Cosmos numbering sequence

[Phillip Clark]

When Cosmos 2495 was launched it was realised that some Cosmos numbers had been unaccounted for.   Satori's analysis on another thread showed that two Cosmos numbers had been assigned to objects from the first Soyuz-2-1V launch and there was an additional object that was apparently counted as a Cosmos satellite assigned to the previous launch of three Strela-3M satellites, Cosmos 2488-2490.

The launches of Cosmos and possible Cosmos satellites starting with Cosmos 2487 are as follows:

2013 Jun 27      2013-032          Cosmos 2487
2013 Dec 25      2013-076          Cosmos 2488
                              Cosmos 2489
                              Cosmos 2490
                              Cosmos 2491 (extra)
2013 Dec 28      2013-078          Cosmos 2492
                              Cosmos 2493

2014 Mar 23      2014-012          Cosmos 2494
2014 May 06      2014-025          Cosmos 2495   (the Russians announced this serial number)
2014 May 23      2014-028          Cosmos 2496 (Strela-3M)
                              Cosmos 2497 (Strela-3M)
                              Cosmos 2498 (Strela-3M)
                              Cosmos 2499 (extra)
2014 Jun 14      2014-032          Cosmos 2500 (GLONASS)
2014 Sep 27      2014-058          Luch, Olimp-K (Cosmos??)
2014 Nov 30      2014-075          Cosmos 2501 (GLONASS)
2014 Dec 19      2014-084          Kondor-E 1
2014 Dec 25      2014-086          Cosmos 2502? (Lotos)

Now, an important question.

Have the Russians officially given the Luch/Olimp-K satellite a Cosmos number?   If not then the GLONASS launch is Cosmos 2501 as shown above.

Since Kondor-E 1 has been purchased by South Africa I assume it is safe to say that it does not have a Cosmos number.

I have not shown the Angara-A5 launch because that was a dummy "GVM" satellite - which in the "old days" might have been given a Cosmos cover number but things are more open today, right?

That means that the Lotos launch on Christmas Day is Cosmos 2502.

However, in different forums I have seen the Lotos launch given numbers 2502, 2503, 2504 and even 2505!

Shall we have a vote on whether my logic is correct or not?

[jcm]

I think it is clear that even the Russian Ministry of Defence can't figure out whether or not your logic is correct.

I think it is possible that Kondor might get a Kosmos number since the South African purchase is not admitted by SA,
and the spacecraft control (as opposed to payload instrument control) is done in Russia. It could go either way.

But right now it seems to me that none of these satellites have a Kosmos number. They may eventually get one,
but in particular the only Russian public statement on Lotos is that it is
"космический аппарат"  and specifically космическим аппаратом связи,  "communications spacecraft."  This appears to be a return to the days - which you will well remember of -  'Tyazholiy Sputnik',  'heavy satellite' for Mars/Venus parking orbit failures, before everything got Kosmosed.

So for now I think I have to regard the official name of this satellite as Kosmicheskiy Apparat,
with the caveat that it is likely to be renamed as Kosmos something about a year from now when they file with the UN.

[Phillip Clark]

Jonathan, shall we just take over TASS or whomever and write the launch announcement for them?

[jcm]

Jonathan, shall we just take over TASS or whomever and write the launch announcement for them?

Y'know, that's not such a crazy idea - we could offer to be the Russian Space Forces nomenclature systems engineering contractor for a suitable (US dollar) fee...  we couldn't do a worse job...

[jcm]

Jonathan, shall we just take over TASS or whomever and write the launch announcement for them?

Y'know, that's not such a crazy idea - we could offer to be the Russian Space Forces nomenclature systems engineering contractor for a suitable (US dollar) fee...  we couldn't do a worse job...

More seriously, I am again considering abandoning the use of Cosmos names in launch lists, at least for
new launches - and maybe go back and replace the old names with the "real" names now that we know them.
Possibly the same with USA designations, even though for recent years the real names for those are still uncertain.

[Bob Shaw]

I must be old; I gave up at Cosmos-500!

I used to get the wonderful little missives from Novosti, carefully saying nothing, and gradually the will to live was lost...

[Phillip Clark]

I must be old; I gave up at Cosmos-500!
I used to get the wonderful little missives from Novosti, carefully saying nothing, and gradually the will to live was lost...

Really?   The analysis of the Cosmos satellites was fascinating bread-and-butter work for people seriously interested in following the Soviet space programme.

[Stan Black]

The Kosmos numbers were important in identifying those two small satellites: Kosmos-2491 and Kosmos-2499.

