Prior to the conduct of ASTP, the astronauts and cosmonauts visited each other's space centers and became familiar with the spacecraft of the other country. The first visit was by the Russians to Johnson Space Center in July 1973, followed by a U.S. visit to Moscow in November 1973. In late April and early May 1974, the Russian flight crews returned to Johnson Space Center, and the U.S. crews went to Moscow in June and July 1974. The Russian crew made a third trip to the United States in September 1973 and came for the fourth and last time in February 1975. The U.S. crew visited the Soviet Union in late April and early May 1975 and became the first Americans to see the Russian launch facilities at Tyuratam on April 28, 1975.
One question: when was it known that Progress featured an escape tower on top? Was that something they knew or was it common knowledge by that time?
QuoteOne question: when was it known that Progress featured an escape tower on top? Was that something they knew or was it common knowledge by that time?The Progress version has never featured an escape tower. Why would it? - it's unmanned.It's always been known that the Soyuz manned spacecraft had an escape tower. Even Airfix had the basic configuration correct when it released the Vostok/Voskhod/Soyuz launcher kit in1969.Keith
“The presence of an escape tower atop the payload indicates that it is an SL-04 launch vehicle with a Progress/Soyuz payload.”
It does have an inert one!
@Blackstar - I would skeptically question an authenticity of "Keep your fingers crossed" photo. It's a typical western gesture that most likely would not be used in Russian culture before 90s...
It made me wonder about how much the US intelligence on the Soviet manned program changed after ASTP. Weren't there various NASA liaisons to the Soviet Union, including Baikonur, during ASTP? Did the intelligence descriptions of the facilities suddenly improve?
Quote from: fregate on 07/09/2013 03:17 am@Blackstar - I would skeptically question an authenticity of "Keep your fingers crossed" photo. It's a typical western gesture that most likely would not be used in Russian culture before 90s... That picture may have been a still image taken from this footage:The part in question starts at the 36 second mark. It is hard for me to see if they are making any gestures with their hands or not.
That's cool. Great find, thanks!Looks like there is one or two new pieces of launch video footage. Unfortunately, no photos of the destroyed pad or the recovered Soyuz.
1-but what about footage of the damage to the pad, the recovered Soyuz etc.? I wonder why nothing new has been released more than 30 years after the accident. Is that footage still classified, is it too difficult to track down in the archives or what? The same question can be asked about footage of many other Soviet space missions. 2-It is claimed in the documentary that the Americans initially believed three cosmonauts had died in the accident. I do remember there were Western reports about three cosmonauts being on board, but I don't think there ever were rumours that they had died. That certainly doesn't emerge from the declassified CIA documents described by Dwayne Day in "The Space Review" last year. 3-The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...
I have a dim recollection that the launch abort was not widely reported at the time, and first was reported as a rumor, not a news item.
QuoteIt does have an inert one!It doesn't now.However point taken.I didn't realise that the original Progress used the same launch shroud as the Soyuz but with an inert escape tower purely for aerodynamic reasonsHowever since 1989 when Progress M flew that was changed and a new shroud fitted - minus the tower.Keith
It would be fair also to mention a Soyuz 18a (crew Lazarev and Makarov) anomaly during second staging event in April of 1975. Third staged ignited when second stage was not separated and abort had been performed by Soyuz spacecraft own propulsion engine. This event had been revealed in open media only in 1983, while NASA got an official Soviet report two days after aborted launch.
These might be after that accident, but it does not look like a lot of damage. The newspapers are fake, however.
The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...
Quote from: B. Hendrickx on 02/13/2014 09:45 pm<snip>3-The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...3-That's an ignorant statement on their part. It was not possible to equip shuttle with such a system at this point (1983) without completely redesigning the vehicle and sacrificing most of its performance.
<snip>3-The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...
This was ironically a few weeks after the Soviet media made light of the SRB damage sustained during the launch of STS-8, saying it was proof that the US space program was negligent of crew safety.What Soyuz T-10-1 does prove is the Soviet program's less-than-advanced safety features particularly the LES that couldn't be activated except with a lengthy ground control sequence. They also do not seem to have had any fire suppressant system since the booster debris burned out of control for hours and resulted in huge damage to the pad. If you see footage of Atlas, Titan, etc pad explosions, the area quickly gets doused by water from the fire suppressant system, resulting in much less damage to the facilities.
Image apparently showing the Soyuz T-10a descent module not far from the launch pad, showing damage from the fire and explosion of the launch vehicle... New to me and cannot find a source.https://mobile.twitter.com/HomemDoEspacoBr/status/1458179172308815882
That photo is showing the December 14, 1966 accident not Soyuz T-10-1. The descent module there landed about 1300 feet from LC-31.
I thought the Soyuz launch vehicle exploded. It doesn't look like there's any pad damage in that photo. Did the Soyuz land near the pad where the aborted launch and explosion occurred?
I came across this in a digital version of an older Novosti Kosmonavtiki issue. Is it a bona fide image of Soyuz T-10A? On the left side of the image, obvious clone stamp effects are visible...
Something goes boom in the night: the explosion of a Cold War secretby Dwayne A. Day and Asif SiddiqiMonday, November 13, 2023In the fall of 1983 American reconnaissance satellites spotted preparations for a space launch at the sprawling Soviet missile and space launch range known as the Baikonur Cosmodrome, then popularly called “Tyuratam.” The satellites photographed activity at what the CIA labeled “Launch Site A1.” A1 was in fact the most famous launch pad at Baikonur, both for the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. When a CIA U-2 spyplane had first flown over Baikonur in the late 1950s, it spotted one primary launch pad, which the National Photographic Interpretation Center, which analyzed overhead imagery of the Soviet Union, soon named Complex A. Later launch complexes were designated B, C, D, and so on. Complex A became famous as the site of the Sputnik launch, and later Yuri Gagarin launched from there as well. But soon Site A1 would be the site of a spectacular accident, one that the Soviet Union sought to keep secret. American satellites would photograph the accident in detail, and information on it would accidentally leak to the Western media.