R-7 missile launches

[jcm]

In  discussions with Anik on the Progress M-12M failure thread, it became clear that there were two R-7 missile launches in 1966 that I didn't have in my lists.
It seems a good moment to summarize and review the R-7 and R-7A missile flight program incorporating info from 'Zadacha Ocoboy Gosudarstvennoy
Vashnosti', a recent book giving details of the 1957-1959 launches.

The R-7 (8K71) was the first, test version of the ICBM. After a partially successful flight in May 1957 and a failure in July, the Aug and Sep 1957
flights reached the Kura target region in Kamchatka but the reentry vehicles
distintegrated during descent. The Mar 1958 flight was the first in which a
reentry vehicle impacted the target  (it's not clear to me exactly what happened to the RV on the Jan 1958 flight). The R-7 had a distinctive long conical reentry vehicle (GCh, Golovniy Chast',  nose cone). I'm not sure if the R-7A had a different GCh, and I don't know what the specific designations of the GCh were.

The May 1958 flight had an engine failure toward the end of Blok A burn, and again
the unseparated Blok A/RV reentered near the target.

The Jul 1958 flight of missile B1-4 is reported (Spaceflight 38, 51)  to have been a suborbital
test flight of the 8K72, using the 8K71/III packet with a dummy third stage; it would
have tested stage separation had failure not intervened. I haven't seen confirmation of this in more recent sources.

The 1959 Feb 17 launch was the first rocket from Kubyshev Factory No. 1.
The 1959 May 30 and Jun 9 flights to Kura wildly overshot when the commanded shutdown did not
occur, and landed in the Pacific (the first at 43 45 30N 179 41 00W).


The 1959 Oct 22 and Oct 25 flights were targeted at the Pacific, to 38 45N 178 46E. The 1960 Jan 20 and Jan 31 (and presumably Jan 24, which failed) were also to the Pacific. As far as I know all other launches were targeted at Kura - it's possible some of the later flights in 1961-1967 were also Pacific targets, does anyone know?



The operational version R-7A (8K74) was first flown in Dec 1959.

[jcm]

Here is my list of R-7 and R-7A launches, comments welcome.

[Stan Black]

Good start, one small step…

Where does the 8K710 fit in?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_031/index.html

Or is it just 8K74 R-7A L1-12
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r7.htm
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r72.htm

[Stan Black]

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5311

[Stan Black]

 The two launches on 20^th and 30^th January 1960, featured blok-I third stage powered by 8D715, and an inert fourth stage with control system for the blok-I.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/063/11.shtml
Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space, part 4

[jcm]

 The two launches on 20^th and 30^th January 1960, featured blok-I third stage powered by 8D715, and an inert fourth stage with control system for the blok-I.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/063/11.shtml
Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space, part 4

Good catch. I've been a bit nervous about including this info because I haven't seen it repeated since, and I can't find it in original sources like 'Korolev i evo delo'. And the launches appear to be in the lists as 8K74
rather than 8K72 or 8K78. So,  what is the primary source for this information? Are we sure it is correct?
Or could it be a back reporting of the Western analysis of the TASS cover story for the Pacific impacts (when USSR didn't want to admit they were long range missile tests?)
If the Jan 20 and 30 launches were 8K78 test flights, what about the Jan 24 one?

[jcm]

Good start, one small step…

Where does the 8K710 fit in?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_031/index.html

Or is it just 8K74 R-7A L1-12
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r7.htm
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r72.htm

I imagine the 8K710 is an unflown variant.. I don't see where it is in your link though, can you give the image URL?

Oh, and I note that in Varlomeev's  more recent article - NK Jul 2007 No 7 p 70 - he lists the Jan 1960 flights as if they were regular 8K74 flights.
That's why I am worried...

[Stan Black]

Good start, one small step…

Where does the 8K710 fit in?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_031/index.html

Or is it just 8K74 R-7A L1-12
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r7.htm
http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/r72.htm

I imagine the 8K710 is an unflown variant.. I don't see where it is in your link though, can you give the image URL?

Oh, and I note that in Varlomeev's  more recent article - NK Jul 2007 No 7 p 70 - he lists the Jan 1960 flights as if they were regular 8K74 flights.
That's why I am worried...

I agree it is more likely an 8K74, number 12 in sequence: I1-1, I1-2, I1-3, I1-4, L1-5, L1-9… L1-12.

And it sounds more likely that the serials numbers of 8K71
1958 May 24 B1-13
1958 Jul 10 B1-14
Also why not include M1-6 in your listings?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5311

KBKhA say 1st RD-0107 10^th October 1960. But would they have tested the engine with a live satellite?
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37

[jcm]

   

Oh, and I note that in Varlomeev's  more recent article - NK Jul 2007 No 7 p 70 - he lists the Jan 1960 flights as if they were regular 8K74 flights.
That's why I am worried...

I agree it is more likely an 8K74, number 12 in sequence: I1-1, I1-2, I1-3, I1-4, L1-5, L1-9… L1-12.

And it sounds more likely that the serials numbers of 8K71
1958 May 24 B1-13
1958 Jul 10 B1-14
Also why not include M1-6 in your listings?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5311

KBKhA say 1st RD-0107 10^th October 1960. But would they have tested the engine with a live satellite?
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37

According to that link and to other sources, both attempts to launch M1-6
did not result in a launch - was a scrub or pad shutdown both times.
I'm only including things that got at least a cm or so off the pad.

