The Snow Flies: A History of the Soviet Space Shuttle

O'Alexis 89 said:
It made my day. The "The Snow Flies" book needs to be real! I NEED THAAAAAT!!!

Well, the content would likely be what you're reading in the timeline, so in a way you have it :)

fasquardon said:
The art is absolutely knocks-my-socks-off gorgeous. Which is all the more impressive since I don't find either the Buran orbiter or the Soyuz capsule pretty designs!
Also find the PoD and the situation of the Soviet space program to be novel and quite believable so far.

Glad you're enjoying it! The art was the starting point, building on the experience gained thanks to my patrons e of pi, Workable Goblin and Brainbin on Eyes Turned Skyward and That Wacky Redhead. Those timelines really helped me to develop my skills.


RanulfC said:
You DO realize this is only going to make us want more, like right frigging now! :)

Not long now until Sunday :) But the quicker I put up posts, the sooner the timeline will be over...

TwisterAce said:
This timeline is off to a great start. I've long been fascinated with Buran and Energia, and I wish they could have remained in service in OTL.

Thanks! They're a fascinating topic alright. I learnt a lot in researching the timeline, in particular on the shear amount of effort expended to develop. The project was never officially cancelled IOTL, but in reality it was killed in a meeting between space industry leaders and Yeltsin in February 1992. Despite concerns over the impact on the Russian aerospace industry and dire comparisons with the cancellation of N-1, in the end the money was just not there. ITTL, they've just about been able to scrape together enough funds to keep it going, and have a national leadership more receptive to their arguments.

Michel Van said:
Mathias Rust...

Indeed, Rust's story is almost unbelievable - but it's all true!

Bahamut-255 said:
A Soviet Shuttle TL? You've got me hooked already! :D

That detail about the parachute/retro rocket recovery of the Energia LRBs I certainly noticed. IIRC that was omitted from the 1987 and 1988 flights on account of where the monitoring equipment had been installed.

The plans for booster recovery were something of which I was unaware until I started researching this project. When I found out about it, my first reactions was Aha! That's what those big grey lumps were for!

Bahamut-255 said:
Another thing I recall is that while Energia/Buran had been accused of being a copy of STS IOTL, it came as a result of checking several different designs and concluding that the STS design was the optimal form for such a system. Though with clear differences due to their differing directions with regards to specifics of spaceflight. Hence LRBs.

Aesthetically, I do prefer the Soviet Design even though the US had the money to make such a system work as needed.

And a clever gambit on Glushko's part with it too. By declaring (to the best of my knowledge) that while reusable LOX/LH2 Engines were outside of the Soviet Technical Capability, while Expendable Engines could be made - forcing their placement on the Core Stage - he ensured that with it, they'd have their own Superbooster of which Buran (and now Burya) are payloads of.

In fact Glushko tried his damnedest to avoid hydrolox altogether, reportedly saying that "The person who can find a way of building a rocket suited for the orbiter but with the use of oxygen-kerosene will become my deputy". After all, he'd only recently accepted the avantages of kerolox over storables (once Korolev was safely dead and all trace of his kerolox N-1 had been obliterated). Glushko was still hoping to build his kerolox RLA booster and wasn't really interested in the orbiter per-se (hence its design was basically subcontracted to the Aviation Ministry rather than MOM).


Michel Van said:
Energia a copy of US Space Shuttle?
HA !
Energia war far better Concept compaire the Shuttle

Bahamut-255 said:
Visually STS & Energia/Buran are quite similar which is where the accusation came from, in spite of the clear differences that exist beneath the surface - as has been mentioned already.

To be fair, the orbiter was pretty much a direct copy. Various configurations for lifting bodies were explored (like the top-mounted MTKVP or a "big Spiral") before settling on an aerodynamic copy of the US Shuttle, for which apparently "The deciding factor was not aerodynamics... [The] classical opinion in our defence industry surfaced: the Americans aren't dumber, do it the way they do!" The original OS-120 design was pretty much a carbon-copy of the Shuttle, but as Bahamut pointed out, the difficulties of creating reusable hydrolox engines, plus the fact that there would have been no way to transport the heavy orbiter before the debut of the An-124 meant that Glushko was able to argue to move the engines to the Energia core, and keep alive his hopes of a lunar base launched via his super-heavy rocket.

Michel Van said:
I wonder will ESA team up with Soviet MoM in 1990s ?

International collaborations will feature.

Tal Shiar said:
How do you make these pictures? Buran, space station and soyuz look like in Kerbal Space Program but what about others.

All models are created in Blender, with some textures and post-processing in GIMP.

Brainbin said:
You finally got this TL off the ground!

See what I did there? ;)

Of course I will subscribe so as to boldly go along with you where no comrade has gone before!

The original launch date turned out to be unrealistic, so I fired a bunch of middle managers and confiscated the Project Director's diamond-coated Mercedes, and that seemed to get things back on track.

Bahamut-255 said:
IOTL Shuttle-C failed IMHO since it demanded the development of a new Cargo Pod with the SSME Engines installed to be expended, whereas Energia-T only needed a Cargo Pod thanks to the placement of the engines on the Core Stage. ITTL, it's not inconceivable that Shuttle-C gets at the very least advanced studies and serious consideration for development for the surreal(?) situation of the US attempting to keep parity with the Soviet Union in this regard.

The smaller Energia-M IIRC could manage: 34,000 Kg to LEO; 14,000 Kg to GTO, 12,000 Kg to TLI, & 9,500 Kg to TVI/TMI.

With numbers like that, the ability to carry two 6,000 Kg Payloads to GTO could well be the Energia-M's biggest selling point, as at this point, I'm not sure there are any others that can manage close to that. I know the OTL Ariane 4 could do little better than 4,800 Kg to GTO.