Apart from that what other value do they add?

[Phillip Clark]

The Kosmos numbers were important in identifying those two small satellites: Kosmos-2491 and Kosmos-2499.
Apart from that what other value do they add?

They are convenient for book-keeping and using them adds consistency to the cataloging of Russian satellites.   I guess that since I have been following the Soviet/Russian programme since 1969-1970 it's an old habit!!!

[Stan Black]

Jonathan, shall we just take over TASS or whomever and write the launch announcement for them?

Y'know, that's not such a crazy idea - we could offer to be the Russian Space Forces nomenclature systems engineering contractor for a suitable (US dollar) fee...  we couldn't do a worse job...

More seriously, I am again considering abandoning the use of Cosmos names in launch lists, at least for
new launches - and maybe go back and replace the old names with the "real" names now that we know them.
Possibly the same with USA designations, even though for recent years the real names for those are still uncertain.

What do you propose to call Kosmos-1669?

[Phillip Clark]

I would suggest "Cosmos 1669".

[Stan Black]

I would suggest "Cosmos 1669".

Let’s be stupid and not have a serious discussion.

[Phillip Clark]

Well, we all know that it was a Progress that flew to Salyut 7, but because of problems after it was launched it was given the "Cosmos" cover name.   However it successfully completed its Progress mission.

Since the spacecraft was officially named Cosmos 1669 at launch then that is the name which I have always applied to it.

[Stan Black]

If you abandon Kosmos (or Cosmos) names then you would also have to use the correct names for all the satellites? Progress-1 was №102, and Progress-2 was №101, with 1669 being Progress №126. It would starting getting very confusing. Interkosmos (or Intercosmos) is a blanket name too.

[Phillip Clark]

In addition for a lot of satellites we do not have their official programme serial numbers.   So Cosmos IDs are useful and simple.

[jcm]

In addition for a lot of satellites we do not have their official programme serial numbers.   So Cosmos IDs are useful and simple.

That is a fair point.  On the other hand the Cosmos names (and USA/OPS names in the US) are deliberate obfuscations
and I am less patient with them than I used to be...

And yes Stan, my suggestion was  Progress No. 101 etc. , you're right that it is not just Cosmos that would have
to be changed. In my own database I already carry columns for both names and it's just a question of which one
gets considered primary.

[spaceman3]

Back in the 1990s when I was obsessively tracking down Soviet/Russian serial numbers of everything from satellites to rivets, it was really exciting to put names (Tayfun-1B! Yug!) to Kosmos numbers (1146!) and indices (17F31!) but it eventually became a full time job. And then family and jobs and stuff intruded and I took a long break. Getting back into things recently, I'm appreciating much more the value of the original Kosmos numbers. As Jonathan notes, of course, they were meant to obfuscate. But there's something about having the actual name that people (esp. the Soviet press) at the time called something rather than retroactive names. If you were around in 1962, there was no 1VA no. 2, or Venera-1, there was simply, "Automatic Interplanetary Station." In all Soviet books from that period, that's what it was called (until 1965 when it became "Venera 1"). Of course, it's wonderful that we now which satellites were X or Y class, along with serial numbers, but in writing (recovering) history, I think at least *part* of the story is to recreate the language that the public were using. So I would vote for using both systems--the fake Kosmos names and the real program names-- in any kind of historical writing.

As an aside, while I was in a Russian archive back in 2006, I found a bunch of documents dating from 1965 within the Ministry of General Machine Building (MOM) saying that the U.S. was on to the Kosmos numbering system, and that the Soviets should introduce a new class of satellites called "Zarya" which would run parallel to "Kosmos." Satellites would be randomly assigned to "Kosmos" and "Zarya" to even further confuse people. In the end, obviously, they didn't implement that plan but that would've made things even more crazy!

[Satori]

Have the Russians officially given the Luch/Olimp-K satellite a Cosmos number?   If not then the GLONASS launch is Cosmos 2501 as shown above.

Luch/Olymp was given a Cosmos designation, but that was latter reverted to the original Luch designation.

[Bob Shaw]

I must be old; I gave up at Cosmos-500!
I used to get the wonderful little missives from Novosti, carefully saying nothing, and gradually the will to live was lost...

Really?   The analysis of the Cosmos satellites was fascinating bread-and-butter work for people seriously interested in following the Soviet space programme.

Oh, yes, but those meaningless bits of puffs were so terrible! Sorry!

[Phillip Clark]

With Satori identifying the Lotos-S launch as being Cosmos 2503, do we know with certainty what Cosmos 2502 was?   The Olymp/Luch satellite?