The sources I have  say B1-3/B1-4, I agree your theory seems possible, but I'll keep what I have pending actual evidence.

And there's plenty of precedent (well, subsequent, I guess in this case) for using a live sat on the first launch.

[spaceman3]

In terms of the Jan 1960 launches, I have

1960 Jan 20 1935 8K74 I1-2 flew 12059 km
1960 Jan 24 1915 8K74 I1-3 failure due to explosion in Blok V, destroyed at T+31s
1960 Jan 31 1917 8K74 I1-4 success

As far as the earlier shots in 1958, what I have is:

1958 May 24 1330 8K71 No. 3 B1-3 failure of Blok A at end of burn
1958 Jul 10 1042 8K71 No. 6 B1-4 failure at launch

Asif

[jcm]

In terms of the Jan 1960 launches, I have

1960 Jan 20 1935 8K74 I1-2 flew 12059 km
1960 Jan 24 1915 8K74 I1-3 failure due to explosion in Blok V, destroyed at T+31s
1960 Jan 31 1917 8K74 I1-4 success

As far as the earlier shots in 1958, what I have is:

1958 May 24 1330 8K71 No. 3 B1-3 failure of Blok A at end of burn
1958 Jul 10 1042 8K71 No. 6 B1-4 failure at launch

Asif

Asif - that's consistent with my data.
For the Jan 1960 launches, do you agree that the story of dummy
upper stages is likely to be incorrect?

[edkyle99]

Below, I attempt to summarize where I think JCM, Anik, and the official TssKB Progress R-7 launch count numbers stand.  These are launch totals only.  Where there is consensus among all three, the numbers are listed only in the "consensus" column.

A surprising bit of variation, still, although these numbers are not adjusted for the recent "prelaunch" failure discussions for 8A92, 8A92M, 11A511, and 11A511U (one each included in Progress numbers but not in Anik's numbers).

                                           TssKB
           Consensus     JCM      Anik     Progress

8K71         26
8K71PS        2
8A91          2
8K72          4
8K72L         9
8K74         28         
8K78          -          24        40       40
8K72K        13
8A92          -          45 [1]    44       45 [1]
11A59         2
11A57       299       
8A92M         -          93        93       94 [1]
8K78M         -         296       280      279
11A510        2
11A511        -          31 [1]    31       32 [1]
11A511L       3
11A511M       8
11A511U       -         768 [1]   766      768 [1]
11A511U2      -          72        72       70
11A511FG     35
14A14-1A      8
14A14-1B      4

Note [1]  Includes one on-pad explosion each vehicle.

 - Ed Kyle

[anik]

I want to explain my statistical data.

For 8K78 I have taken TsSKB-Progress data due to they (I think) know better what rocket to name 8K78 and what rocket to name 8K78M.

As for 8K78M, I think TsSKB-Progress has forgotten to count her last launch in 2010, that is why difference.

TsSKB-Progress did not count yet last 11A511U launch.

As for 11A511U-2, there was discussion on Novosti kosmonavtiki forum that launches on May 22, 1993 and on May 22, 1994 were performed by 11A511U-2, not 11A511U. The first case - it was 11A511U-2, but she was fuelled by kerosene, the second case - it was 11A511U-2, but she was fuelled by kerosene and she was named 11A511U in documents.

[jcm]

I want to explain my statistical data.

For 8K78 I have taken TsSKB-Progress data due to they (I think) know better what rocket to name 8K78 and what rocket to name 8K78M.

As for 8K78M, I think TsSKB-Progress has forgotten to count her last launch in 2010, that is why difference.

TsSKB-Progress did not count yet last 11A511U launch.

As for 11A511U-2, there was discussion on Novosti kosmonavtiki forum that launches on May 22, 1993 and on May 22, 1994 were performed by 11A511U-2, not 11A511U. The first case - it was 11A511U-2, but she was fuelled by kerosene, the second case - it was 11A511U-2, but she was fuelled by kerosene and she was named 11A511U in documents.

I take your point about 8K78M;  [EDIT HERE:]  I'm adopting your totals.
To make the numbers come out right, in the 1966-67 period I am
assigning 8K78 to the Molniya comsat launches and 8K78M to the lunar/planetary launches - for now. Obviously I understand it won't really be that simple, and I'm flagging them with question marks until we get better data.

To comment on Ed's remark, I think we are doing pretty well on the major variants (Soyuz vs Vostok etc) The fine details of things like U vs U2 are good to have and I want to fix them,  but considering where we used to be I'm pretty impressed :-)  On the US side it's not so long ago that we sorted out the minor subvariants of Delta L, Titan 33B etc.

On Soyuz U2 based on your table and your remarks here, I am one off from you: in 1989 I have 6 not 5  (Progress 40/41/M/M-2, Soyuz TM8 and K2031). EDIT: I gather from searching the NK forum that my info on K2031
was incorrect - it was Soyuz-U, not U2. Do you concur? I'm changing it to U.

(I had counted the 1994 May 22 launch as "U (converted from U2)" but I think you are right to count it as "U2 (fuelled as U)", so I am switching it.)