Indeed, the technical capability is undoubtedly there (as demonstrated with the very first Energia launch). The question will be if the market is also there, an area that Soviet managers are still unfamiliar with at this point.

Bahamut-255 said:
How is this going to affect Ariane 5 and Hermes Development? The former I definitely see still being made. The latter? 1-in-3 chance at best IMHO.

Michel Van said:
There were some propsales from soviets/russians to ESA for a join Venture on Hermes
...
And ESA Ministers Say "thank, But NO intresst"
Why?
ESA wanted to give jobs to European Aerospace Industry Not the soviet or russians industry
While the french wanted Independent way into Space with french Hermes
Hell was that Bad surprise for french als Germany stop paying for Hermes
Because they needed the Money for unification of West + East Germany in 1991

I wounder how in this TL will Happen between Soviet and Europe ?

The political situation as described by Michel remains pretty much accurate ITTL, with the French still pushing Hermes for the benefit of their industry and the Germans are still paying the costs of reunification (which are actually slightly higher ITTL as the presence of a hardline Soviet government in 1990-91 led to protracted negotiations and required a larger brib- eh, "loan" - from Bonn to Moscow to grease the wheels). However, Hermes had problems well beyond the political, such as the fact that it never actually came in under its weight requirements in any of its design iterations. That doesn't even tough upon the managerial mess that the project operated under, with no-one clear whether ESA or CNES were the ultimate design authority. Basically, as designed IOTL, Hermes is physically impossible, and by the end of 1992 ITTL it is pretty much dead. Rather unfortunate, as I really wanted Hermes to feature, but it just seemed to be a stretch too far. Ariane 5 will continue though, and other options for collaboration will present themselves in due course.
 
Mission 2K2: Burya-Mir
Mission 2K2: Burya-Mir, February 1994

32658109991_3aa886da7f_b.jpg

Defining the mission

Following the success of mission 2K1 there had been calls within the Soviet government to skip the remaining unmanned test flights and to launch the next mission with cosmonauts on board. Although the engineers at the newly-established Soviet Space Agency (Vsesoyuznyy Kosmicheskoye Agentstvo, VKA - literally the “All-Union Space Agency” [1]) and RKK Energia were gaining confidence with their shuttle, there were practical considerations that argued against rushing ahead. Although spacecraft 2K (Burya) had been fitted with a partially functioning life support system for her maiden flight, she was still missing much of the equipment that would be needed for a manned launch. The most critical of these were the ejection seats and related emergency escape equipment, which the Soviets viewed as being absolutely essential for the first manned missions after witnessing the tragedy of Challenger. The pilot’s control console was also missing, and many of the other control stations were not fully connected to their systems. Less glamorous items such as a functioning galley and sanitation facilities would also have to be added.

Work had re-started on outfitting Buran (spacecraft 1K) to a full crewed capability in mid-1992, but the shuttle was still not expected to be ready until the end of 1994 at the earliest. Bringing Burya up to that standard would take a similar amount of time, meaning no manned launch was likely before the start of 1995. With the Supreme Soviet voting to cancel funding for unmanned Energia-T launches in October 1992, and with the cheaper Energia-M suffering more delays, this would mean a more than two-year gap in Energia launches, exacerbating problems in retaining qualified technical staff and keeping the facilities at Baikonur well maintained. These issues had already led to the decision to mothball Pad 37 and the UKSS test stand, leaving Pad 38 as the only complex from which Energia could be launched. Further cuts could result in the aging infrastructure being unable to support the giant rocket at all.

These realities led to the decision in February 1993 to continue the upgrade of Buran for a targeted first manned mission in early 1995, whilst Burya would undergo a minimal post-flight refurbishment for a second unmanned mission in late 1993. Mission 2K2 (Mission 2 of orbiter 2K) would perform the second part of the activities that had originally been intended as part of 2K1: an automated docking with the Mir space station.

Preparations for launch

Following her landing at Baikonur’s Yubileynyy runway on 30th November 1992, Burya first had her propulsion system drained of residual liquid oxygen, with both oxygen and hydrogen then removed from the fuel cells. The spaceplane was next transferred to the Assembly and Fueling Facility (MZK) for the removal of any remaining fuel and other hazardous liquids. The exhausted batteries were also removed, followed by the extraction of the 37KB and docking modules from the payload bay. On 10th December the shuttle was moved from the MZK to the Transfer Bay of the MIK OK Orbiter Assembly and Test Facility, where a crane lifted Burya and carried her to Bay 102 for inspection and renovation of the thermal protection system.

Inspections of Burya’s thermal protection system revealed five tiles missing (compared with seven on Buran’s initial flight), but many more damaged. Some of this appeared to be the result of ice impacts during launch, but most of the damage to tiles on the belly of the orbiter came from plasma jets generated during re-entry by the aerodynamic effects of gaps between the tiles. The US Space Shuttle avoided this problem by laying its belly tiles at an angle to the direction of flight and using a special ‘gap-filler’ material to make them tight, but the Soviet orbiters placed the rows of tiles perpendicular to the nose, relying on an organic felt filler material and precision placement to keep the gaps too small to generate plasma jets. On Buran this had proved mostly successful, but the cut-backs of the early 1990s had evidently led to a reduction in quality control, with Burya showing evidence of five times as many plasma jets compared with Buran.

