A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[Qalqulserut]

Why not just expand the diameter of your mount, like an upside-down cone? I've seen fairings shaped like that. Like on the Delta I/II rockets, or Ariane I.
My favorite guess for a Soviet Buran is: N1 gets slashed at some point after the lunar landings, like the Saturn V, but early enough that upgrading an existing vehicle is possible. Which naturally leads you to a Proton-derived vehicle, and an orbiter. Depending on how much money the Soviets are willing to spend after N1, you may have a reusable/semi-reusable Proton and or a high-performance upper stage, possibly hydrolox or something.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Or better yet, build a constant diameter hydrolox third stage. Then you could carry a full shuttle

 

[Thoresby]

Why not just expand the diameter of your mount, like an upside-down cone? I've seen fairings shaped like that. Like on the Delta I/II rockets, or Ariane I.

I think any solution is going to have to involve replacing Block V and Block G with a straight sided, large diameter, high efficiency 3rd stage, probably hydrogen powered. It's certainly within the capability of the Soviet Union if the various warring tribes can work together. Or you could even design a "shuttle" with integral tankage to replace Block V and Block G, only retaining the use of the first two stages of the N1 as the booster.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Well the N1 Block G has a diameter of 4.4 meters against Ariane 5, the launch vehicle for Hermes, having a diameter of 5.4 meters so based on that smaller than Hermes size. The problem with the N1 is it tapers so strongly which makes it. a.) very difficult to do a side mount and b.) restricts the diameter of whatever you put on the top.

Errr ... Isn't Blok G the earth escape stage?
Wouldn't you mount a shuttle on top of Blok V?

 

[Qalqulserut]

I think any solution is going to have to involve replacing Block V and Block G with a straight sided, large diameter, high efficiency 3rd stage, probably hydrogen powered. It's certainly within the capability of the Soviet Union if the various warring tribes can work together. Or you could even design a "shuttle" with integral tankage to replace Block V and Block G, only retaining the use of the first two stages of the N1 as the booster.

I see; all the options are very interesting either way.

 

[Michel Van]

Block G is Lunar orbit injection stage and LK decent stage toward lunar Surface !
Its part of N1 payload launch into low orbit…

 

[nixonshead]

Block G is Lunar orbit injection stage and LK decent stage toward lunar Surface !
Its part of N1 payload launch into low orbit…

That’s Blok-D. Block-G is the TLI stage.

 

[Michel Van]

That’s Blok-D. Block-G is the TLI stage.

sorry have to learn the ABC again, this of N1 blocks ABC !

 

[Bahamut-255]

The Propaganda Team are having to work hard, and not having the best of luck.

Chelomei being the one booted is an interesting change from OTL, and given how events have played out here, actually quite plausible.

IIRC he'd been on Thin Ice throughout the 1970's IOTL, so Almaz' sup-par performance, the slowness of his work overall, plus Mishin having some desperately-needed Breathing Space with Soyuz doing better here, along with a working (albeit barely) N1.

STS and how the USSR respond will be something

IIRC 1975 was about the time the N1F series was slated for first test launch IOTL, being cancelled (with relative ease thanks to a 0% launch success rating of the prior variant) when Glushko took over, and still wanting a Superbooster helped with the decision to go with Energia/Buran.

I wonder how things will play out here, given that AFAIK, the L3M is in development - though to what extent I'm less sure on.

 

[nixonshead]

So everyone’s really keen to hear about the Shuttle, huh?! We’ll be dipping into that topic in the next main update, so hopefully some of your questions will soon be answered… but perhaps not all (always keep the audience hungry ).

In the meantime though, just one more brief interlude on space station plans…

 

[nixonshead]

Interlude : MKBS​

- Excerpt from Encyclopedia Astronautica by Mark Wade

In the second half of 1971 and first half of 1972, simultaneous with other work, TsKBEM began technical development of a Multi-module Orbital Complex (MOK). The MOK was designed to solve a wide range of tasks: astronomical and astrophysical research, materials research, navigation, communications , remote sensing for study of forestry, farming, geology, fisheries, etc., and military applications.

MOK was not a single spacecraft but an integrated collection of earth-based and near-earth orbital systems consisting of:

• Multi-module Cosmic Base Station (MKBS)
• Autonomous spacecraft, operating from the MKBS
• Transport systems, using at first expendable supply transport craft, to be replaced later by reusable systems
• Launch vehicle systems
• Launch sites
• Autonomous test systems
• Search and rescue complexes

The MKBS would control all of the linked orbital systems and provide base quarters for the crews, an orbital control center, a supply base, and servicing facilities for on-orbit systems. Independently functioning spacecraft would dock with MKBS for repair, upgrade, and refueling. The MKBS would co-ordinate all of the autonomous spacecrafts' activities and maneuvers, resulting in a unified transport system.

