Russian Spaceplanes

Russia


The story of rocketplanes and spaceplanes in the Soviet Union was one of constant setbacks due to internal politics, constant struggle with little result. Tsiolkovskiy pointed out in 1929 that the altitude of an aircraft does not have to be limited to the atmosphere if rocket propulsion was used. This article inspired rocket enthusiasts Korolev and Glushko, and led to development of experimental and military rocketplanes during the 1930's. Both men were sent into prison camps in the purges of the late 1930's and work came nearly to a halt. Stalin released the engineers after the war and set them to absorbing the great technical advances made by the Germans. Immediate post-war work indicated that rocketplanes were inferior to turbojet-powered fighters for military purposes. But work continued on winged spacecraft for launch by ballistic missiles. The first such program, the VKA of 1958-1960, resulted in Myasishchev and Tsybin developing competing designs for launch by Korolev R-7 rockets. In 1960, this work was cancelled, and Korolev’s nemesis Chelomei was charged with development of Kosmoplan and Raketoplan spaceplanes of radically different concept. Premier Khrushchev, Chelomei's patron, was overthrown in 1964 and these programs were in turn cancelled. They were replaced by the ambitious Spiral lifting body project of 1966-1976. This in turn was abandoned as too primitive when America embarked on its Space Shuttle program. In response the Soviet leadership decided to build an equivalent and embarked on its largest space project ever. The indigenous MTKVA and LKS designs were rejected in favour of an aerodynamic copy of the shuttle, the Buran. This flew but once before the Soviet Union collapsed. This also ended development work on smaller MAKS and single-stage-to-orbit MKVS spaceplanes.
> Follow the links below to learn the awesome, hitherto unrevealed stories and technologies of these fabulous flying machines.


Spacecraft: RP-318.

Korolev adaped his SK-9 glider in 1936 as the first rocked-powered aircraft in the Soviet Union. It was originally to be used to flight test Glushko's ORM-65 engine, but this proved too unreliable for manned flight. Glushko developed an improved ORM-65-2 but in the 1938 he and Korolev were arrested and sent to the Gulag in Siberia to die. The work was carried on by others with delays, and the first powered flight finally came on 28 February 1940. Test pilot V P Fedorov was towed to 2600 m and cast off at 80 km/hr. The rocket then fired and accelerated the aircraft to 140 m/s and 2900 m altitude. The RP-318 flew nine times before the war ended the work.


Spacecraft: BI-1.

The Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 was the first high speed rocket plane developed by the Soviet Union. Drawings were completed by spring 1941 but Stalin did not give the go-ahead for production until July 9, 1941. Round-the-clock shifts produced the first aircraft in 35 days. First flight was on 10 September, but the factory had to be evacuated to Sverdlovsk. The first powered flight, following accidents in ground runs of the rocket engine, came on May 15, 1942. Problems with corrosion by the acid fuels slowed testing. On flight 7 the aircraft experienced the previously unencountered tendency of an aircraft to pitch down in high-speed flight, and the rocketplane crashed into the ground, killing the pilot. Plans for a 50 aircraft production batch were abandoned, and rocketplane testing in the USSR only resumed with the testing of German designs after the war.


Spacecraft: Malyutka.

The Malyutka rocket point interceptor was designed by Polikarpov beginning in 1943. The small aircraft, powered by a Glushko engine, was designed to reach a speed of 845 km/hr on flights of 8 to 14 minutes duration. Prototype construction was underway when Polikarpov died on 30 July 1944. He had Stalin's support but many other enemies. The result was that his design bureau and projects were immediately cancelled after his death.


Spacecraft: LL.

The LL was a transonic aerodynamic testbed authorised by LII in September 1945. Three were built: the LL-1 with a straight wing; LL-2 with a conventional swept wing; and LL-3 with a forward swept wing. The LL was towed to a 6 km release altitude by a Tu-2 aircraft. After being cast off, it would fire its Kartukov solid rocket engine and accelerate to the edge of the sound barrier, with a camera photographing air flow on the tufted wing. The LL-2 was not finished because contemporary fighter programs were already providing data on swept wing configurations. But in 1946 to 1948 the LL-1 flew 30 times and the LL-3 100 times, with test pilots M Ivanov, Amet-Khan Sultan, Anokhin, and Rybko at the controls.


Spacecraft: I-270.

Studies for a copy of the Me-163B rocket fighter were already undertaken by OKB MiG in 1944, using a Soviet engine by Dushkin/Glushko, but no construction was begun before the war ended. Post-war Soviet technical teams discovered the more advanced Ju-248 (Me-263) design, including one prototype airframe, and the decision was made that MiG would copy this design. The resulting rocketplane had a more refined aerodynamic form than the Me-263 and lower gross weight. The first airframe, Zh-1, began glider tests in December 1946, towed by a Tu-2 to its release point. The Zh-2, rocket-powered with a dual thrust engine (1650 kgf boost / 400 kgf cruise) first flew in March 1947. However total burn time of the rocket engines was only 255 seconds, and by this time the prototype of the faster and much longer ranged turbojet-powered MiG-15 was nearing completion. Therefore the I-270 was seen as having no military utility and abandoned after the Zh-2 was written off after a hard landing in spring 1947. Maximum speed of the straight-winged, subsonic I-270 would have been 936 km/hr at 15 km altitude, with boost to that altitude in 3.03 minutes.


Spacecraft: Samolyot 5.