The replacement of the damaged tiles and inspections of the rest of the thermal protection system were completed by the end of March 1993, but Burya was to remain in Bay 102 until May. This was due to the next area of the MIK OK, the Assembly Bay 103, being occupied by orbiter 1K Buran, which was undergoing installation of its life support system. The prototype orbiter was eventually moved to the MZK for further work, freeing up Bay 103 for Burya, which was then able to undergo systems checks and minor repair work from its flight six months previously. Burya was next moved to Bay 104 for electrical and control system checks in June before proceeding to the anechoic chamber in Bay 105 for radio systems checks. In August 1993 Burya finally left the MIK OK and moved to the MZK (Buran having relocated back to the MIK OK Bay 102 in July) for fueling in preparation for APU and propulsion system test firings at the Site 254 test stand (the stand’s own propellant fueling systems having been decommissioned the previous year as a money saving measure).

Burya was then forced to wait a further two months in the MIK OK as Energia vehicle 4L was put together in the MIK RN. Tensions between the Ukrainian SSR and the Soviet central government over control of the privatisation of state companies (and the money and powers of patronage resulting from their sale to political allies), including OKB Yuzhnoye, had delayed the delivery of the Blok-A booster rockets from their Dnipropetrovsk factory, and so the stacking of vehicle 4L did not start until October 1993. It was not until early December that Burya was finally moved to the MIK RN and joined to her carrier rocket. Once again, the venerable 37KB instrument module and SM docking module were installed in Burya’s payload bay, but this time they were joined by the 1 tonne Fosvich-2 X-ray telescope, which Burya would deliver to Mir and attach to the lateral docking port of the station’s Kristall module.

Other preparations were also underway for the mission. 6th December 1993 had seen the launch of Soyuz TM-18 to the Mir space station carrying cosmonauts Aleksandr Viktorenko, Yury Usachov and Valeri Polyakov. Polyakov was destined to remain aboard Mir for over a year before returning to Earth with Soyuz TM-20 in January 1995, setting a new record for long duration spaceflight. Conversely, Usachov and Viktorenko were part of a standard 6 month expedition (Mir EO-15), and would return home in Soyuz TM-18 in May 1994. Together, this team would be responsible for supporting Burya’s docking to the station and the subsequent test activities. [2] Viktorenko had been selected to command the station during the 2K1 mission specifically for his experience with the shuttle programme, as he had been selected in 1978 as one of the cohort of shuttle cosmonauts from the Cosmonaut Training Centre (TsPK) at Star City. This training, plus his later experience on the Soyuz TM-3 and TM-8 missions to Mir, made him the ideal candidate to assess the performance of the Burya orbiter.

2K2 Launches

32658109851_05ab9dcc8a_b.jpg

The Burya/4L stack was finally towed to Raskat Pad 38 in late January 1994, almost 14 months after the shuttle’s last launch from the neighbouring Pad 37. Despite the increasingly tough budget cutbacks, the ground crews at Baikonur continued to work with dedication and pride, and with the experience of 2K1 under their belts were able to complete launch preparations even faster than in 1992. With no countdown holds, ignition of the Energia core engines came as planned at 08:57 local time (02:57 UTC) on 7th February, with the four Blok-A boosters following on schedule, lifting Energia 4L from the pad at precisely the time needed to intercept Mir’s orbital plane.

Booster separation came two and a half minutes later, but despite all four Blok-A rockets making successful soft-landings downrange, no immediate attempt was made to retrieve them. The necessary recovery forces were no longer available, and with the low launch rate of Energia coming to be accepted, re-use would simply not be economical. Vehicle 4L would be the last Energia to include recovery equipment in the Blok-As, with future launches using the simpler, stripped-down version of the boosters originally developed for Energia-M.

As on all three previous launches, the core stage RD-0120 engines performed flawlessly, delivering its shuttle cargo into a sub-orbital trajectory eight minutes after ignition. Separation of Burya from the booster and the firing of its DOM manoeuvring engines also occurred as planned, and thirty minutes later TsUP controllers were able to confirm Burya was in a stable parking orbit around the Earth.

With the launch and early orbit operations phase of the mission now completed, the Biser-4 computers comprising Burya’s Central Computing System were commanded to load their rendezvous and docking application software into their RAM from the magnetic tapes of the Mass Memory Unit. This was necessary because the limited memory of the Biser-4 units (equivalent to 524 kB of RAM each) meant that it was not possible to run software for all mission phases at once. The new application installation process had been extensively tested on the ground in the OK-KS electrical analogue and in both Burya and Buran in ground tests, and this testing paid off with all four Biser-4 units successfully transitioning to the new software. This done, the orbiter began its two-day chase of the Mir space station.

Rendezvous and Docking with Mir

The initial orbit adjustment to begin rendezvous with Mir was triggered on Burya’s third orbit on the afternoon of 7th February, involving a short, ten-second burn of the starboard DOM manoeuvring engine. Over the the next day several minor adjustments were made with both the DOM and the smaller RSU Reaction Control System engines to match Burya’s orbit with Mir’s. These manoeuvres were performed automatically without ground intervention, guided by the GSP with updated state vectors derived from the RVV Vertical Radio Altimeter and the PRZS Sunrise/Sunset Detection Instrument. Also during this period, the Docking Module was powered up and its docking tunnel, topped by the APAS-89 port, was extended to its full 5.7m height, ensuring the port interface was clear of the top of Burya’s crew cabin. Finally, APAS-89’s guide ring was extended, putting the docking port into its “active” configuration and its supporting Kurs docking antennas swung into their deployed position.