Thinking some more about how to count the 1963 Jul 10 case, I go back and forth between keeping it  (a launch attempt that expended the vehicle) and omitting it (morally equivalent to a prelaunch static test explosion?).

For 11A511, I am now showing  32 [1] in agreement with TsSKB-Progress (haven't updated the web site yet) and 766 [1] for Soyuz-U.

So once we take into account the problematic definitional cases (pad explosions etc) Andrey and I are in agreement except for the 8K78/8K78M
assignments  . I think that's not too bad.

But it's not the end of the story! We still need to figure out the Blok L subvariants (L, ML, 2BL etc) and the Soyuz-U vs Soyuz-U PVB.





 

[anik]

I gather from searching the NK forum that my info on K2031 was incorrect - it was Soyuz-U, not U2. Do you concur?

Yes, Soyuz-U.

[jcm]

I've reread the NK forum and the Varolmeyev articles.
I guess we are conflating a couple of things;
  -  what is the name of the vehicle
  -  what the vehicle really is.

I bow to the experts' ruling that the vehicle was not designated 8K78M
until the 1966 upgrade. But it does seem likely that the 8K78 (1964)
vehicle has different engines in lower and final stages and so is     
sufficiently different from the 8K78 (1960) that it's useful to track it
as a separate variant. I have a mechanism for this in my database, a
'variant' column that I can use to distinguish different rockets with
identical names. I will adopt 'M' as the variant designator for the
1964 vehicle, so:

    "Molniya 8K78"       variant " "      8K74/III +  8K78I with 8D715K engine + 8K78L with S1.5400 engine   
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "E6"     Same as above with E-6 controlling
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "M"      8K74/III with engines from 11S59, + 8K78I + 8K78L with 11D33 engine
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant " "      11S59 + 8K78I with engine from 11S510, + 8K78L with 11D33
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "ML"     Same with ML stage - I don't know differences here
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "SOL"
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "2BL"    What is the difference between 2BL and ML??

[Stan Black]

I've reread the NK forum and the Varolmeyev articles.
I guess we are conflating a couple of things;
  -  what is the name of the vehicle
  -  what the vehicle really is.

I bow to the experts' ruling that the vehicle was not designated 8K78M
until the 1966 upgrade. But it does seem likely that the 8K78 (1964)
vehicle has different engines in lower and final stages and so is     
sufficiently different from the 8K78 (1960) that it's useful to track it
as a separate variant. I have a mechanism for this in my database, a
'variant' column that I can use to distinguish different rockets with
identical names. I will adopt 'M' as the variant designator for the
1964 vehicle, so:

    "Molniya 8K78"       variant " "      8K74/III +  8K78I with 8D715K engine + 8K78L with S1.5400 engine   
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "E6"     Same as above with E-6 controlling
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "M"      8K74/III with engines from 11S59, + 8K78I + 8K78L with 11D33 engine
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant " "      11S59 + 8K78I with engine from 11S510, + 8K78L with 11D33
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "ML"     Same with ML stage - I don't know differences here
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "SOL"
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "2BL"    What is the difference between 2BL and ML??

What about the use of 8D715P on the blok-I?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5966.msg666352#msg666352

[William Graham]

    "Molniya 8K78"       variant " "      8K74/III +  8K78I with 8D715K engine + 8K78L with S1.5400 engine   
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "E6"     Same as above with E-6 controlling
    "Molniya 8K78"       variant "M"      8K74/III with engines from 11S59, + 8K78I + 8K78L with 11D33 engine
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant " "      11S59 + 8K78I with engine from 11S510, + 8K78L with 11D33
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "ML"     Same with ML stage - I don't know differences here
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "SOL"
    "Molniya 8K78M"      variant "2BL"    What is the difference between 2BL and ML??

I have seen the E6 variant called the "Molniya-L" by a couple of websites. Not sure how accurate that is though.

That was also the name of a proposed R-7 variant with a cryogenic upper stage, but reuse of designations is not unheard of.

[Liss]

Oh, and I note that in Varlomeev's  more recent article - NK Jul 2007 No 7 p 70 - he lists the Jan 1960 flights as if they were regular 8K74 flights.
That's why I am worried...

My feeling is that Varfolomeyev misinterpreted the July 1958 and January 1960 launches. No documents surfaced in 15 years since his Spaceflight publications that would confirm the statements of some special tests with dummy stages.

Having said that, I must add that many and many Timothy's revelations of 1994-1999 may be true while these are not confirmed up to now. For example, we have the 'official' Samara book now -- Samarskiye Stupeni Semyorki. It has multiple errors, it has some interesting documents -- on 11A57 for example -- but you would not see in it such things as 8K72 with Block Zh, 8K711, 11A55 and 11A56, 11A58 etc. first described by Varfolomeyev 15 years ago.

[Liss]

It is interesting to note that in some documents published last spring on interplanetary probes instructions are given what rockets to use. Needless to say, these scarce notes do not clear problems in 8K72 and 8K78 histories...