Biesnovat was assigned the project to develop an all-Soviet equivalent to the 346 supersonic rocketplane being developed by the German Roessing team in OKB-2. Like the 346, the 5 was a swept-wing aircraft, but about 2/3 the size. First glide flight by A K Pakhomov, dropped from a Pe-8, came on 14 July 1948. The first 5-1 aircraft was destroyed on its third flight 5 September 1948. The 5-2 second aircraft, with rocket engine installed, made its first flight on 26 January 1949. After five unpowered flights, the program was cancelled in June 1949. By that time better-funded turbojet-powered fighter prototypes were already achieving the 1200 km/hr top speed of the 5. Biesnovat and Isayev would elaborate the design in unmanned form into the supersonic R-1 air-to-surface missile.


Spacecraft: 346.

OKB-2 was formed 22 October 1946 in Podberzye for development and exploitation of German rocketplane technology. Soviet director was A Ya Berznyak, and chief designer was German engineer Hans Roessing. OKB-2 was tasked with continued development and flight of the German supersonic DFS 8-346 rocket reconnaissance aircraft. The 346 featured a 45 degree swept wing, a prone pilot looking through a plexiglass nose, and a dual-thrust Walter HWK 109-509C engine. Maximum speed was to be Mach 2 after a two minute rocket burn. Wind tunnel tests began at TsAGI in March 1947. Four 346 aircraft were built. As with the American XS-1, they were launched from captured B-29 or Tu-4 bombers. German pilot Wolfgang Ziese conducted all of the initial flight tests. Following initial glider flights (346P, 346-1) in 1948, the first powered flight of the 346-2 came on 30 September 1949. The flight was successful but Ziese was injured after the landing skid collapsed after a fast landing. Following repairs, 346-2 flights continued in October 1950 with Russian pilot P I Kasmin at the controls. Ziese resumed flight with the final version, the 346-3, on 15 August 1951. This flew again on 2 September but the aircraft went out of control on 14 September and Ziese bailed out of the aircraft. The destruction of this rocketplane resulted in further tests being abandoned. All German engineers were repatriated to East Germany and OKB-2 dissolved by the end of 1953.


Spacecraft: M-42.

In both America and Russia design studies by captured German rocket engineers were commissioned for a high altitude cruise missile based on the Peenemuende work. In Russia, Albring designed the R-15 missile for the Russians in October 1949. This would use a rocket-powered Groettrup-designed R-10 as the first stage. The cruise stage would have an aerodynamic layout like that of the Saenger-Bredt rocket-powered antipodal bomber of World War II. Boris Chertok of NII-8 took this preliminary design and elaborated it, including consideration of the key problem of long-range automatic astronavigation.

Von Braun's team in America had designed a similar Hermes cruise missile in New Mexico in 1946. This used a V-2 as the first stage. The Hermes concept was elaborated by North American Aviation into the Navaho cruise missile.

While these preliminary studies were underway the United States developed plans for delivery of nuclear warheads on the cities of the Soviet Union. Stalin's response to this threat was authorisation to begin development of means of nuclear attack of the United States. Veteran aircraft designer Tupolev was tasked with development of an intercontinental bomber, while young rocket designer Korolev was to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile. After initial study Tupolev reported that it would not be possible to develop an intercontinental bomber using jet engines; his Tu-95 would use German-designed turboprops. However another designer, Myasishchev, claimed to be able to design an intercontinental jet bomber. Accordingly the Central Committee decree on 24 March 1951 created the OKB-23 Myasishchev design bureau.

Myasishchev managed to complete the first prototype 103M (called M-4 Bear in the West) bomber ten months after go-ahead (compared with four years for the B-52). The 103M represented a tremendous increase in Soviet technology: altitude was increased by 50%, range doubled, and takeoff mass was four times greater than any previous Soviet aircraft.

The United States had meanwhile pursued development of the B-52 intercontinental jet bomber and Navaho cruise missile while declining to develop ballistic missiles. This difference with the Soviet bomber/ballistic missile approach led Keldysh to from a group that raised the question of Soviet development of a similar long-range unpiloted aircraft. In 1951 to 1953 Korolev's design bureau had prepared an experimental design, the EKR. I Lisovich had developed a prototype astronavigation system that met the necessary specifications, and solution of basic problems in use of steel and titanium hot airframe technology had been solved at VIAM (All-Union Institute of Aviation Materials) and MVTU Bauman Institute.

An expert commission in 1953 examined the EKR design and felt that there were still many technical problems to be solved, most of which were better handled by an aircraft designer rather than Korolev. Further, Korolev had to place the highest priority on development of the R-7 ICBM. Therefore a final government decree on 20 May 1954 authorised the Lavochkin and Myasishchev aircraft design bureaux to proceed in parallel with full-scale development of trisonic intercontinental cruise missiles. Both missiles would use ramjet engines by Bondaryuk, astronavigation systems by R Chachikyan, inertial navigation systems by G Tolstoysov, and aerodynamics developed by TsAGI (Central Hydrodynamics Institute). Lavochkin's Burya would use rocket booster engines built by Glushko, while Myasishchev's Buran would use Isayev engines. Both missiles were to deliver a nuclear warhead over an 8,500 km range. But the warhead design specified for the Lavochkin missile had a total mass of 2,100 kg, while that for the Myasishchev missile weighed 3,500 kg.

The TsAGI configuration for the cruise stage was of conventional layout, with a thin profile 70 degree swept arrow wing mounted at mid-fuselage. The fuselage itself was cylindrical and area-ruled, with the classic ramjet shock cone in a nose intake. The astronavigation and guidance systems were mounted in a dorsal fairing. The star scanners of the system looked out through quartz windows.

