world.

Amen to that, excellent reasonning !

Incidentally, Korolev thought alike and did his best to kill Proton, but unfortunately he was on the way to his grave, and Chelomei was Mister K favorite...

Would it have worked the other way around? That is build Chelomei's UR-700 been instead of N-1. I half remember reading on Encyclopaedia Astronautica that the UR-700 was designed to be built using the Proton's production tooling.

I think that what did for the NASA manned space programme was that Saturn IB and Saturn V weren't in production for anything else. Whereas the R-7 that launched Soyuz and Proton that launched Mir were being to launch satellites and space probes.

Could the USAF have adopted Saturn I instead of Titan III? If it was simply because of the Not Invented Here syndrome it would then be easier for NASA to buy additional Saturn IB launchers for more Skylab missions. Or was Saturn I too big for the satellites the USAF was launching with Titan III?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm not an expert on the Soviet Manned Space Programme. However, my understanding is that the Soviet authorities did not take President Kennedy's May 1961 speech seriously. N-1 and Proton were not begun until August 1964. The USSR gave the USA a head start of 3 1/2 years.

However, the Korolev's N-family and Chemolei's UR family were on the drawing board in 1961. Is the simplest thing to do begin full-scale-development of the N-family or UR-family in August 1961?

Then the MLLV and HLLV begin flight tests 3 years earlier and become reliable 3 years earlier. It would have helped if the Soviets had built 3 HLLV launch pads instead of 2. Furthermore they should have copied NASA's LC-39 by spacing the pads so far apart that if one rocket blows up on the pad it only takes one launch complex with it instead of all 3.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I'm not an expert on the Soviet Manned Space Programme. However, my understanding is that the Soviet authorities did not take President Kennedy's May 1961 speech seriously. N-1 and Proton were not begun until August 1964. The USSR gave the USA a head start of 3 1/2 years.

However, the Korolev's N-family and Chemolei's UR family were on the drawing board in 1961. Is the simplest thing to do begin full-scale-development of the N-family or UR-family in August 1961?

Then the MLLV and HLLV begin flight tests 3 years earlier and become reliable 3 years earlier. It would have helped if the Soviets had built 3 HLLV launch pads instead of 2. Furthermore they should have copied NASA's LC-39 by spacing the pads so far apart that if one rocket blows up on the pad it only takes one launch complex with it instead of all 3.

Good points, all.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Soviet Space Programme Version 4

This is part of an alternative Soviet manned space programme that I wrote about 6 years ago.

THE SOVIET MANNED SPACE PROGRAMME
Version 4​

A) The 1960s – The Dark Side of the Moon
1) Introduction

In the real world the Soviet Government did not believe President Kennedy when he made his Man on the Moon speech on 25th May 1961 and did not begin their lunar programme until August 1964. This was the most important reason why the Soviets lost the Moon Race. Important secondary reasons were that there was no equivalent of NASA, poor Soviet management techniques and inadequate quality control, which, to put it mildly, is where it gets complicated…

The Soviet Union had too many manned space projects and the chief designers spent most their time getting their rival’s designs cancelled instead of working towards the common goal, for example the Soyuz A – LK-1 – Zond saga.

In this version of history the Moon Race is joined in August 1961 rather than 3 years later. The Kremlin also puts Korolev in charge of the entire Soviet space effort so that it has an equivalent to NASA. This also means there is a reduction in the number of projects, although Korolev will naturally favour his own projects over those of the other designers regardless of which design was best. He still dies in 1966, but it is of less importance due to the 3-year head start. However, the management and quality control issues remained in this version of history.

2) Vostok

In the real world there were 7 unmanned Vostok tests between May 1960 and March 1961 which were followed by 6 manned missions between April 1961 and June 1963. Plans for 7 more manned missions to be flown between April 1964 and April 1966 were cancelled in the spring of 1964 in favour of the Voskhod programme which used modified Vostok capsules.

In this version of history I have cheated and added 10 capsules to the original order to allow the launch of 13 manned Vostoks between April 1961 and the end of 1963 and the desired number of biological missions.

There was no Voskhod programme in this version of history, but the missions planned for it were performed by Soyuz spacecraft.

3) Soyuz 7K-OK

In the real world 17 spacecraft of this type were launched between November 1966 and May 1970. 8 of them were manned including Soyuz 1 of April 1967 which killed Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov.