To summarize:

* September 1958 moon shots were to use two first 8K71 / III vehicles, #13 and #14;
* 1960 Mars and 1961 Venus shots were to use four R-7 vehicles from 1960 production plan;
* 1960 Elektron launch(es) was (were) to use two 8K71 of 1959 production;
* Nine 8K74-based vehicles were to launch US satellites from 1962;
* 8K78 for 1962 2MV launches was 8K71-based;
* Two first Zenit-2 were to use 8K74-based vehicles;
* Three 1963 E-6 were to use 8K71-based vehicles;
* Vostok spaceships after Vostok-6 were to use 8K74-based vehicles;
* Five more E-6 were to use 11A57-based vehicles;
* Polyot/IS satellites were to use two-stage 8K74-based vehicle;
* For 3MV probes, document of 1963 explicitly gives 8K78M;
* 1964 Elektron launches were to use 8K72D based on R-7;
* Six E-6 probes of 1965-1966 were to use 8K78;
* Voskhod was to use 11A57 based on R-7A.

[jcm]

Oh, and I note that in Varlomeev's  more recent article - NK Jul 2007 No 7 p 70 - he lists the Jan 1960 flights as if they were regular 8K74 flights.
That's why I am worried...

My feeling is that Varfolomeyev misinterpreted the July 1958 and January 1960 launches. No documents surfaced in 15 years since his Spaceflight publications that would confirm the statements of some special tests with dummy stages.

Having said that, I must add that many and many Timothy's revelations of 1994-1999 may be true while these are not confirmed up to now. For example, we have the 'official' Samara book now -- Samarskiye Stupeni Semyorki. It has multiple errors, it has some interesting documents -- on 11A57 for example -- but you would not see in it such things as 8K72 with Block Zh, 8K711, 11A55 and 11A56, 11A58 etc. first described by Varfolomeyev 15 years ago.

Yes, I think Timothy's articles are still a wonderful resource, but like any historian's work must be understood as  a best attempt for its time.
I agree we must now conclude that at least the Jan 1960 'dummy stage' reports were wrong and probably also the Jul 1958 one. For Jan 1960, he many have been influenced by the contemporary Western reports which listed these as upper stage tests (based I think on the TASS reports). For Jul 1958, I could perhaps believe that an "8K71/III" packet was used to test some plumbing/electronics for the upper stage even if no dummy upper stage was included - just an idea though, I have no evidence for that.
 So, no suborbital dummy upper stage launches, let's delete the dummy upper stages from our databases.

  Although I can't help feeling that Korolev SHOULD have carried out such test launches! :-)

  Jonathan

[jcm]

example, we have the 'official' Samara book now -- Samarskiye Stupeni Semyorki.

Do you have any online links to somewhere to order this book?

[Art LeBrun]

My recollection of the press reports of the January 1960 tests was that they were for a long range rocket (implying ICBM testing) coming from TASS. Always learning..........

[jcm]

My recollection of the press reports of the January 1960 tests was that they were for a long range rocket (implying ICBM testing) coming from TASS. Always learning..........

"Flight" on 29 Jan 1960, page 138
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1960/1960%20-%200138.html
quotes Tass as saying "A ballistic multi-stage rocket was launched in the Soviet Union to the Pacific on January 20... under the programme of producing a more powerful ballistic multi-stage rocket for orbiting heavy Earth satellites and for realizing spaceflight towards the planets of the solar system".  Ken Gatland's article in Flight on 14 Nov 1963 discussing what we now know to have been the R-16 long range tests in 1962-63 quotes Tass
as referring to 'dummies of penultimate stages of the carrier rockets'.
Somewhere there's a similar statement about the 1960 tests but I can't find it...

[jcm]

Continuing discussion of statistics of R-7 based launches: there are 7 failures for which I don't know the reason - have Russian sources revealed anything now?


04.07.1973 Zenit-4M
22.02.1977 Zenit-4MK
10.08.1977 Zenit-4MKM
28.03.1981 Yantar -2K
12.06.1982 Unknown, possibly Kobalt
26.03.1986 Unknown, possibly Oblik
09.07.1988 Unknown, possibly Yantar-4KS1

[Art LeBrun]

Thanks, JCM. Your sources take precedence over mine.

[Stan Black]