Myasishchev had began work in April 1953, before the official authorisation, on his RSS-40 (RSS= rocket-aircraft system), code-named Buran (snowstorm). The RSS-40 would consist of two stages, a four-rocket boost stage (the M-41) and a ramjet cruise stage (the M-42). The RSS-40 would be launched vertically from an ingenious transporter-launcher, designed by V K Karrask. The RSS-40 was 24 m long, had an 11.6 m wingspan, a total mass of 125 tonnes, and cruised at 3000 to 3200 km/hr. The ramjet intake cone was canted 3 degrees downward, which represented the pitch angle of the missile in cruise.

Several variants of the Myasishchev M-42 cruise stage were studied. Some were related to improving the missile guidance, including an auxiliary communications package for providing en-route navigation and targeting updates, as was planned for the competing Burya. Another laid out a piloted version, with a cockpit installed in the cruise stage. The pilot would eject and be recovered by parachute at the conclusion of the mission. Myasishchev planned several manned flights to explore the psychology of human flight on the edge of space.

Buran was being prepared for its first flight when Myasishchev's project was cancelled on November 1957. After successful flight tests of Lavochkin’s Burya missile, the Soviet leadership did not see any need for continued development of a parallel ramjet design. Following the cancellation, Myasishchev sought approval for test of an air-launched version (see M-44).


Spacecraft: M-44.

Following cancellation of the ground-launched version of his RSS-40 Buran missile system, Myasishchev continued to pursue use of the M-42 cruise stage in aviation research and space exploration. In 1958 he appealed to both Khrushchev and Minister of Defence of Malinovskiy to support continued development. He now proposed an unmanned, air-launched version for high speed research.

At this time Myasishchev was developing the first Soviet supersonic bomber, the M-50. On the basis of this immense delta-winged vehicle Myasishchev proposed the RSS-52 aerospace vehicle. The RSS-52 would consist of the M-52 carrier aircraft, derived from the M-50. The M-52 would have an enormous recess in its fuselage, within which would be carried the M-44 ramjet. The M-44, designed by G D Dermichev, would be a derivative of the cancelled M-42. The M-52 would enter a circuit 1,000 km from base, accelerate to supersonic speed, and then launch the M-44. The M-44 would accelerate to hypersonic velocity, conduct a high speed run of an overwater circuit, and then splash down in the sea. A radio beacon would allow location and recovery of the craft.

In the United States, the X-15 was being developed to answer analogous questions. Manned versions of the M-42 had been designed, and Myasishchev was hoping for manned flights of his M-52 as well. However due to the expense and technical problems, Myasishchev was unable to convince the leadership to approve the RSS-52.


Spacecraft: VKA Myasishchev 1957.

Chief designers Myasishchev and Korolev had known each other well since World War II, when they were in the same sharashka (prison design bureau in the Soviet Gulag). They got along well and informally conducted studies in support of each other's projects. After Sputnik was launched Myasishchev began design for Korolev of a piloted vehicle for launch by Korolev's R-7 ICBM. This diminutive single-crew star-shaped spacecraft was called the VKA (aero-space vehicle). It would be manoeuvred within the atmosphere by two high rudders. Its faceted shape was reminiscent of the much later F-119 Stealth Fighter and the concurrent Armstrong-Whitworth Nonweiler Waverider. The faceting of this and subsequent Myasishchev designs may have indicated a refined application of Nonweiler shock-wave riding principles. However they may also have been due to the necessity of calculating hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics by breaking the shape into a series of planes, or limitations in fabricating the heat shield materials. The much later F-119 flew faceted because the computational problem of an aerodynamically optimum rounded vehicle (in relation to radar reflection in this case, as opposed to hypersonic aerodynamics) could not be solved during development of the aircraft. These early informal studies were superseded by later officially-sanctioned designs.


Spacecraft: M-48.

In 1958 the VVS (Soviet Air Force) requested development as quickly as possible of high-speed aerospace vehicles. Some of the detailed goals were met in the 1960's by development of triple-sonic fighters and bombers, such as the MiG-25 and Sukhoi T-4. However a more ambitious objective was investigation of hypersonic vehicles. This was to be conducted in a two phase program. Phase One would take an experimental vehicle up to 6,000 to 7,000 km/hour at altitudes of 80 to 100 km. In this phase the vehicle would remain controllable using aerodynamic surfaces. Phase Two would take the vehicle to Mach 10, and 100 to 150 km altitude. This would require solving problems of control at hypersonic speeds, reaction control of the vehicle outside of the atmosphere, re-entry, and landing.

An official government resolution permitting development of the M-48 spaceplane was officially issued in December 1959. Contact between the Myasishchev and Korolev bureaux in solving the problems remained close. In March 1960 L L Selyakov (assistant to Myasishchev for project work) and G D Dermichev (chief of the project section) were assigned to the M-48. Refined calculations indicated that the R-7 could loft a 4.5 tonne vehicle to 400 km suborbital trajectory and a 4.0 tonne vehicle to 500 km. 40 percent of the VKA's exterior surface would have to be covered with heat shielding. A 1600 kgf braking engine would provide 150 m/s of manoeuvring capability. In suborbital tests, the engine would extend the range of the VKA by 200 km or by 100 km laterally from a strict ballistic trajectory.