The shuttle’s Mutual Measurement System (SBI), a radar acquired the space station at a range of 40km, guiding Burya into its terminal approach phase at a distance of 15km on the morning of 9th February. Burya initially approached Mir from below, along the Mir-Earth axis, to take advantage of natural gravitational forces in braking the shuttle. As Burya closed to within 1km it repositioned itself ahead of Mir in its orbital track, aligned with the Kristall module’s own APAS-89 port, Kristall having been repositioned by its Lyappa robot arm to Mir’s forward axial X- port a week earlier to provide better clearance and structural strength for the docking attempt. As a safety measure, cosmonauts Viktorenko, Usachov and Polyakov boarded their Soyuz TM-18 spacecraft and undocked from the station. Burya massed as much as the entire Mir space station, meaning any impact could be catastrophic, and so no chances were to be taken on this initial docking attempt. As a final precaution, Kristall’s large solar arrays were stowed for the final approach to avoid damage from Burya’s RSU engine plumes.

As the three cosmonauts watched from a safe distance, with Burya coming to within 30m of the station, the SBI radar suddenly lost lock, and the shuttle automatically reversed its approach to keep clear of the station. The cosmonauts were ordered to return to Mir whilst TsUP controllers analysed the situation, and it was soon determined that the problem was caused by unexpected multipath interference as the radar reflected and re-reflected from the structure of Mir and the shuttle’s own bulky fuselage. This caused the received signal to degrade below the threshold set by mission rules, triggering an abort. Further investigations overnight showed that it should be possible dock safely using just the Kurs system, and preparations were made to repeat the attempt.

The next day, 10th February, with the station’s crew once again watching nervously from a distance in Soyuz TM-18, Burya began its second approach to the station. This time the shuttle continued past the 30m mark to continue closing on Kristall at a rate of 5cm/s. At 07:39 UTC / 10:39 Moscow Time, as the complex overflew the Soviet-Mongolian border, the latches on Burya’s APAS-89 capture ring engaged with their counterparts on Kristall’s docking port. The latches then closed and the capture ring retracted to enable a hard dock. The Burya-Mir complex was now the largest structure ever assembled in orbit.

32658110151_6b74d89da5_b.jpg

Operations at Mir

In the hour following docking, Viktorenko and Usachov performed leak checks of the Kristall docking compartment before equalising the pressure between Kristall and Burya’s Docking Module (SM), after which Aleksandr Viktorenko opened the hatch and entered the SM. Whilst Polyakov remained aboard Mir, Viktorenko and Usachov proceeded onwards to Burya’s Habitation Compartment. As on its previous mission, the compartment was in a heavily stripped-down state, although additional life support equipment had been fitted in the lower deck beneath the BO. The flight deck was also largely identical to its 2K1 configuration, although a check of the RM-5 console at the back of the compartment confirmed what the crew had seen from outside, that Burya was now carrying two SBM robot arms instead of the single arm that had flown in 1992.

Viktorenko was quickly able to establish communications with his comrades on Mir and the controllers at TsUP via Burya’s VHF system, but the SHF ONA-I antenna had difficulty in locking onto the Cosmos 2054 relay satellite due to Mir’s bulk obstructing its field of view. Aboard Mir, Polyakov reported fewer problems with the station’s ONA antenna, placed as it was at the opposite end of the complex from Burya, but communications problems would continue to be a feature of shuttle-Mir missions into the future.

With basic communications established between station and shuttle, the two cosmonauts next ran checks on the 37KB test payload and the Fosvich-2 X-ray telescope via the RM-6 console at the rear of the KO, with Viktorenko confirming the readiness of the two On-Board Manipulator System (SBM) robot arms via the RM-5 console beneath the rear port window, looking out onto the payload bay. With all systems showing nominal performance, the two cosmonauts returned to Kristall having spent almost five hours aboard the shuttle orbiter.

The next day, 11th February, saw Burya deliver its payload to Mir. This time Viktorenko entered the shuttle alone whilst Usachov remained on Mir with Polyakov. Once in place at the RM-5 workstation, with good lighting conditions from both bright sunlight and the floods in Burya’s payload bay, Viktorenko powered up the portside SBM arm and initiated a pre-programmed sequence to position the arm’s end effector above the ‘grab point’ of the Fosvich-2 telescope. With Viktorenko monitoring the whole process through both the RM-5 CRT displays and the payload bay window, over the course of fifteen minutes the SBM correctly moved into position, with the cosmonaut guiding the final capture manually using the arm’s video camera. Following a pause as the station passed over the nightside of its orbit, the return of daylight saw Viktorenko command the release of the payload bay latches holding Fosvich-2 in place, then used the arm to swing the telescope up out of the bay and into position in front of Kristall’s second, lateral APAS-89 docking port.

The next phase of the manoeuvre was the most critical. Kristall’s lateral port was attached to the same docking compartment as the port to which Burya was connected, so any damage to the compartment could block Viktorenko’s route back to Mir. An Orlan-DMA spacesuit had been stowed in the Habitation Compartment in case it became necessary for Viktorenko to spacewalk back to the station, but if the shuttle’s SM Docking Module were also damaged it could be necessary to exit via the portside crew access hatch normally only used on the launch pad. With no convenient handrails to aid an EVA, the space suited Viktorenko would have to assemble a deployable pole in the BO and attach it to the interior of the hatch before extending the structure to form a bridge to the safetly of Kristall.

Fortunately, such extreme contingency measures proved unnecessary, as over the next two orbits Viktorenko successfully mated Fosvich-2’s APAS port with that of Kristall. Initial problems with achieving a hard dock were solved by cycling the power to the latches on the Kristall side (basically, switching it off and on again). At the end of the day, with Viktorenko back on board Mir, Usachov was able to open the hatch to Fosvich-2’s small control compartment and begin wiring up power and control connections. Activation of the X-ray telescope would have to await Burya’s departure and the extension once more of Kristall’s solar arrays, but the shuttle’s first operational payload had been safely delivered.

