Author Topic: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries  (Read 28289 times)

Offline Rusty_Barton

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • "Hello, world!"
  • Sacramento, CA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #20 on: 04/24/2008 06:57 pm »
There is a photo on this page that appears to show a Proton with a TKS attached.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/244/39.shtml

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
RE: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #21 on: 04/24/2008 06:59 pm »

Just to be clear, when you say "LVI", you mean the dual capsule tests, not the VA/TKS launched on Proton.

This is a good point. Also, AFAIK, there are no photos of the interior of a TKS prior to the Mir modules.

 


Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #22 on: 04/24/2008 07:32 pm »
Quote
Rusty_Barton - 24/4/2008  2:57 PM

There is a photo on this page that appears to show a Proton with a TKS attached.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/244/39.shtml


No, that's the 82LB72 Dual VA/Proton. In the original article there are two photos of the 82LB72 on facing pages, although one is labeled as Proton TKS. The TKS would be distinguishable by it's "wider than Proton" launch fairing. Ironically, on the preceding page of the same issue there is an illustration of the 82LB72 which incorrectly shows the TKS fairing on the 82LB72. Both errors are pretty bad blunders when you consider the source.

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #23 on: 04/24/2008 07:49 pm »
Quote
Danderman - 24/4/2008  2:59 PM

Just to be clear, when you say "LVI", you mean the dual capsule tests, not the VA/TKS launched on Proton.

This is a good point. Also, AFAIK, there are no photos of the interior of a TKS prior to the Mir modules.

 


Yes, the Dual VA.

There is a pretty good interior "tour" of a TKS mockup on a "Space Secrets" film online, (which even shows the toilet).

TKS Toilet

ftp://85.21.246.13/ Unfortunately it's a ftp that's hit and miss as far as access.  

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2008 10:29 am »
Bump. As this the thread on "soviet mystery projects" I ask the question here.

There's bits on the web about an upgraded UR-500 proton called the UR-530.

it was drafted on the period between the N-1 cancellation and the start of the Energia program in 1976.
In fact it was Chelomei entry against Glushko RLA-120/150 rockets which led to Energia.

any idea on what kind of propellant was this rocket supposed to use ? what payload to LEO ?



Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #25 on: 07/06/2008 12:58 pm »
The UR-530 was an uprated version of Proton capable of about 35,000 kg to LEO. As such it used exactly the same propellants as Proton: N2O4/UDMH.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur530.htm

I think it is interesting that Proton was originally developed as a huge ICBM with a 20,000+ kg throw weight. Kind of makes me wonder if the then Soviets were looking for a ballistic missile version of their Tsar Bomba  100+ Megaton thermonuclear bomb. The masses are just about spot on...I wonder if anyone on this board could confirm that or not?

Doing just a little bit more digging and i found this link:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pron8k82.htm

which seems to confirm that the Proton was originally intended to throw big military payloads: including a 100 MT warhead...wow!
I'm glad we (the world) didn't go down that particular road...
« Last Edit: 07/06/2008 01:04 pm by TyMoore »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #26 on: 07/06/2008 01:30 pm »
The UR-530 was an uprated version of Proton capable of about 35,000 kg to LEO. As such it used exactly the same propellants as Proton: N2O4/UDMH.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur530.htm

I think it is interesting that Proton was originally developed as a huge ICBM with a 20,000+ kg throw weight. Kind of makes me wonder if the then Soviets were looking for a ballistic missile version of their Tsar Bomba  100+ Megaton thermonuclear bomb. The masses are just about spot on...I wonder if anyone on this board could confirm that or not?

Doing just a little bit more digging and i found this link:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pron8k82.htm

which seems to confirm that the Proton was originally intended to throw big military payloads: including a 100 MT warhead...wow!
I'm glad we (the world) didn't go down that particular road...


Got the same feelings about Proton / Tsar bomba combination. 

If we consider the R-36 was called "the city buster", such ICBM could be called "the country buster"...
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #27 on: 07/08/2008 07:30 am »
Another thing that I just can't understand.

What's the difference between the RD-54 and RD-57 engines ?  ???
when you lok at their caracteristics they are nearly identical, including their thrust and propellants.




Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline maxx

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #28 on: 07/08/2008 12:36 pm »
What's the difference between the RD-54 and RD-57 engines ?  ???
when you lok at their caracteristics they are nearly identical, including their thrust and propellants.
From what I managed to find, it seem the RD 57 has a slightly higher Isp (fuel efficiency) than the RD-54 (457 vs 440s).
There are maybe other differences...


Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #29 on: 05/10/2009 07:26 pm »
Bump

Question about the Almaz program

How many Almaz hulls were build ? (including the unmanned Almaz T/ K)

What happened to OPS-4 ? is it exposed or on storage somewhere ?

Can we consider the Almaz T/ K as OPS-5 / 6 / 7 ?





Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Skylab

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #30 on: 05/11/2009 02:49 pm »
What happened to OPS-4 ? is it exposed or on storage somewhere ?
I think OPS-4 is the one stored at NPO Mashinostroyenia, which was featured in Nova's 'Astrospies'.