The flight characteristics of the VKA were confirmed independently by the Soviet Academy of Sciences and its head, M V Keldysh. It was calculated that a hypersonic lift to drag ratio of 0.25 to 0.30 would be achieved in ballistic re-entry of the vehicle. This was essentially the same as the optimum lifting ballistic shape, the 'headlamp' Soyuz shape. But the shape of the VKA meant non-uniform heating and the need to maintain a high angle of attack. The recommended re-entry profile consisted of a ballistic re-entry to 30 to 40 km altitude, where the spacecraft would transition to a manoeuvring entry by the use of extendible shielded wings. The hermetically sealed cabin provide accommodation for two crew in encapsulated angled ejection seats.

The draft project proposal was reviewed by the expert commission in April 1960. K P Ostinin suggested an alternative vehicle, using deployable rotors of 8 m for vertical landing (not knowing that Myasishchev had studied and rejected such schemes using rotors of 12 m and 16 m diameter). V V Struminskiy believed that the transition to winged flight could not be commenced as early as Myasishchev thought, and that a ballistic trajectory should be flown until subsonic speed was attained. S P Srishcherian believed that the configuration would have insoluble thermal control problems due to its many hot spots, and that the extendible wings would require an excessive amount of thermal protection compared to a simpler fixed wing design. V A Dzhapridze and A I Makarevskiy questioned the '48' design on many points. Makarevskiy believed the program would require extensive preliminary testing of a full-scale test bed, where the wings could be fixed and tested at various angles.

It was clear that many technical problems had to be cleared incrementally before an operational vehicle could be fielded. Myasishchev’s team went ‘back to the drawing board’, the result being two alternative single-crew orbital spaceplanes (see VKA-23 Design 1 and VKA-23 Design 2).


Spacecraft: VKA-23 Design 1.

Following the very criticial review of the first M-48 spaceplane design by the expert commission, Myasishchev developed a long range plan. The first stage of the R-7 would be used for preliminary tests. A new launch vehicle would be developed for orbital testing.

Myasishchev directed his staff in attacking the questions raised so as to close all of the open issues at the earliest possible date. In addressing the question of the form of the VKA, OKB-23 studied many variants, including Taganov rings, extendible shields, Rogallo wings, and the use of vertical landing. Various kinds of construction and heat shield materials were examined, as were the methods of integrating the shielding materials to the structure of the vehicle. Liquid metal cooling was considered in addition to passive thermal protection systems. New propellants were examined for the rocket engine, including hydrogen and fluorine oxidisers. A great deal of technical effort was spent on the encapsulated ejection seat system, the mass of which, including parachute, could not exceed 160 kg with exterior dimensions of 0.8 m x 1.8 m. The seat would have to accelerate at 25 G from the vehicle, operate at temperatures of -40 degrees C to +50 degrees C, from sea level to vacuum conditions. The seat had to ensure the safety of the pilot, ejecting him within 2 seconds after initiation through a hatch of 1.0 m diameter.

Work on development of the hot structure of the unpiloted M-42 missile was found to be directly applicable to the . The spacecraft structure, built of steel and titanium, would have to endure sustained temperatures of 350 degrees C. The heat shield system would have to protect the pilot from temperatures of hundreds of degrees during ascent through the atmosphere and over a thousand degrees on re-entry. The material selected to endure re-entry conditions could handle re-entry temperatures of 1,500 degrees C at peak heating load, cooling to 1,100 degrees C on landing. VIAM (All-Union Institute of Aviation Materials) worked to identify appropriate materials. The thermal protection layer of the VKA consisted of tiles, composed of a silicium-graphite skin, within which were niobium alloy diaphragms injected with ceramic foam. This method of construction was patented by Ye S Kulaga and Ya B Nodelman. Various solutions were found to fasten the heat shield tiles to the frame. The same techniques would be used twenty years later on the US space shuttle and Soviet Buran.

In March to September 1960 this work resulted in two definitive configurations being defined. It would seem that these designs were now single-pilot spacecraft, sized for launch to orbit by Korolev’s Vostok booster. In both designs equipment (navigation and guidance, communications, life support, electrical, telemetry) was kept to 600 kg. Useful payload was 700 kg. Equipment developed for Korolev's Vostok spacecraft would be used in the VKA-23, including the Zarya communications system.

The flight profile was as follows: to 11 km altitude the cosmonaut could use the ejection seat in the event of launch vehicle problems. Thereafter the VKA would separate from the booster. From altitudes below 40 km during re-entry the vehicle would be manoeuvrable. The pilot could eject from the spacecraft from the altitude of effectiveness of his parachute system: 3 to 8 km for the main chute, or 2 km for the reserve system. The VKA would automatically land at 10-12 m/s vertical velocity on ski landing gear, which had a length of 1.2 m, width of 0.25 m, and a track width of 5.6 m. The cosmonaut would eject from the VKA before landing and return separately to earth by parachute as in Vostok. Although primitive, the design was the first step toward later reusable spacecraft like the shuttle or Buran.

OKB-23 also designed a launch vehicle for a second stage of the program. This would be a three-stage vehicle of tandem layout. The first stage consisted of a cluster of four blocks, each with 7 engines of 35 tonnes thrust. Total lift-off thrust was 980 tonnes, 2.4 x more than Vostok.

The first version of the VKA-23 was a faceted design equipped with ski landing gear. It would evidently use Nonweiler shock-wave riding principles to minimise re-entry heating.