32658110021_d91f1a836a_b.jpg

Undocking and landing

Burya was to remain docked at the station for just three days - a limit set due to the shuttle being configured for just eight-days total endurance, plus the need to keep some margin should there be problems with the de-orbit. The hatches between Kristall’s docking compartment and Burya’s SM were sealed late on 11th February, with depressurisation of the two compartments starting on the morning of the 12th. The latches on the station-side APAS-89 interface were retracted at 07:17 UTC on 12th February, as the complex passed over the Ukraine, and Burya fired its DO vernier engines under automatic control to slowly back away from the station. The cosmonauts aboard Mir reported minimal disruption as the massive shuttle departed, completing validation of Burya’s ability to perform all nominal station support operations. Re-entry and landing followed later the same day, with Burya coming to a halt on the Yubileynyy runway at 10:58 UTC, bringing an end to another successful mission. Although Burya’s stay at the station was brief, the data obtained would prove vital in preparing future shuttle docking missions with Mir, as well as feeding into plans for the station’s successor.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

[1] The VKA is TTL’s equivalent of the Russian Space Agency, created during the reforms of the early ‘90s to distance the technical side of the Soviet space programme from direct political supervision. It remains under the auspices of the Ministry of General Machine Building (MOM) and closely tied to the Defence Ministry.


[2] Various butterflies mean Soyuz TM-18 (and the other Soyuz missions since TM-16) are launched approximately 2 months ahead of their OTL schedule. Aleksandr Viktorenko takes the place of Viktor Afanasyev on Soyuz TM-18.
 
Last edited:
Great chapter!
Hopefully the Soviet Space Program would reclaim UKSS and Energia-T once the economy would recover in 00's.
What is the status of Shuttle-Mir and ISS ITTL? Is there less interest from US due to survival of USSR? I doubt the SU would refuse hard cash at this point.
 
IIRC The Russian Economy IOTL didn't properly bounce back until after the Russian Debt Default after which certain controls were removed, although it did grow shortly beforehand. I'm not sure how things will play out here, given that it's still the USSR, but I would hope that the long decline soon halts and starts moving upwards again. They'll need it to preserve funding.

For this update. So far three unmanned launches and all three have made it into Space and back again. Clearly this marks some much-needed good cheer for their efforts given the times. And having a Shuttle-Mir Complex setting an on-orbit Mass Record over a year earlier than OTL? That nails it.

Something I've been thinking about however. Energia-T's been cancelled, upsetting, but without a mission for it I can see why. The uses I could find for it were: Manned Lunar Missions; Heavy GEO Satellites; Heavy BEO Payloads. Of which the first one had some plans sketched out by Glushko shortly before his death. As alluded to earlier, they need some good, strong growth in their economy for at least a decade before they can even think about having the funds for it. Then there's the matter of Political Will, which I think will be more focused on their smaller LVs, getting the N2O4/UDMH Proton retired and Energia-M online being far more of a priority item I think for starters.

And then there's the matter of NASA. In a sense, Buran/Burya flying validates STS and I can believe that support for it would be at least a little higher for various reasons. What that means is something I'm stumped on. ISS being a piece I'm really trying to figure out. On the one hand, the USSR existing will dampen support for including them in it IMHO, but the lure of hard cash in the current budget-starved times for the USSR could be a truly powerful lure.

There's just so many variables...

Oh well. The pics are lovely in any case. ^_^
 
Energia-T Aka Buran-T aka Energia-2 was proposal for complet reusable Energia rocket

the four booster had unfurl wings and jet engine to return to launch site
gk175-5.jpg

while the Core module had Orbiter wings and cargo bay
gk175-3.jpg


Next to T and M version they proposed to modified the Energia concept
one was Deitron concept that used modified Energia core as to stage rocket
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/East_Europe_2/Vulkan/Description/Text.htm


On Hermes
The French had a too ambitious program for Space Glider
Start in mid 1970s as minium glider in style of Dyna Soar, but until 1980s it became a French Mini space shuttle with cargo bay with doors and robot arm
In 1986 the Program run into Problems: one was financing the project, the other was Safety, after Challenger Hermes needed a rescue system
The financing was solved as Hermes became a ESA program
But Safety problem became a serious issue Hermes became too fat for Ariane 5 rocket
because the Idea was the jettison Cockpit module, so they look for lighter ejection seats with soviet pressure suits from Buran program.
The problems became so gros that French start relocated allot Hermes systems in disposable Module on back of Hermes.
in fact in some flight the ESA astronauts had to make EVA, to recover some part like parts of robot arm. ans stow other parts from the glider into disposable Module before return.
Then the Germans stop the financing for Hermes in 1991, the rest of program were terminated in 1993 by ESA and CNES.
 
Last edited:
Presumably there'll be non-Buran payloads on Energia in the future?

I've always wondered just how wide a non-Buran payload could be on Energia. I know Polyus was around 4 meters in diameter, and I've seen plans for a cargo pod of 6 meters diameter, but realistically could Energia have taken a 7 meter cargo pod fairing, or would that have been too much?
 

Archibald

Banned
In my TL Explorers (currently 1980 ITTL) I've toyed, too, with late Soviet era politics, and Yeltsin fate. Great (space) minds think alike !

A classic space program / soviet politics collision course is the fate of Oleg Baklanov. the man was instrumental in getting Polyus off the ground in 1985-87 (without Gorbatchev approval). Then the same Baklanov become one of the August 1991 conspirators.
 
I've always wondered just how wide a non-Buran payload could be on Energia. I know Polyus was around 4 meters in diameter, and I've seen plans for a cargo pod of 6 meters diameter, but realistically could Energia have taken a 7 meter cargo pod fairing, or would that have been too much?