Configuration	Year of issue	Start date	Serial number	Semyorka packet	Blok-I engine	Blok-L	Fairing	Payload	Orbital name
			…
8К78	1960	10-10-1960	Л1-4М	8К74	8Д715К	Л	7135	1М
8К78	1960	14-10-1960	Л1-5М	8К74	8Д715К	Л	7135	1М
8К78	1960	12-02-1961	Л1-6В	8К74	8Д715К	Л	7135	1ВА	Венера-1
8К78	1960	04-02-1961	Л1-7В	8К74	8Д715К	Л	7135	1ВА
			…
8К78	1962	04-01-1963	Т10309	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6
8К78	1963	03-02-1963	Г10310	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6
8К78	1963	02-04-1963	Г10311	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Луна-4
8К78	1962	25-08-1962	Т10312	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-1
8К78	1962	01-09-1962	Т10313	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-1
8К78	1962	12-09-1962	Т10314	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-2
8К78	1962	24-10-1962	Т10315	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-4
8К78	1962	01-11-1962	Т10316	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-4	Марс-1
8К78	1962	04-11-1962	Т10317	8К74	8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	2МВ-3
8К78М	1963	11-11-1963	Г10318	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-1А	Космос-21
8К78М	1962	19-02-1964	Т15000-19	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-1А
8К78М	1962	21-03-1964	Т15000-20	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	Е-6
8К78М	1962	20-04-1964	T15000-21	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	Е-6
8К78М	1962	27-03-1964	T15000-22	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-1	Космос-27
8К78М	1962	02-04-1964	T15000-23	11А57	8Д715П	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-1	Зонд-1
			…
8К78	1964	12-03-1965	Р10325		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Космос-60
8К78	1964	10-04-1965	Р10326		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6
8К78	1965	04-10-1965	У10327		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Луна-7
8К78	1965	03-12-1965	У10328		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Луна-8
			…
8К78	1965	09-05-1965	У10330		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Луна-5
8К78	1965	08-06-1965	У10331		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6	Луна-6
8К78	1965	31-01-1966	У10332		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6М	Луна-9
			…
8К78	1964	04-06-1964	Р10334		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1965	23-04-1965	У10335		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1964	22-08-1964	Р10336		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1965	14-10-1965	У10337		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1966	27-03-1966	Н10338		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1966	25-04-1966	Н10339		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1966	20-10-1966	Н10340		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	11Ф67	Молния
8К78	1966	01-03-1966	Н10341		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6С	Космос-111
8К78	1966	31-03-1966	Н10342		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6С	Луна-10
8К78	1966	24-08-1966	Н10343		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6ЛФ	Луна-11
8К78	1966	22-10-1966	Н10344		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6ЛФ	Луна-12
8К78	1966	21-12-1966	Н10345		8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	Е-6М	Луна-13
			…
8К78		16-11-1965			8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-3	Венера-3
8К78		23-11-1965			8Д715К	Л	2300+7135	3МВ-4	Космос-96
			…
8К78М	1967	17-05-1967	Я71656	11А511	11Д55	Л	7810	Е-6ЛС	Космос-159
8К78М	1967	07-02-1968	Я71657	11А511	11Д55	Л	7810	Е-6ЛС
8К78М	1967	07-04-1968	Я71658	11А511	11Д55	Л	7810	Е-6ЛС	Луна-14
			…
8К78М		05-01-1969				ВЛ	7810	2В	Венера-5
8К78М		10-01-1969				ВЛ	7810	2В	Венера-6
8К78М		17-08-1970			8Д715К	НВЛ	7810	3В	Венера-7
8К78М		22-08-1970			8Д715К	НВЛ	7810	3В	Космос-359

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/soyouz/liste/8K78M.html
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=304
http://www.astronaut.ru/luna/ussr_a2.htm
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=103
http://www.laspace.ru/rus/archive.php
Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space

[Stan Black]

 The U2 numbers go up to 76. There is little difference between the U and U2. Two flew as just U, also one was being prepared for Soyuz TM-23. The noticeable difference is some extra insulation around the 1st stage engines.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg698433#msg698433

[Stan Black]

 One issue with Mr. Varfolomeyev’s R-7 article part 6, is that it states the 8K78M adopted the 11S59 Semyorka packet from the 11A511 Soyuz in 1966-1967. Now according to Mr. Vovan over at the N.K. forum, the Soyuz-U introduced a Semyorka packet with a shorter instrument section; and that was the 11S59.
 It sounds that the Molniya started with an 8K74 R-7A derivative with blok-I powered by RD-0107, then progressed to 11A57 with RD-0108, before returning to RD-0107 and from February 1968 featured 11A511 with RD-0110. But it does not look like it progressed to an 11S59 equivalent with the shorter instrument section.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg
http://www.walkinspace.ru/photo/23-0-1745
http://rutube.ru/tracks/3634127.html?v=f4e34760f30dca144531d0676fdf2c26
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/213.htm

[jcm]

 One issue with Mr. Varfolomeyev’s R-7 article part 6, is that it states the 8K78M adopted the 11S59 Semyorka packet from the 11A511 Soyuz in 1966-1967. Now according to Mr. Vovan over at the N.K. forum, the Soyuz-U introduced a Semyorka packet with a shorter instrument section; and that was the 11S59.
 It sounds that the Molniya started with an 8K74 R-7A derivative with blok-I powered by RD-0107, then progressed to 11A57 with RD-0108, before returning to RD-0107 and from February 1968 featured 11A511 with RD-0110. But it does not look like it progressed to an 11S59 equivalent with the shorter instrument section.
 
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg
http://www.walkinspace.ru/photo/23-0-1745
http://rutube.ru/tracks/3634127.html?v=f4e34760f30dca144531d0676fdf2c26
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/213.htm

I thought the shorter instrument section was the difference between the 11A511 and the 11A511U? NK forum is broken for me at the moment...
But yes, the 8K78 tangle gets worse the more I look at it..

[Stan Black]

One issue with Mr. Varfolomeyev’s R-7 article part 6, is that it states the 8K78M adopted the 11S59 Semyorka packet from the 11A511 Soyuz in 1966-1967. Now according to Mr. Vovan over at the N.K. forum, the Soyuz-U introduced a Semyorka packet with a shorter instrument section; and that was the 11S59.
 It sounds that the Molniya started with an 8K74 R-7A derivative with blok-I powered by RD-0107, then progressed to 11A57 with RD-0108, before returning to RD-0107 and from February 1968 featured 11A511 with RD-0110. But it does not look like it progressed to an 11S59 equivalent with the shorter instrument section.
 