Another nice video (in Russian) here:


Edit: confirmed. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/articles/rustions.htm
« Last Edit: 05/11/2009 03:55 pm by Skylab »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: RE: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #31 on: 08/02/2012 03:04 pm »
Another one is why Energia chose to develop a new stage for the Molniya 4th stage that was virtually identical in size and function to the Vostok 3rd stage. Why not use the Vostok upper stage as the "escape" stage for Molniya?


The new stage had to be ignited in zero-g, not during powered flight. This is a whole lot different than the hot staging used with Vostok. Atlas prevented this by a 1 1/2 architecture, Titan used hot staging.

Analyst

Let me try this question again.

Why did the Soviets design 2 different upper stages for Vostok and Molniya without designing a single stage that could meet the requirements for both? Couldn't the Molniya 4th stage serve as the Vostok 3rd stage?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #32 on: 08/02/2012 03:06 pm »
Bump

Question about the Almaz program

How many Almaz hulls were build ? (including the unmanned Almaz T/ K)

What happened to OPS-4 ? is it exposed or on storage somewhere ?

Can we consider the Almaz T/ K as OPS-5 / 6 / 7 ?

NPO Mash documents show OPS-4 at their facility as of a few years back. Maybe it was one of the two transferred to the Isle of Man recently.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: RE: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #33 on: 08/02/2012 03:38 pm »
Couldn't the Molniya 4th stage serve as the Vostok 3rd stage?

The Vostok 3rd stage is about 50% heavier than the Molniya 4th stage so there would have been a big hit on Vostok payload.

A better question would be couldn't the Vostok 3rd stage be used as the Molniya 4th stage? This might have been practical if either the Vostok 3rd stage had restart ability or there was no requirement for an initial LEO parking orbit. Unfortunately, both constraints applied so Molniya needed an optimized 4th stage.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #34 on: 08/02/2012 04:24 pm »
Way too many Soviet Space Mysteries to be uncovered yet.

Take the "UFO Files".  If most of the "UFO Files" before say the year 1970 could be released into the public alot of overlays of info could be done. 

Sure this would be a win win for those as yet "unidentified" parts yet out there.

 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Totoshka

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Russia
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #35 on: 08/06/2012 03:41 pm »


Soyuz 1 was lanched from Baikonur cosmodrome. The local time was 5:35AM, so it was early morning

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #36 on: 08/15/2012 04:19 am »
Let's not forget the "Uragan" space fighter.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #37 on: 08/15/2012 05:32 am »
Let's not forget the "Uragan" space fighter.

The two claimed launches of "Uragan" that were supposed to be Cosmos 1871 and Cosmos 1873, are described in this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12777.msg271116#msg271116

There was a supposedly fully reusable Energia II launcher, dubbed "Uragan" - could be that the alleged spacefighter was a result of hyperactive western intelligence imagination and a mixup of BOR/Spiral + Energia programs ?
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #38 on: 08/15/2012 06:29 pm »
Let's not forget the "Uragan" space fighter.

The two claimed launches of "Uragan" that were supposed to be Cosmos 1871 and Cosmos 1873, are described in this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12777.msg271116#msg271116

There was a supposedly fully reusable Energia II launcher, dubbed "Uragan" - could be that the alleged spacefighter was a result of hyperactive western intelligence imagination and a mixup of BOR/Spiral + Energia programs ?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/epn-03-0695.htm

This is the web site that states that these missions were to launch heavy dummy payloads as a test for Zenit-2.

Offline B. Hendrickx

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Liked: 1891
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Remaining Soviet Space Mysteries
« Reply #39 on: 08/15/2012 10:13 pm »
Let's not forget the "Uragan" space fighter.

The two claimed launches of "Uragan" that were supposed to be Cosmos 1871 and Cosmos 1873, are described in this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12777.msg271116#msg271116

There was a supposedly fully reusable Energia II launcher, dubbed "Uragan" - could be that the alleged spacefighter was a result of hyperactive western intelligence imagination and a mixup of BOR/Spiral + Energia programs ?

The name "Uragan" ("Hurricane") has been used to refer to two different, unrelated projects : a rumoured Zenit-launched military spaceplane and a fully reusable version of Energiya.

The military spaceplane never existed. Rumours about its existence were fuelled by photographs of the recoveries of two BOR-4 vehicles in the Indian Ocean obtained by the Australian Air Force in 1983 and 1984.  It was widely believed that these were scale models of a Zenit-launched spaceplane that was being developed simultaneously with Buran. Later it turned out that BOR-4  had its roots in the cancelled Spiral project and that it was only flown to test heat shield materials for Buran. I'm not sure who invented the name "Uragan" for the phantom spaceplane. I first saw the name in an article on Soviet spaceplanes by Peter Pesavento in Spaceflight in 1995, but no source is given.

The fully reusable Energiya was indeed studied in the 1980s, but of course never got further than the drawing boards. In his memoirs Energiya chief designer Boris Gubanov calls it Energiya-2 or GK-175, but the name Uragan has circulated as well.

And let's not forget that Uragan is also another name for the Glonass navigation satellites.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1