Official Cargo on Energia had 6,7 meter in diameter,
there were illustration about Soviet mars mission proposals
were Energia launch bigger Payload like huge Heat shields for Aerodynamic capture

What look something like that (the Boeing version with 2 shields )
Ggva9D9.png
 
ryhs said:
Great chapter!

Hopefully the Soviet Space Program would reclaim UKSS and Energia-T once the economy would recover in 00's.

What is the status of Shuttle-Mir and ISS ITTL? Is there less interest from US due to survival of USSR? I doubt the SU would refuse hard cash at this point.


Joint ventures with the US will be discussed in upcoming posts - patience :)


Bahamut-255 said:
IIRC The Russian Economy IOTL didn't properly bounce back until after the Russian Debt Default after which certain controls were removed, although it did grow shortly beforehand. I'm not sure how things will play out here, given that it's still the USSR, but I would hope that the long decline soon halts and starts moving upwards again. They'll need it to preserve funding.


Soviet finances will get a more detailed discussion in Sunday’s post, though in keeping with this TL’s technical focus it will be a fairly high-level overview.


Bahamut-255 said:
For this update. So far three unmanned launches and all three have made it into Space and back again. Clearly this marks some much-needed good cheer for their efforts given the times. And having a Shuttle-Mir Complex setting an on-orbit Mass Record over a year earlier than OTL? That nails it.


Indeed, the prestige boost is one of the reasons Buran continues to get funded ITTL (albeit at a barely-sufficient level)/


Bahamut-255 said:
Something I've been thinking about however. Energia-T's been cancelled, upsetting, but without a mission for it I can see why. The uses I could find for it were: Manned Lunar Missions; Heavy GEO Satellites; Heavy BEO Payloads. Of which the first one had some plans sketched out by Glushko shortly before his death. As alluded to earlier, they need some good, strong growth in their economy for at least a decade before they can even think about having the funds for it. Then there's the matter of Political Will, which I think will be more focused on their smaller LVs, getting the N2O4/UDMH Proton retired and Energia-M online being far more of a priority item I think for starters.


Yep, Energia-T (BTW, more on the naming below), has a rather specialised set of missions requiring its capabilities. RKK Energia came up with some pretty exotic proposals IOTL to justify keeping it (nuclear waste disposal in the Sun, ozone layer repairs, giant orbiting mirrors, etc), but the most likely real payloads would have been giant Soviet Star Wars weapons. With the end of the Cold War and the US SDI effort stalled, that mission is no longer on the table even if it could be afforded (which it can’t).


Bahamut-255 said:
And then there's the matter of NASA. In a sense, Buran/Burya flying validates STS and I can believe that support for it would be at least a little higher for various reasons. What that means is something I'm stumped on. ISS being a piece I'm really trying to figure out. On the one hand, the USSR existing will dampen support for including them in it IMHO, but the lure of hard cash in the current budget-starved times for the USSR could be a truly powerful lure.


I’d say there’s a little more pride in the US in their own shuttle, seeing it fly multiple missions per year compared to the infrequent Soviet sorties (with all of those launched unmanned so far), but to be honest the average person on the street probably barely registers the news. Another shuttle launched? Big whoop. Oh, it’s that Russian one, right? The one they copied from us?..


As mentioned, discussion of joint projects is coming...


Bahamut-255 said:
Oh well. The pics are lovely in any case. ^_^


Thanks :)


DaveJ576 said:
Wow! Subscribed.
Succinct and to the point - nice! Thanks!


Michel Van said:
Energia-T Aka Buran-T aka Energia-2 was proposal for complet reusable Energia rocket

the four booster had unfurl wings and jet engine to return to launch site

while the Core module had Orbiter wings and cargo bay


To clarify, I’ve used Energia-T to refer to the cargo-only non-reusable version (i.e. the version that flew in 1987). This is based on an error on my part - the cargo only version IOTL was in fact called Buran-T. However, given that ITTL “Buran” refers definitively to a specific orbiter that is just one of a series, I think a TTL re-name of the cargo carrier to Energia-T makes sense.


The reusable Energia is usually referred to as Energia-2 or Urugan (“Hurricane”), and unfortunately gets no further ITTL than it did IOTL. (I’ve not found any reference to it called Energia-T IOTL.) As mentioned in the post, the Soviets have given up on even recovering the current boosters, so the money for Energia-2 is simply not there.


Michel Van said:
On Hermes

...

The problems became so gros that French start relocated allot Hermes systems in disposable Module on back of Hermes.


I was lucky enough to be provided with a copy of a paper from the 1994 45th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation “Hermes: Lessons Learnt” by Martin Bayer, an engineer who worked on the project, which gives a long list of programmatic, organisational and technical problems of the project. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a complete copy online, but a particular highlight is:


Martin Bayer said:
After years of development of ARIANE 5 and HERMES the most basic requirement of the compatibility of the payload mass with the launcher had not been achieved despite the fact, that the transport of HERMES was one of the primary design missions of ARIANE 5. The

launcher performance had consequently to be increased several times, ultimately leading to the

ARIANE 5 M K I I.



Further mass increases necessitated the abandoning of the original aim of full reusability, leading

to the introduction of an expendable propulsion and later resource module... It turned into a kind of "trouble-shooter" for the whole project, onto which a lot of unsolved design problems were shifted.


It was this document that convinced me that Hermes was unexecutable with the PoD I had chosen. Fixing it would require a dedicated PoD, probably sometime in the late ‘70s or early ‘80s, and would result in a vehicle (and probably a launcher) significantly different from the OTL configuration.