In October 1960 Kremlin intrigues led to Myasishchev’s design bureau being dissolved. OKB-23 became Filial 1 of Chelomei's OKB-52 and all work on the VKA-23 was stopped. Myasishchev left to become head of TsAGI (Central Hydrodynamics Institute). However the OKB-23 design team provided the experienced core for development of manned winged spacecraft by Chelomei under the Raketoplan project.


Spacecraft: VKA-23 Design 2.

Following the very critical review of the first M-48 spaceplane design by the expert commission, Myasishchev went back to the drawing board. In March to September 1960 this work resulted in definition of two alternative configurations. The first alternative was an unconventional faceted shock-wave riding design (see VKA-23 Design 1). The second Myasishchev VKA-23 design was an elegant-looking, porpoise-fuselaged winged vehicle, similar to Japan's HOPE design of forty years later. In comparison to the faceted first design, this version had a greater fuel load, much greater orbital manoeuvrability, and dispensed with the landing skis.

Internal systems and construction materials were the same as Design 1. The spacecraft structure, build of steel and titanium, would have to endure sustained temperatures of 350 degrees C. The material selected to endure re-entry conditions could handle re-entry temperatures of 1,500 degrees C at peak heating load, cooling of 1,100 degrees C on landing. The thermal protection layer of the VKA consisted of tiles, composed of a silicium-graphite skin, within which were niobium alloy diaphragms injected with ceramic foam.

The single-pilot spacecraft was sized for launch to orbit by Korolev’s Vostok booster. The cosmonaut was provided with an encapsulated ejection seat system, with a mass of 160 kg and exterior dimensions of 0.8 m x 1.8 m. The seat would accelerate at 25 G, ejecting the pilot within 2 seconds after initiation through a hatch of 1.0 m diameter. Equipment (navigation and guidance, communications, life support, electrical, telemetry) was kept to 600 kg. Useful payload was 700 kg. Equipment developed for Korolev's Vostok spacecraft would be used in the VKA-23, including the Zarya communications system.

The flight profile was as follows: to 11 km altitude the cosmonaut could use the ejection seat in the event of launch vehicle problems. Thereafter the VKA would separate from the booster. After a high angle of attack semi-ballistic re-entry, the vehicle would be manoeuvrable below 40 km. The pilot could eject from the spacecraft from the altitude of effectiveness of his parachute system: 3 to 8 km for the main chute, or 2 km for the reserve system. The second version of the VKA dispensed with the skid landing gear. The cosmonaut would eject from the VKA before landing and return separately to earth by parachute as in Vostok.

In October 1960 Khrushchev’s downsizing of the Soviet military-industrial complex and Kremlin intrigues led to Myasishchev’s design bureau being dissolved. OKB-23 became Filial 1 of Chelomei's OKB-52 and all work on the VKA-23 was stopped. Myasishchev left to become head of TsAGI (Central Hydrodynamics Institute). However the OKB-23 design team provided the experienced core for development of manned winged spacecraft by Chelomei under the Raketoplan project.


Spacecraft: PKA.

P V Tsybin’s OKB-256 had built the rocket-propelled transonic research aircraft LL-1, LL-2, and LL-3 from 1945. On 23 May 1955 they were selected to build the RS ramjet-powered Mach 3 intercontinental reconnaissance/strike aircraft (air-launched from a Tu-95N bomber), in competition with the V M Myasishchev (OKB-23) RSS-52 system. After the 1957 success of Korolev's R-7 ICBM and cancellation of most Soviet ramjet projects, the RS was redesigned as the RSR reconnaissance aircraft, conventionally flown from runways with turbojets.

In 1957, in response to the USAF Dynasoar project, the same two aviation bureaux were tasked with producing draft project designs for a manned spaceplane.

Tsybin’s design was called the gliding spacecraft (PKA). The draft project, undertaken in co-operation with Korolev’s OKB-1, was signed by Tsybin on 17 May 1959.

According to the project, the piloted PKA would be inserted into a 300 km altitude orbit by a Vostok launch vehicle. After 24 to 27 hours of flight the spacecraft would brake from orbit, gliding through the dense layers of the earth’s atmosphere. At the beginning of the descent, in the zone of most intense heating, the spacecraft would take advantage of a hull of original shape (called ‘Lapotok’ by Korolev after the Russian wooden shoes that it resembled). After braking to 500 to 600 m/s at an altitude of 20 km, the PKA would glide to a runway landing on deployable wings, which would move to a horizontal position from a stowed vertical position over the back of the spacecraft. Control of the PKA in flight was by rocket jets or aerodynamic surfaces, depending on the phase of flight.

Total time of descent of the PKA from earth orbit would be 90 minutes. Landing would take place on a specially-prepared high-load bearing runway, on bicycle skid gear, rear gear first. The fuselage of the PKA used steel extensively, and was protected from the heat of re-entry by a ventral heat shield, set off from the main spaceframe by a gap of 100 mm. The nose of the PKA and the leading edges of the aerodynamic surfaces, built of steel, used a liquid lithium closed-circuit active cooling system. Maximum external temperature would be 1200 degrees Centigrade, while the internal hot structure would reach 400 degrees. The wings would be stowed at a vertical angle of 55 to 60 degrees, in the aerodynamic shadow of the fuselage, during the period of maximum aerodynamic heating.

Inside the fuselage was the cosmonaut’s hermetically sealed cabin and landing capsule, made of aluminium alloy and thermally isolated from the spacecraft hot structure. The cosmonaut was in an ejection seat, which had three positions for launch, work, and rest activities. Also within the cabin was the life support system, two lateral windows, and the astro-orientation system. In the landing section, outside of the fuselage, were various systems not required for orbital flight and landing. To manoeuvre in orbit the PKA used manoeuvring engines (DU). The DU had open exhaust chambers, and shared propellant tanks with two primary rocket engines - the braking and correction engines. Above 90 km the spacecraft was controlled by these engines, which used hydrogen peroxide. Below that altitude aerodynamic surfaces were used.