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg
http://www.walkinspace.ru/photo/23-0-1745
http://rutube.ru/tracks/3634127.html?v=f4e34760f30dca144531d0676fdf2c26
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/213.htm

I thought the shorter instrument section was the difference between the 11A511 and the 11A511U? NK forum is broken for me at the moment...
But yes, the 8K78 tangle gets worse the more I look at it..

 I think Mr. Varfolomeyev got it slightly incorrect? Molniya and maybe Voskhod both adopted the 11A511 packet, but the 11S59 is the shorter one for Soyuz-U.

Well, we’ll just have to keep waiting for part 14…
http://www.cosmopark.ru/r7/prig10.htm

[Stan Black]

 One issue with Mr. Varfolomeyev’s R-7 article part 6, is that it states the 8K78M adopted the 11S59 Semyorka packet from the 11A511 Soyuz in 1966-1967. Now according to Mr. Vovan over at the N.K. forum, the Soyuz-U introduced a Semyorka packet with a shorter instrument section; and that was the 11S59.
 It sounds that the Molniya started with an 8K74 R-7A derivative with blok-I powered by RD-0107, then progressed to 11A57 with RD-0108, before returning to RD-0107 and from February 1968 featured 11A511 with RD-0110. But it does not look like it progressed to an 11S59 equivalent with the shorter instrument section.
 
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg
http://www.walkinspace.ru/photo/23-0-1745
http://rutube.ru/tracks/3634127.html?v=f4e34760f30dca144531d0676fdf2c26
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/213.htm

I thought the shorter instrument section was the difference between the 11A511 and the 11A511U? NK forum is broken for me at the moment...
But yes, the 8K78 tangle gets worse the more I look at it..

 I think Mr. Varfolomeyev got it slightly incorrect? Molniya and maybe Voskhod both adopted the 11A511 packet, but the 11S59 is the shorter one for Soyuz-U.

Well, we’ll just have to keep waiting for part 14…
http://www.cosmopark.ru/r7/prig10.htm

 Looks like one part of an 11A511 Soyuz was an 11S54; but I don’t know what part.

[Liss]

8K78 is a big problem of course.
A part of it is that Varfolomeyev's list of production numbers is questionable. In fact there exist four or five different versions of the list, all incomplete and incompatible. There are vehicles with up to three numbers in different sources. For example, the 11 Nov 1963 vehicle is said to be G103-18, or G15000-06, or G15000-17. The 27 Mar 1966 vehicle is known as U15000-40, N103-36 and N103-38 etc.

[B. Hendrickx]

According to the Plesetsk history "Severnyy kosmodrom Rossii" (vol. 1) two more R-7A "training/combat launches" (UBP) were originally planned for September 1969 from Plesetsk pad nr. 3 as part of an unspecified operation called "Berkut", but they were cancelled for reasons that are not given. This is rather strange, because according to the same source pads 1, 3 and 4 were officially removed from combat duty on 20 July 1968. BTW, does anyone know the dates when the two Baikonur R-7A pads were officially removed from combat duty?

Note that a considerable number of R-7(A) launches from Baikonur in the early 1960s were performed by or with the help of Plesetsk launch teams in order to give them the necessary experience with combat launch operations. The ones identified in the book are :
30 July 1959, 21 November 1959, 4 June 1960, 27 February 1961, 4/5 July 1961, 2 July 1962, 22 April 1963, 18 May 1963, 27 July 1964.

The Plesetsk history gives the launch times for the 4/5 July shots as 9 a.m. (4 July) and 1.30 a.m. (5 July). Not clear whether that is Baikonur or Moscow time, but in either case the second one took place on 4 July GMT. 

[Stan Black]

Details of 8К710 version of the R-7 missile
http://www.ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/BRR7/BRR7012.htm
http://frs-vetlana.livejournal.com/222305.html

[Danderman]

http://frs-vetlana.livejournal.com/222305.html

This links to a nice photo essay on the Bauman Laboratory at Orevo.

[Nicolas PILLET]

In is translation of Chertok's memoirs, Volume 2, page 449, Asif Siddiqi mentions an R-7 launch on 31st September 1959, with serial number IZ-30.

Someone has a confirmation of this launch ? I found no other sources about that ?

[asdert]

September has only 30 days. Maybe another month?

[Stan Black]

In is translation of Chertok's memoirs, Volume 2, page 449, Asif Siddiqi mentions an R-7 launch on 31st September 1959, with serial number IZ-30.

Someone has a confirmation of this launch ? I found no other sources about that ?

Is is probably a number instead of the Z, И3-30

[RanulfC]

September has only 30 days. Maybe another month?

Hey, if Moscow says you're launching on the 31st of September, you better dang well launch on the 31st of September!

Randy

[Satori]

In is translation of Chertok's memoirs, Volume 2, page 449, Asif Siddiqi mentions an R-7 launch on 31st September 1959, with serial number IZ-30.

Someone has a confirmation of this launch ? I found no other sources about that ?

I have no registry of a R-7 IZ-30 serial number being launched.