The MKBS would consist of a large core module of 80 metric tons, launched by the N-1 into a near earth orbit around 51.5 degrees. It was to be powered by a 100 kW nuclear power plant derived from OKB-1's work on nuclear electric propulsion. Solar arrays totaling 140 square meters of area provided 14 kW of backup power. Additional Soyuz and TKS-derived modules could be attached and detached to conduct special studies. The station had a basic core diameter of 6 m and a length of 50 m when the reactor boom was deployed. A basic crew of three, with a maximum of six, would inhabit the station throughout its five year life. Crews would serve two to three month tours, with overlapping crew member replacements four times a year. The station was to be equipped with a total of eight motor clusters consisting of orbital correction motors of 300 to 1,000 kgf, coarse orientation motors of 10 to 40 kgf, and ion engines for fine orientation and orbital altitude maintenance with a thrust of 100 to 300 grams.

By mid-1973, with the MKBS and N1-L3M programs both experiencing delays, engineers at TsKBEM became concerned that the lack of large payloads for the N-1 in the near term may leave it vulnerable to cancellation. These fears were heightened following Glusko’s appointment as head of TsKBM and his plans to not only accelerate the Almaz space station program, but to replace the Proton booster with a new modular kerolox design. This would leave MKBS vulnerable to replacement by Almaz, while a new Proton replacement threatened Mishin’s plans for the N11 launcher in the same class. Glushko’s ambitions to expand his RLA rocket family to include a heavy launch vehicle could even prove a challenge to the N-1.

In response, in December 1973 Mishin proposed to simplify the initial experimental phase of the MOK program to launch a large MKBS core module as quickly as possible. This module would make use of work previously completed in support of the OS-1 station that had preceded MKBS, outfitted with life support, power and guidance systems derived from TsKBEM’s Soyuz spacecraft. The technologically complex nuclear reactor was deleted to reduce risk to the schedule, and in its place the area of the solar arrays was doubled. The use of N-1 for the launch would help demonstrate the booster’s necessity, even without lunar missions, while the placing in orbit of a station with an even larger mass than the US Skylab would keep TsKBEM in the space station game, upstaging Glushko and his far smaller OPS stations. In his memoir, Chertok noted with irony the parallels between this approach and the so-called ‘DOS Conspiracy’ of 1969, which had proposed to use Soyuz systems to outfit an OPS hull to launch a minimal space station within a year as a response to Apollo.

Technical development of the MOK was the first large-scale space technology study which used combined, earth resources studies, economic analysis to determine the best engineering solutions. Various technical results obtained in the process of this work were used for a long time after. Leading participants in the project were I N Sadovskiy, V V Simakin, B E Chertok, V S Ovchinnikov,, M V Melnikov, A P Abramov, V D Vachnadze, V K Bezverbiy, A A Ryzhanov, I E Yurasov, V Z Ilin, G A Dolgopolov, N P Bersenev, K B Ivanov, V C Anfyrev, B G Sypryn , V P Zaitsev, E A Shtarkov, I V Gordeev, B V Korolev, V G Osipov, V N Lakeyev, V P Byrdakov, A A Kochkin.

It was interesting to note that American propulsion engineer Peter James described the MOK in considerable and accurate detail in his 1974 book Soviet Conquest from Space.

 

[Sam R.]

Its almost as if space scientists and space engineers like to talk to other space scientists and space engineers regardless of their respective state apparatus' opinions………Now let's put Big Bird from an American Urban Children's Programme on this risky human launch………

 

[Linkwerk]

I love the thread so far. I'm super interested in how the longer term economics of keeping a heavy lift vehicle in the stable of a major space power will work out.

 

[Thoresby]

Obviously it makes sense to delete the complex and heavy space based reactor but space based reactors open up so many options down the line. Shame.

 

[nixonshead]

I love the thread so far. I'm super interested in how the longer term economics of keeping a heavy lift vehicle in the stable of a major space power will work out.

Thanks! Economics was often a nebulous concept in the USSR, but certainly having a large, resource-intensive rocket on the books will affect what activities can be done in parallel.

Obviously it makes sense to delete the complex and heavy space based reactor but space based reactors open up so many options down the line. Shame.

Some things to keep in mind: This was an excerpt from the TTL astronautix article, not the full page, and the note on deleting the reactor relates specifically to Mishin's "quick-and-dirty" MKBS...

 

[nixonshead]

Interlude : Yes, Comrade​

- Central Scientific Research Institute No.50 (TsNII-50), June 1975

Er, Fedor Nikolayevich, I wonder if I could have a word?

Of course, Boris, come in. What seems to be the problem?

Well, it’s the Minister.

You’ll have to narrow it down more than that, Boris.