Up to 10 km altitude during the launch phase the cosmonaut would use the ejection seat for escape. Above that altitude the PKA would separate from the launch vehicle, deploy its wings, and glide to a landing at an emergency airfield.

Korolev was supportive of OKB-256 in this work, as were TsAGI and VIAM. After work on the PKA began, TsAGI studies indicated that many problems of materials and heating had to be resolved. These would require tests of a sub-scale model of the spacecraft.

The Tsybin bureau was closed down shortly after the draft project was completed. Tsybin and his staff transferred to the Myasishchev bureau in October 1959 (which had its own on-going VKA-23 winged spacecraft project). The Myasishchev bureau was then in turn closed and the staff transferred to Filial 1 of Chelomei’s OKB-52 bureau in 1960. PKA and VKA-23 engineers were absorbed into the Chelomei Raketoplan spaceplane project team under Khrushchev's son. Work on the RSR/R-020 was stopped by Chelomei in April 1961.

Tsybin himself went to work for Korolev. Tsybin’s work on the PKA was passed to the Mikoyan bureau and formed the starting point for the design of the Spiral spaceplane. For Korolev he worked on the Vostok, Soyuz, and Soyuz-T manned spacecraft; AMS planetary probes; and Molniya communications satellite. He was finally Deputy Designer of the Buran space shuttle from 1974 until his death in 1992.


Spacecraft: Kosmoplan.

Chelomei's design bureau originally designed cruise missiles, beginning with the 10X pulse-jet powered copy of the German V-1, continuing through a series of increasingly sophisticated designs in the 1950's. However it became apparent by the middle of the decade that the ballistic missile, for which no defence could be developed for decades, would win out over the cruise missile as a weapon system. Furthermore the ICBM opened up the possibility of exploration and colonisation of space. Chelomei, invariably described as charming and ambitious, was anxious to be involved in the much more exciting arena of space flight. When Korolev's R-7 experienced a long string of launch failures in the summer of 1957, Chelomei was quick to criticise Korolev and ask to be put in charge of the development. But the decisive event in getting a piece of the space action was Chelomei's hiring of Nikita Khrushchev's son, Sergei, on March 8, 1958. This gave Chelomei sudden and immediate access to the highest possible patron in the hierarchy. He was rewarded with his own design bureau, OKB-52, in 1959.

Under Chelomei's direction the P-6 (SS-N-3 Shaddock) naval cruise missile was being developed. These missiles were made for long-term storage in environmentally-controlled capsules aboard Soviet warships. Chelomei saw that this technology could be applied to ballistic missiles and spacecraft as well.

Chelomei proposed use of this container approach for the UR-100 light ICBM, the Soviet answer to the US Minuteman. This most numerous of Russian ICBM's was a sealed unit, which could be stored fuelled for ten years before being fired within three minutes of launch command.

Beginning in the late 1950's, Chelomei began studying use of his encapsulated cruise missile technology for spacecraft. A whole family of unmanned spacecraft, dubbed Kosmoplans, would be built using modular elements. These would include highly manoeuvrable high performance storable liquid propellant engine modules; nuclear reactor modules for high power space applications; ion engine units for inter-orbital transfer and interplanetary flight; and re-entry vehicles permitting return of payloads from space with landing at conventional airfields.

These re-entry vehicles were of unique concept and consisted of a high-fineness oblique conical heat shield with petal-like manoeuvring flaps at the base. These were capable of very large cross-range manoeuvres (up to 3000 km) at hypersonic speed as well as controlled re-entry at very high velocities from planetary return trajectories. A similar configuration was tested by the US Air Force in the late 1960's as the Boost Glide Re-entry Vehicle (perhaps based on intelligence of Chelomei's design?). The external shell enclosed an adaptation of Chelomei's naval cruise missiles, a cylindrical fuselage with snap-out wings and a cruise turbojet. After re-entry, the conical shield would explosively separate at Mach 2. The internal craft would deploy its wings and turbojet air inlet, start its engine, and then cruise to a radio-guided precision landing at an airfield on Soviet territory.

This approach eliminated the very difficult hot structure problems encountered by other chief designers in their spaceplane designs of the same period. Since the hot heat shield would be jettisoned, the contents did not have to be designed to handle thermal equilibrium temperatures of 400 degrees or more. The same vehicle could also deliver a larger payload under a parachute, or a nuclear warhead.

Kosmoplans were to be launched by Chelomei's equally modular family of 'UR' universal rockets, capable of both ICBM and space launch missions. Chelomei proposed variants of Kosmoplans for studies of the earth's upper atmosphere, television communications, meteorology, military photo-reconnaissance, naval radar and signals reconnaissance, and interception and destruction of enemy satellites. Civilian Kosmoplans would engage in exploration of near earth space and the planets. The same modular principles but larger re-entry vehicles would be used for manned interceptor combat Raketoplans. While the UR-200 rocket would be used for launch of smaller earth orbital Kosmoplans, a cluster of UR-200's would create the much larger UR-500 launch vehicle. The UR-500 would be used for launch of manned, lunar landing, and interplanetary Kosmoplan / Raketoplan designs.