[gwiz]

I3-30, if correct, would be a payload serial number.

[Nicolas PILLET]

In is translation of Chertok's memoirs, Volume 2, page 449, Asif Siddiqi mentions an R-7 launch on 31st September 1959, with serial number IZ-30.

Someone has a confirmation of this launch ? I found no other sources about that ?

I have no registry of a R-7 IZ-30 serial number being launched.

Neither do I !

And yes, Asif wrote 31st September ! :-) I had not detected the mistake !

[Stan Black]

I3-30, if correct, would be a payload serial number.

What makes you say it is the payload, as opposed to the missile?

[gwiz]

JCM's table at the start of this thread, which I seem to have misinterpreted.  Sorry.

[Nicolas PILLET]

Rocket 8K71 n°M1-6 made two launch attempts, and both were aborted after ignition.

First attempt : 11th June 1957
Second attempt : 12th March 1958

According to Ivkin's book, page 1035, the rocket has been converted to "School-rocket" after that second attempt.

But Chertok suggests that M1-6 has been refurbished and became И1-7А (Volume 2, page 453 of the English edition). This И1-7А failed again after ignition during the frist attempt to launch Luna-2, on 9th September 1959.

Someone has seen a confirmation of this (М1-6 = И1-7А) ?

[anik]

Rocket n°M1-6 made two launch attempts, and both were aborted after ignition.

First attempt : 11th June 1957
Second attempt : 12th March 1958

There were three attempts on June 10-11, 1957. After that the rocket has been returned to factory and back to Baikonur. One attempt was made on March 12, 1958. And again the rocket has been returned to factory and converted to training rocket.

[Nicolas PILLET]

There were three attempts on June 10-11, 1958.

1957

And again the rocket has been returned to factory and converted to training rocket.

Yes, this is Ivkin's version. But Chertok wrote that it was converted to 8K72 n°И1-7А.
It would explain the strange numbering of И1-7А...

[anik]

It would explain the strange numbering of И1-7А...

И1-7А, И1-7Б, Л1-9А, Л1-13А, Л1-7Б... Too many strange numbers, are not they?

[Stan Black]

…frist attempt to launch Luna-2, on 9th September 1958.

1959?

There has also been И1-7Б, Л1-9А and Л1-13А

[Nicolas PILLET]

И1-7А, И1-7Б, Л1-9А, Л1-13А, Л1-7Б... Too many strange numbers, are not they?

Yes, my theory does not explain all strange R-7 numbers !

…frist attempt to launch Luna-2, on 9th September 1958.

1959?

Ooops ! Corrected ! I'm not better than anik

[Nicolas PILLET]

Quote from Chertok's book :

Королев по непонятной причине вдруг закричал на Пилюгина: "Ты разберись, что твои схемщики натворили!"

Воскресенский сразу нашел причину: "Это виновата машина номер шесть. Она в старом варианте уже снималась со старта. Ее не следовало допускать снова". Все так устали, что никто даже не улыбнулся.

[Nicolas PILLET]

Andrey, in Poroshkov's book (page 113), he writes that launch of 10th september 1958 was the third attempt of "rocket n°6". Since you speak Russian better than me, do you think that it could mean : M1-6 = Б1-4 ?

[anik]

Andrey, in Poroshkov's book (page 113), he writes that launch of 10th september 1958 was the third attempt of "rocket n°6". Since you speak Russian better than me, do you think that it could mean : M1-6 = Б1-4?

Maybe.

[WallE]

I'd always assumed an 8K74 core was used for the manned Vostok flights but apparently they were all 8K71 cores, with the 8K72K being an 8K72 with mods to the core and strap-ons to man-rate them and an improved Blok E to fix problems with the original version. Also it seems interesting that the first couple of 8K78s were 8K74-based but the 1962-63 planetary probe shots reverted to an 8K71 core for some reason (perhaps there were spare 8K72Ks from the Vostok program so they just stuck 8D74K engines in them, put the Blok I on top, and flew them to get rid of them).

Someone in here said the 11A511U was different from the 11A511 only in the instrument packet but apparently there was more than just that, the 11A511U had "structural improvements" to the engines, perhaps changes to cut down on vibration or other issues.

it does seem Zenit/Yantar launches on 11A511/11A511U vehicles somehow had a bit worse reliability than those used in other programs, perhaps because they were flown by less experienced military crews or because the flew a relatively huge number of them so mistakes or quality control issues got past easier. In 1975 for example there were 59 launches of R-7 based vehicles (a good year for reliability, Soyuz 18-1 being the only failure) with 33 of those being Zenit/Yantar, thus 57% of the total, and 1978 was the first year where R-7 vehicles had a perfect launch score with no failures.

Also there was a Zenit launch on 9/1/72 that malfunctioned due to high frequency combustion instability in one Blok A vernier. The Soyuz program was delayed almost a year until the existing stock of R-7 vehicles could be modified to correct it. It's quite probable that the fixes could have been incorporated into the "structural improvements" to the 11A511U.

[Alter Sachse]

Andrey, in Poroshkov's book (page 113), he writes that launch of 10th september 1958 was the third attempt of "rocket n°6". Since you speak Russian better than me, do you think that it could mean : M1-6 = Б1-4 ?