O'Alexis 89 said:
The French had a too ambitious program for Space Glider

Why am I not surprised? :)


I’d say it was less the size of the ambition than its constant changing nature that was the root of many of the problems. To complement Michel Van’s image, here’s a diagram from the Bayer paper that shows the various configuration changes Hermes underwent (sometimes more than one per year!):


32059074052_d91179f5ca_b.jpg



SAVORYapple said:
Presumably there'll be non-Buran payloads on Energia in the future?


Possibly… :)


SAVORYapple said:
I've always wondered just how wide a non-Buran payload could be on Energia. I know Polyus was around 4 meters in diameter, and I've seen plans for a cargo pod of 6 meters diameter, but realistically could Energia have taken a 7 meter cargo pod fairing, or would that have been too much?


Michel Van said:
Official Cargo on Energia had 6,7 meter in diameter


Regarding payload shroud size, buran.ru (via Google Translate) has this to say:


buran.ru said:
Container diameter was chosen on the basis of the possibility of development in the missile industry of the new diameter... The analysis defined two dimensions. 6.7 and 5.5 m for the "Energia" cargo version proved optimal diameter of 6.7 m, this size satisfy design studies and in terms of the layout rocket pack, and shipping arrangement, and aerodynamic evaluation. and flight dynamics… container length of 42 m.



The useful volume of the cargo is restricted diameter of 5.5 m and a length of 35 m


Archibald said:
In my TL Explorers (currently 1980 ITTL) I've toyed, too, with late Soviet era politics, and Yeltsin fate. Great (space) minds think alike !


A classic space program / soviet politics collision course is the fate of Oleg Baklanov. the man was instrumental in getting Polyus off the ground in 1985-87 (without Gorbatchev approval). Then the same Baklanov become one of the August 1991 conspirators.


From my research I took the view that the 1991 coup was too late a PoD to have a good chance to save the USSR as anything like a functioning centralised state - at least without resorting to the sort of totalitarian nightmare that I had no interest in writing about. By then the Republics all had elected assemblies with very vocal secessionist movements, and the “War of Laws” had established that the orders of the central government could be pretty much ignored with impunity, and even Gorbachev’s aborted New Union Treaty was less of a viable constitution than it was a pension scheme for one M. Gorbachev. The poisonous relationship between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, combined with Gorbys determination to cling to power and Yeltsin’s to seize it, killed any chance of a continuing Union after that. So, I plumped for an earlier coup before the establishment of the elected Republic legislatures, followed by a counter-putsch to give a reformist government able to - just - hold the state together.


Archibald said:
Raaah, the pictures are awesome, as usual.

Thanks!
 

Archibald

Banned
The poisonous relationship between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, combined with Gorbys determination to cling to power and Yeltsin’s to seize it, killed any chance of a continuing Union after that. So, I plumped for an earlier coup before the establishment of the elected Republic legislatures, followed by a counter-putsch to give a reformist government able to - just - hold the state together.

Gorbachev pushed Yeltsin past the breaking point and he actually atempted suicide late 1987 before rising up and challenging Gorbachev.

The initial PoD is identical to that used in the book “Prime Minister Boris... and other things that never happened”, though I have changed the timing and the subsequent details
Interesting. My "reference book" is this one.
This book was published in spring 1990 as USSR crumbled but the coup was still 18 months into the future. That makes it a fascinating reading, kind of ATL within OTL.
https://www.google.fr/search?tbm=bks&hl=fr&q="getting+to+the+top+in+the+USSR"

https://books.google.fr/books?id=vL...RAhVFVRoKHSdcCEYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hermes was dead by 1991, POD is too late to save it. It was overweight at 24 tons and still creeping up.
 
Last edited:
Presumably there'll be non-Buran payloads on Energia in the future?

I've always wondered just how wide a non-Buran payload could be on Energia. I know Polyus was around 4 meters in diameter, and I've seen plans for a cargo pod of 6 meters diameter, but realistically could Energia have taken a 7 meter cargo pod fairing, or would that have been too much?
To elaborate a bit on Michel's answer, the dominating engineering constraints, as I understand them, on large-diameter and/or unusually long fairings is bending caused by larger amounts of surface area forward, followed by potential stability problems. In both cases, moving the fairing to a side-mount cargo pod roughly eliminates both concerns: a pod can be anchored at both the top and bottom to reduce bending forces, while moving the pod into parallel with the main LV reduces the degree to which it pulls the center of pressure forward.
 
....
The reusable Energia is usually referred to as Energia-2 or Urugan (“Hurricane”), and unfortunately gets no further ITTL than it did IOTL. (I’ve not found any reference to it called Energia-T IOTL.) As mentioned in the post, the Soviets have given up on even recovering the current boosters, so the money for Energia-2 is simply not there.
Well, darn.

Of course given that the ATL USSR has revenues at most comparable to say twice OTL Russia, and despite being in a position to refuse detailed Western diktats regarding just how economic reform goes forward (I hope, I don't think "shock therapy" was any Russian's friend, in fact life expectancy, already falling in the 1980s, took a further dive of a few years, which gives some notion of how "shocking" it was) is nevertheless committed by necessity to some sort of more market-friendly reforms that surely will be painful for half a decade or more, and probably will fall short of OTL per capita long term outcomes which are grim enough (I can hope that a combination of skepticism about Western pro-market ideology with good and shrewd governance does as well or better but I sure can't outline how) it is only realistic that Energia launch rates will be low--unless perhaps foreign demand for launch services raises them enough to improve economies. As they might--even with no investigation of reusability strategies, the modular design of the system (able to use variable numbers of boosters and hydrogen main engines on variable tank sizes) might lead to economies in disposable production. Certainly the ability to launch batches measured in over 100 tons can open the door to considerable foreign revenues, as no one else in the world can do that in the 1990s. But I doubt they will be able to reliably drum up dozens of customers for batch launches of small payloads that could go on other launchers, and if anyone wants to launch a monstrous huge payload, it will be only sporadically. So yeah, the Russians won't be pursuing reuse strategies.