In 1959, as Chelomei laid out these plans, he knew a tremendous struggle would be required to wrest a piece of the space programme from Chief Designer Korolev. Korolev was interested in military projects only so far as they provided financing for his dreams of space exploration. He jealously wished to keep all manned, lunar, and planetary space projects to himself. But Chelomei had stacked the deck against Korolev by hiring Khrushchev's son as a lead engineer at his OKB.

The opening shot was contained in a letter sent by Korolev to the Central Committee of the Communist Part in January 1960. Korolev proposed an aggressive program for Communist conquest of space - entirely by Korolev's OKB. He pledged to place before the Central Committee in the third quarter of 1960 comprehensive plans for development of the new projects. This letter was followed by a meeting with Khrushchev on the subject on 3 March 1960. Korolev believed it would be truly possible with backing from the very top to have a large rocket in the USSR in a very short span of time. Unfortunately at the meeting Korolev made a slip of the tongue he would always regret, admitting that his plan had not been agreed among all of the Chief Designers. This resulted in Khrushchev throwing the matter back for a consensus plan.

By 30 May 1960 Korolev was back with a plan that now included participation of his rivals, Chelomei and Yangel. The consolidated plan included the following elements allocated to Chelomei:

  • Theme K - Development of unpiloted Kosmoplans for flight to Mars and Venus with return to earth and landing at conventional airfields. These would use new exotic chemical systems, low thrust nuclear engines (nuclear-plasma, ion, atomic hydrogen). The preferred variant consisted of the Kosmoplan re-entry vehicle + equipment section + ion engines on booms + nuclear reactor. Sub-variants with a total mass of 10 to 12 tonnes and 25 tonnes would be developed in 1965-1966. Draft project to be completed in 1962. This authority extended to design of combat orbital Kosmoplans with nuclear warheads for manoeuvring re-entry after launch by GR-1 (UR-200) or GR-2 (UR-500) rockets. These would use the re-entry vehicle without the air-breathing lander + the liquid propulsion module.

  • Development of a 600 tonne gross lift-off mass rocket using new chemical propellants for sending spacecraft to nearby planets. Draft project to be completed in 1962. This would become the UR-500 Proton booster. But it is likely that the actual primary purpose of this rocket is also not mentioned in the declassified document. The Proton was originally designed for the GR-2 (Global Rocket 2) requirement. The GR-2 was to be a kind of enormous multiple-warhead FOBS (fractional orbit bombing system). The payload of the rocket was to be six independently manoeuvring nuclear armed vehicles. Each vehicle had a 1,500 kg 2.2 MT nuclear warhead. They would separate from the final stage, and make violent manoeuvres using independent guidance systems to put each warhead in a different low 160 km altitude orbit. At the end of a 10,000 to 12,000 km journey along their separate orbital paths, the warheads would appear on US radar screens at the last moment with minimal warning. The total spread of the warheads would be 1800 km from left to right; two such global rockets could devastate America's major cities from coast to coast in an unstoppable first strike. The Kosmoplan re-entry vehicle would use aerodynamic horizontal and vertical manoeuvring to penetrate enemy space defences and be practically invulnerable.

  • Theme R - Manned Raketoplan spacecraft for orbital manoeuvring flight and recovery at conventional airfields. Total mass to be 10 to 12 tonnes, total gliding range during re-entry 2,500 to 3,000 km. Unpiloted version to be developed in 1960 to 1961, followed by piloted version in 1963 to 1965. Satellite interceptor operational version to be tested in 1962 to 1964.

  • Theme US - Upravlenniye Sputnik - Naval reconnaissance satellite using P6 nuclear reactor. To be developed in 1962 to 1964. This variant use an active radar system to track American warships and would consist of the Kosmoplan nuclear reactor + equipment module + specialised radar equipment. This Kosmoplan variants went into service, but late to schedule.

  • Theme IS - Istrebitel Sputnik - Anti-satellites - the Ministry of Defence was to decide by July 1960 whether to develop an R-7 launched system for annihilation of enemy reconnaissance satellites. Chelomei was later authorised to proceed with this project. The Chelomei IS ASAT would use the Kosmoplan manoeuvring bus and be the first variant to fly. He planned for launch of the production model on the UR-200. But this was cancelled and production ASAT's flew in the late 1960's, launched by Yangel Tsiklon rockets.

Chelomei was authorised by Decree 715-296 of 23 June 1960 'On the Production of Various Launch Vehicles, Satellites, Spacecraft for the Military Space Forces in 1960-1967' to complete a draft project on unpiloted Kosmoplans. Chelomei managed a first flight test of a subscale unpiloted version of the Kosmoplan / Raketoplan re-entry vehicle on 21 March 1961.

The Kosmoplan's UR-200 (8K81) launch vehicle was approved for production on 16 March and 1 August 1961 by the Central Committee and Politburo. The UR-200 was designed not only to send a thermonuclear warhead over a range of 12,000 km, but also to orbit all of the Kosmoplan military variants: the IS ASAT; the US nuclear-powered naval intelligence satellite; and the Kosmoplan combat re-entry vehicle. The Kosmoplan and UR-200 draft projects were completed in July 1962. The rocket's technical characteristics would be similar to those of Korolev's R-9 and Yangel's R-16. Trial flights of the ICBM version ran from 4 November 1963 to 20 October 1964.