In this version of history the earlier start on the Moon programme meant the Soyuz 7K-OK was brought forward 3 years too. 10 Block I spacecraft were built instead of Voskhod capsules. They were used for the unmanned shakedown tests, which would be followed by manned EVA and duration missions so they did not need to manoeuvre or dock. 20 Block II spacecraft were built to the full Soyuz 7K-OK specification of the real world, which included the capability to manoeuvre and dock.

The intention was that the first 4 spacecraft would be unmanned and the next 6 would perform the Voskhod 1-6 missions of the real world. However, the first 4 spacecraft launched between November 1963 and April 1964 performed so badly that the next 2 had to be unmanned as well. Thus the first manned Soyuz were Voskhod 1 (Spacecraft 7) and Voskhod 2 (Spacecraft 8) in October and December 1964. One more unmanned mission was required to qualify Soyuz for duration missions and this was done by Spacecraft 9 in February 1965. This allowed Spacecraft 10 to 13 to perform the missions planned for Voskhod 3 to 6 in the real world.

Spacecraft 14 to 17 made successful unmanned dockings which paved the way for the manned Soyuz 2 (Spacecraft 19) to attempt a docking with the unmanned Soyuz 1 (Spacecraft 18). Spacecraft 20 and 21 performed the first successful docking and EVA transfer. Spacecraft 22, 23 and 24 followed and attempted the Soyuz 6/7/8 mission of the real world. The mission was a failure in this version of history too because Spacecraft 23 and 24 failed to dock.

This sequence of 24 launches would be completed during the third quarter of 1966.

The excellent Encyclopaedia Astronautica (which was the main source of information for this essay) says that in February 1969 Spacecraft 17 to 20 were not scheduled to fly until after May 1970 and there were no definite plans for the missions they would perform. However, by April it was planned to launch the first pair in November 1969 and the second pair in February/March 1970. They would fly 15 to 16 day missions to demonstrate the new SZhO life support system for the L3, and conduct rendezvous and docking operations using the L3's Kontakt system.

However, the success of the Apollo programme and delays in the N-1 programme led to these missions being cancelled and Spacecraft 17 being used for a solo duration flight in May 1970, but it was to be followed by 3 tests of the Kontakt system using Spacecraft 18 to 23. These missions were never undertaken due to further slippages in the N-1 programme.

In this version of history we have 6 spacecraft left out of the initial production run of 30 so it would be feasible to use them for 3 dual missions to test the Kontakt system between November 1966 and the end of June 1967.

4) L1 and L2
a) The Real World

The L1 complex was a spacecraft designed to take 2 cosmonauts around the Moon and consisted of the 7K Soyuz A (which was the original version of the spacecraft) and 9K Soyuz B, trans-lunar injection stage. The plan was that an R-7 would be put into earth orbit by an R-7 rocket. The Soyuz B would be fuelled by 3 11K Soyuz V tankers which were also launched by R-7 rockets. When this was completed a fifth R-7 would launch the Soyuz A which would dock with the Soyuz B.

At the same time he designed the L2 unmanned lunar rover which would find landing sites for the L3. The L2 was equipped with a radio beacon which the L3 would home in on to make precision landings. This consisted of the rover, one Soyuz B and the 13K rocket system for midcourse corrections and lunar braking. Each component was launched separately by an R-7 and 3 more were needed to launch the Soyuz V tankers carrying the fuel for the Soyuz B.

However, when the circumlunar mission was approved it was given to Chemolei who designed the LK-1 which would be launched by a single Proton, but Korolev had it replaced by his revised L1 project in August 1965. This used a stripped-down Soyuz designated 7K-L1 and the Block D crasher stage from the L3-1964 programme which was light enough to be launched by one Proton. Progress was rapid and by early 1967 a total of 11 launches were planned. The first 2 launches in February and March 1967 would test the Block D translunar stage using prototype, incomplete, L1 spacecraft. Phase II would conduct lunar flybys with complete but unmanned L1 spacecraft in May and June 1967. The final phase would see Soviet cosmonauts around the moon in 7 missions launched between July and October 1967. In the event 12 were launched between March 1967 and October 1970, but no manned missions were attempted because the Proton and the L1’s navigation system could not be made reliable enough before Apollo 8 got there first.