The Minister has asked us to write a report about this American space shuttle. Apparently, “Uncle Mitya” is in two minds about whether we should develop our own equivalent, and he’s asked the Ministry of General Machine Building to produce an analysis summarising the military potential of such a vehicle, and so the Minister has in turn tasked our Special Research Institute to write the report.

Sounds simple enough. So what’s the problem?

Well, the Chief Designers and the Academy of Sciences aren’t keen on it. They don’t see any benefit and want to focus on their existing priorities.

You mean Mishin wants Glushko’s space stations, Glushko wants Mishin’s Moon rockets, and Utkin just wants to be left alone to build missiles.

Er, well, that is…

So why your concern?

Well, the Minister is worried that it would look bad if he recommended a shuttle against the wishes of both his Chief Designers and Keldysh. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want to risk recommending against a shuttle, in case it later turns out the American’s do have some secret military purpose for it.

Hmm, I see. Still, the solution is simple enough, Boris: You must ensure that your report is sufficiently “balanced”.

“Balanced”?

Yes, Boris. You present a detailed, rigorous analysis of all the available data, complete with charts, trade-offs, parametric assessments, and so forth, and then you add a summarising page at the beginning stating that on balance, when the totality of the data is taken into account, and having been weighed up by all the experts in the relevant fields, when assessing the indications of the shuttle possessing an inherent military capability on the one hand versus the countervailing evidence of fundamentally non-offensive characteristics of the system in question on the other hand, it is not possible to determine with a high degree of certainty the true level of threat, or indeed lack of threat, presented by this potential future American vehicle to the Peasants and Workers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Excuse me?

You fudge it. You cloak the methodology in complexity while keeping the conclusion so vague that, whatever happens, you are sure to be right.

Oh, I don’t think I could really do that, Fedor Nikolayevich.

And why not?

Because the Academy of Sciences has done it already.

But I thought you said the Academy was against the shuttle?

They are, but if you take a look at their report… Here: “We do not see any sensible scenario that would support the shuttle for scientific uses.” The rest of their analysis says our expendable rockets are cheaper and more effective than the shuttle, but with those two words, “scientific uses”, they hinted that there could be a military use, and so got the whole problem passed to us at the Ministry of General Machine Building.

Hmm. Well, if obfuscation has already been used, perhaps we should deploy a surfeit of clarity.

Pardon?

You write two reports. One clearly indicating that the American shuttle is a military threat that must be countered, and the other just as clearly proving that it isn’t.

But surely only one of them can be true?

If you want the truth, Boris, you must read Pravda.

No… I mean, yes… That is, what I mean to say is, how is the Minister to make up his mind based on contradictory reports?

Official reports are not intended to enable our leaders to reach a conclusion, Boris. They are to provide cover for them to go ahead with whatever conclusion they have already reached. Where the conclusion is uncertain, it is our job to give them options - and to ensure that no punishment for being wrong should ever fall upon the leadership or, more importantly, on us!

Well, I suppose if you put it like that…

Then you’ll write the two reports?

Yes, comrade!


++++++++++++++++++++

With apologies to Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. If you’re not familiar with their work, I recommend this clip as encapsulating much of the spirit I have attempted to channel.

Happy April Fool’s Day! This light-hearted interlude was already written and in the buffer when I realised my regular posting schedule would put Post 5 on 1st April, so I decided to swap the order around. Post 5 (which will discuss the shuttle decision, promise!) will now go up on 5th April, with Post 6 returning to the regular ordering on 8th April.

Incredibly, TsNII-50 really did produce two contradictory reports, IOTL and ITTL, although the canonicity of this particular exchange is left as a matter of reader preference.

 

[Thoresby]

Great post

Incredibly, TsNII-50 really did produce two contradictory reports, IOTL and ITTL, although the canonicity of this particular exchange is left as a matter of reader preference.

Why is this incredibly. Jay and Lynn's work was so popular and successful because under the humour it was a true to life depiction of the mentality that large bureaucratic organisations and the people inside them adopt, though in real life they are rarely as competent and witty as Humphrey Appleby. Writing two contradictory reports to give the leadership cover for whatever decision they want to make makes complete sense from an arse covering perspective.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Incredibly, TsNII-50 really did produce two contradictory reports, IOTL and ITTL, although the canonicity of this particular exchange is left as a matter of reader preference.

I choose to believe that bureaucratic doublethink is a universal facet of the human condition, so I'll take it. Great post!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Da, ministr!
Comrade Gomfrei Eplbiov

 

[Craig]

With apologies to Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. If you’re not familiar with their work, I recommend this clip as encapsulating much of the spirit I have attempted to channel.

That's EXACTLY what I was hearing as I read your update. Although hearing Sir Humphrey with a Russian accent wasn't working very well. Thanks.