It was 10th July 1958.

[WallE]

I bow to the experts' ruling that the vehicle was not designated 8K78M
until the 1966 upgrade. But it does seem likely that the 8K78 (1964)
vehicle has different engines in lower and final stages and so is     
sufficiently different from the 8K78 (1960) that it's useful to track it
as a separate variant.

As of 1965, the R-7 family consisted of:

8A92: Vostok booster with the 8K74 rather than the 8K71 core and 8D74K engines
8A92M: Similiar to 8A92 but changes to launch Meteor satellites into sun-sync orbits where the Blok E adapter remained attached to the payload, and there were control system modifications for these specific missions. I assume that these switched to 8D75M engines after the 11A511 standardization.
8K78: 8D74K engines+RD-0107+redesigned Blok I
8K78M: 8D75M and Blok I with the RD-0110 engines
11A57: Voskhod booster with the 8D74K engines and RD-0107+improved Blok I

It would be safe to assume the 11A511 standardization was just taking the 8K78M hardware and applying it across the board as all the pieces such as the 8D75M first stage engines and the RD-0110 Blok I engine were there, with the exception of Voskhod boosters continuing to use the older, less power RD-0107 engine and older booster models such as 8K78s and 8A92s kept flying for a few years until they cleaned out the inventory.

[Nicolas PILLET]

while the 8K78M first flew in February '64

8K78M first flew on 04.10.1965 (Luna-7).

[WallE]

8K78M first flew on 04.10.1965 (Luna-7).

The Wikipedia page stated that the 8K78M first flew February '64 but I believe now that that was obviously in error so I've edited and fixed that. Luna 7 should have been the first flight of 8K78M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-7_launches_(1960%E2%80%931964)

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/molniya.htm

This and the Astronautix page affirm Luna 7 as the first 8K78M launch. I believe whoever put in the data on the Wikipedia list was using as a source the space.skyrocket.de list which has a number of 8K78s listed as Molniya (M) although I have no idea what that means or if it's a weird typo.

[WallE]

That commonly circulated film clip showing a Soyuz booster's engines shutting down shortly after launch and falling and exploding next to the pad is often claimed to be the 5/15/82 Zenit launch but it's obviously the Resurs failure from '88 as the Zenit was a bit higher up and only the core stage shut down while the Resurs had a total propulsion system shutdown. The Zenit failure happened at 28 seconds so the pitch and roll program should have been underway by that point while the Resurs failure was at 20 seconds and you can see the booster in the video has not yet started the pitch and roll program when the engine shutdown occurs.

Scratch that part, I remembered that R-7 vehicles could not do a roll maneuver in flight until the modern day Soyuz 2, only pitch and the launch stand would just be rotated on a turntable for the desired azimuth.

[Nicolas PILLET]

but it's obviously the Resurs failure from '88

No, the launch pad is not the good one.

[WallE]

The Jul 1958 flight of missile B1-4 is reported (Spaceflight 38, 51)  to have been a suborbital test flight of the 8K72, using the 8K71/III packet with a dummy third stage; it would have tested stage separation had failure not intervened. I haven't seen confirmation of this in more recent sources.

http://sm.evg-rumjantsev.ru/des3/prudnikov-ivan-savelievich.html
https://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/01/3u/luna/luna-prioritety.html

I present these two links which confirms that the 5/24 and 7/10 launches both had battleship Blok Es on them. It also says that the 7/10 launch did not crash next to the pad as is commonly reported, but that after the Blok D broke off the stack at liftoff, the rest of the rocket took off and kept flying, and made it 41 miles downrange before finally losing stability and crashing.

It also seems that the unfortunate Chaika and Lischika were not destined to come back from the 7/28/60 flight even if it had succeeded and that the capsule was a prototype like Korabl-Sputnik 1 without a heat shield. Although Chertok's memoirs claim the dogs were intended to be recovered, a 6/4/60 Central Committee document speaks of two Vostok 1k spacecraft with no heat shields and the well-known film of the 7/28 launch taken from the side of the pad (shown in the link and erroneously labeled as Vostok 1) shows a descent module that lacks the heat shield material. The inference is that the 7/28 launch was an expedited test to prove living organisms could survive in a weightless environment and that Chertok bent history a bit as he was reluctant to admit the dogs were intended to burn up in the atmosphere on reentry. The faulty Blok G strap-on is the one closest to the camera and the malfunction occurred just after it was out of camera view.

The early RD-107 engines had combustion instability issues, a lot like the couple of times this happened on Atlas launches; these wrecked the 7/10/58 launch and the 7/28/60 launch and probably the Luna launch on 4/19/60 as well. It was fixed during 1960 but the 7/28 launch was using the old model of the engine, so no corrective action was needed. There was a poster on the novosti-kosmonavtiki forum who remarked that in the film clip the Blok G appears to be "sagging" and is not properly lined up with the other strap-ons, suggesting the problem was already developing.

It appears the decision to launch the first two Vostoks without heat shields was for political rather than technical reasons as secrecy-obsessed officials would not approve launching them until the APO destruct system, which would blow the descent module up if it landed outside the USSR, was used. The APO was not ready yet; according to Konstantin Feoktistov, a compromise was made to fly them without heat shields.