The L2 project was passed to the Lavochkin bureau in 1965. It became Lunakhod which was part of their Ye-8 family of moon probes and 16 were launched between 1969 and 1976 by Proton rockets. 3 were rovers, 2 were orbiter probes and the other 11 soil sample return probes. The first to be launched was a Lunakhod in February 1969, but the launcher failed. This meant the official Lunakhod 1 was the one that was successfully delivered to the moon in November 1970. The third and final Lunakhod to be launched in January 1973 also reached the moon successfully and was named Lunakhod 2.

b) The Unreal World

I have put the L1 and L2 together because they use a lot of common hardware and both had to succeed before L3 landings could be attempted.

In this version of history both were approved in August 1961, but the approval of the N-11 launcher in 1962 allowed the mission profiles to be simplified. L1 would now have the Soyuz B (now designated Block D) launched by the N-11 and the Soyuz A would be launched by R-7 to dock with it. The whole L2 complex would be sent to the moon by one N-11 launch. Thus there was no need for the Soyuz V.

The dual launch L1 avoided the risk of an N-11 failure killing the crew because the Soyuz would be launched after the Block D was safely in orbit. The Block D carried a full fuel load allowing more course corrections should they be needed and to break the Soyuz into a parking orbit before re-entry so the heat shield could be lighter. The Soyuz was the standard 7K-OK version instead of the lightweight 7K-L1 of the real world.

Starting L1 in 1961 instead of 1965 allowed unmanned tests could begin in the first quarter of 1964 instead of 3 years later. However, this did not happen as Korolev had the common sense and more importantly the time to perfect the Soyuz 7K-OK in the earth orbit tests already described before proceeding to the lunar missions.

All Korolev’s space probes including the L2 were passed to the Lavochkin bureau in 1962 rather than 1965 so he could concentrate on N-1, L1 and L3. This meant the first Lunakhod was ready for launch in February 1966.

In the real world the first Proton was launched in July 1965 and 22 more followed by the end of the decade. In this version of history the first N-11 was also launched in July 1965, but more were launched by the end of the decade.

The first N-11 launch launched the Proton 1 satellite in July 1965 and it put a fully fuelled Block D into orbit on its second launch in October 1965. The third launch put Proton 2 into orbit in November 1965 and the 4th was another Block D test in December 1965. From then on N-11 rockets were launched at the rate of 2 per month to support the L1 and L2 programmes. The pair of launches in January 1965 was used for 2 more Block D tests. The first launch in February 1966 was the final Block D test and was followed by L2-01 the first attempt to land a L2 on the Moon.

The first N-11 launch of March 1966 sent L2-02 to the Moon and the second launch was the first where a docking with an unmanned Soyuz was attempted. This sequence of a L2 followed by an unmanned L1 was repeated for the next 3 months. These missions convinced Korolev’s team that the N-11 and L1 complex were reliable enough to attempt a manned mission in July 1966, which would be preceded by the launch of L2-06. This was successful and there were 10 7K-L1 capsules left so that there could be 2 mission attempts every month until the end of 1966. However, the launch pads and N-11 launchers would have to be shared with the 3 L2 spacecraft that were left out of the original run of 9. Therefore the last launch in the L1 and L2 programmes would have been in February 1967 if a tempo of 2 N-11 launches a month was maintained and there were no catastrophic accidents.

 

[Archibald]

I've ner realized that the Soviets build so much Lunar sample return probes. They build 11 of them, with only 3 successes ! 3 more made it to the Moon but crashed (like Luna 15 in July 1969)
Most importantly, 5 lunar sample probes were lost in Proton failures...

I wonder if more Luna sampling could change anything in space history. I also wonder whether a Zond could rendezvous with a Luna sample return canister and retrieve it - a bit like the proposed Orion - Moonrise.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Originally Posted by NOMISYRRUC
Would it have helped if Korolev's N-11 was approved instead of the UR-500 (Proton)?

If you want to debug the N-1, this is the way to go. But I'm not sure why it would appear any faster/have fewer bugs than the Proton.

It might help in this way. In the real world Chemolei's bureau designed Proton and Korolev's Bureau produced the N-1. The second and third stages of the N-1 were the first and second stages of N-11. Therefore the USSR was effectively developing 2 Proton class rockets at the same time which I think was a waste of resources.

However, if N-11 had been approved the engineers that worked on Proton in the real world could have been assigned to the N-1/N-11 project. With more men on the job the N-1 and N-11 might have been debugged faster.