But--is there any hope that Americans, seeing Energia become operational, will be provoked into reconfiguring STS on lines I've been suggesting a lot recently--where the idea is to separate the SSMEs from the Orbiter, recover and reuse them separately, and thus approximate something like the Energia system, where the SRBs take the place of the Zenit-type boosters, reused SSMEs the place of the Soviet disposable hydrogen engines, and the fuel tank is reconfigured into a payload-bearing disposable unit? With that, the 120+ ton payload of STS, minus of course the extra mass needed to enable SSME recovery, can be a single one-way payload, or a launch of a somewhat downsized Buran-like Orbiter.

Although I usually leave the tank to either burn up after a launch or possibly be repurposed in LEO as a structural unit or depot tank, doing something along the lines of Urugan would perhaps be little more costly than trying to return the engines alone. Either way, they have to put the entire craft fully into orbit since they must orbit around the Earth to be positioned to reenter near their launch site. (Urugan was meant, like the main-engine, hydrogen fed phase of an OTL STS launch, to burn out shortly before reaching full orbit, the payload to be boosted the rest of the way with an auxiliary OMS of some kind, because it would be meant to reenter ASAP--given the tremendous reach of Soviet or even merely Russian geography, possibly before clearing the Asian landmass, or anyway to turn around over Pacific international waters and glide or jet back to the Siberian maritime coast). TPS for the vast tank may not be too difficult considering its low mass to area ratio, so provisions to bring back the engines too might be actually simplified by leaving them attached to the tank. It might not mass much more than a structure that could return the engines alone, and if the tank is in fact reusable, a definite savings would be realized over the basic form of my proposal.

If the SRBs can be replaced with many times reusable liquid fueled rockets, to be fished out of the water after falling there braked by parachutes, the LRB system should be much cheaper than the SRB refurbishment scheme, because the latter involved practically rebuilding them from the ground up. That they had to first be taken apart into several segments, then shipped to Utah, then refurbished segment by segment there, and shipped again, now heavy and hazardous with solid fuel, back to the Cape or Vandenberg to be again assembled, is all additional. LRBs would share the cost of being fished out of the ocean and possibly engine refurbishment would be fairly costly too, but otherwise they should be far easier to restore to launch-ready condition, with no shipping to the middle of the continent--all right there at Canaveral or Vandenberg. Since the SRB refurbishment scheme was said to be about as costly as simply making new SRBs for every launch, if we can save on so many line items, the expense of refurbishing the engines and verifying structural integrity would have to be ruinously high indeed for savings not to be realized by using the LRBs instead. Also, if the tanks are not to be flown back, with just the SSMEs being recovered from orbit, developing LRBs where say 4 are used for a standard STS launch (that is, each LRB has about half the thrust of an SRB) allows flexibility in designing different tank sizes to accommodate different launch mass goals. If we have a flyback tank/engine combo we probably do not want to mess with many different sizes of course, but anyway LRBs have other advantages.

Anyway, possible motives for Americans to do what the Russians cannot afford to include:

1) Prestige--keeping ahead of the Ivanovs. Now the Soviets too have a launch system encompassing STS capabilities. Very well; let us Yanks have a 100 percent reusable system!

2) economics. I do hope that these systems can allow more tons in orbit per dollar cost.

3) replacing a flawed STS Mark I. The POD is already well after the Challenger disaster, and something like loss of Columbia seems all too likely to happen eventually.

4) STS hardware--that is, the Orbiters--had a limited service life they were designed for. In the early 1990s much of that is still ahead but designing for the next generation is something that ought to have been undertaken around that time.

So, I am not sure an orbit-to-recovery Urugan type design is the smartest or most cost effective approach to making an STS derived system more cost-effective, but it could be a good approach, and if so it deserves a tryout in some TL or other!
 
On Hermes and generally on a "small" Spaceplane orbiter.

Somewhere around here I have a very nice report from Lockheed on work "to-date" on the Orbital Space Plane program which very concisely points out the various issues and problems with a 'small' space plane historically from American, European, (Hermes specifically) and Russian data and comes to the rather "surprising" conclusion, (given the name/purpose of the "OSP" program) that what NASA really needed was a capsule to meet all the requirements of the program EXCEPT 'glide-back, runway landing' capability. Despite this conclusion Lockheed continued to 'refine' a lifting design finally settling on, (and winning) with a hypersonic lifting body vehicle that required parachutes and airbags to land.

The main problem with small space planes is they are NOT very efficient, and especially have issues meeting the more robust payload and operations requirements. You can get away with some of it as was/would-have-been shown with an operational Dyna-Soar which has been described as a VERY efficient way to get 5 people into orbit but not a lot else. (And at that mostly because it was over-built since it wasn't known at the time what kind of problems a winged spacecraft was going to face. But even later more 'refined' versions were going to run into heating and life-cycle issues later on but at the TIME no one knew that. Overall HAVING the Dyna-Soar would have been a better thing than not having it, which IS pretty much a 'lesson-learned' from the Shuttle program)

Capsules and hypersonic, (as opposed to the various "low-speed" lifting bodies" such as the M2F3/HL10/X24 etc) lifting bodies have shown to be overall 'better' than a small "space plane" and frankly the "small" size is just about at the practical limits of parachute landing anyway. (Which the Russians/Soviets already were aware of from the MTKVP project)

But again this is all stuff that had to be found out by trial-and-error and a LOT of study and testing which is going to cost money and time which NEVER helps 'sell' the work to polticians of any stripe :)

Randy
 
Top