Approval to proceed with the UR-500 (8K82) was provided in the Central Committee decree of 24 April 1962. The draft project UR-500 was completed in 1963. The fundamental technological problems of the project had been solved by the end of 1964. In the early fall of that year, Khrushchev and the political leadership of the country visited Baikonur. Chelomei with great pride guided Khrushchev around a dummy UR-500 installed in its launch gantry at the new launch complex, presented the heavy transporters for the launch vehicle and showed a scale model of the launch silo planned for the combat version. Khrushchev's comment was 'what should we build - communism or silos for the UR-500?" It was clear that Khrushchev was not very supportive of the military version of the UR-500.

On October 13, 1964, Khrushchev was ousted from power. The new leadership, under Brezhnev, was adverse to all projects Khrushchev had supported. These included those of Chelomei and his OKB-52. An expert commission under M V Keldysh was directed to examine all of Chelomei's projects and make recommendations as to which should be cancelled. Keldysh found that Yangel's R-36 universal rocket and fractional orbital bombing system was superior to Chelomei's UR-200 / Kosmoplan combat re-entry vehicle. The UR-200 and Kosmoplan were accordingly cancelled. The IS and US Kosmoplans were redesigned for launch by the R-36. The UR-500 development was continued, but only in the 8K82K space launch version for sending the surviving Raketoplan, the LK-1 manned circumlunar spacecraft, around the moon.

The LK-1 was in turn cancelled in late 1965 as Korolev finally regained control of all manned lunar projects. The military Kosmoplans went on to greater success. The IS anti-satellite, US nuclear naval reconnaissance both went into military service. A derivative of the US for detection of US ship positions using passive radio techniques saw long service with the Soviet military. And the UR-500K became the Proton rocket, Russia's most successful commercial launch vehicle.


Spacecraft: Raketoplan.

Decree 715-296 of 23 June 1960 ‘On the Production of Various Launch Vehicles, Satellites, Spacecraft for the Military Space Forces in 1960-1967’ authorised Chelomei’s OKB-52 design bureau to prepare a draft project for a manned Raketoplan spacecraft for orbital manoeuvring flight and recovery at conventional airfields. Total mass was to be 10 to 12 tonnes, total gliding range during re-entry 2,500 to 3,000 km. An unpiloted version was to be developed in 1960 to 1961, followed by a piloted version in 1963 to 1965. The satellite interceptor operational version was to be tested in 1962 to 1964. This winged manned spacecraft would conduct interception, inspection, and destruction of US satellites up to 290 km altitude. It would have a two man crew, a 24 hour mission duration, and was equipped with large aft drag brakes. Preliminary designs of a similar nature had been completed at the Myasishchev and Tsybin design bureaux, which were closed and their staff absorbed by Chelomei in October 1960.

The first flight test of a subscale unpiloted version of the pseudo-conical re-entry shell, on 21 March 1963, has been variously described as a failure and a success. There is said to have been one later test, but the date is unavailable. By the time of the 1963 draft project for the intended launch vehicle, the Proton UR-500, Chelomei had expanded the concept to cover a broad spectrum of modular spacecraft, destined to solve defence, scientific investigation, and national economic tasks. These all were to be called Raketoplans - piloted spacecraft for solving military tasks in space. For example, orbital Raketoplans were intended to fulfil intelligence, satellite inspection, and destruction tasks. For these purposes the Raketoplan was to be equipped with an orbital manoeuvring engine, targeting systems, rendezvous systems, and space-to-space weapons. Later Raketoplans would be used for scientific tasks, including flight to the moon and return to earth, and economic exploitation of near-earth space. Due to their high lift to drag ratios, Raketoplans could, after completing their tasks in space, make a guided descent into the earth’s atmosphere with a landing on Soviet territory.

The re-entry vehicles for the Raketoplans could be of three types: a low hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio capsule; a moderate lift-to-drag ratio ballistic or polyballistic shaped body; and a spaceplane with a high lift-to-drag ratio. The first version of this last design would re-enter the atmosphere in a heat shield container, which would be jettisoned after the spacecraft had passed through the period of maximum heating. Swing wings would then be deployed, and the spacecraft would glide to a horizontal runway landing with the assistance of a turbojet engine for go-around in the case of a missed approach. At a later stage fixed wing Raketoplans would be used, which could manoeuvre over a wider cross range and ensure a quick landing on Soviet territory from almost any orbit.

In 1964 Chelomei had submitted to the VVS the advanced project for a single-place Raketoplan, which would be launched into low earth orbit using a Korolev Soyuz launch vehicle or (preferably) the Chelomei UR-500. This less ambitious design would have been limited to 7 to 8 tonnes total mass. In October 1964 Khrushchev was ousted from power and the new leadership, under Brezhnev, was adverse to all that Khrushchev had supported. This included Chelomei and his OKB-52. An expert commission under M V Keldysh was directed to examine Chelomei’s projects and make recommendations as to which should be cancelled. The Raketoplan project was among those cancelled, although work on one variant, the LK-1manned lunar flyby program, continued.

Further development of Soviet manned spaceplanes in the following decade was limited to the Mikoyan Spiral design.


Spacecraft: Spiral OS.

At the beginning of the 1960's Mikoyan GKAT OKB-155 began work on the Spiral combination aerospace system. In 1965 the advanced project was approved, laying out an ambitious work plan leading to operation of a regular earth-orbit-earth reusable transportation system by the mid-1970's. With Gherman Titov as its head, a Spiral cosmonaut training group was formed in July 1965 (Titov, Dobrovolskiy, Filipchenko, Kuklin, Matinchenko). This was modified on 2 September 1965 to Titov, Beregovoy, Filipchenko, Kuklin, Shatalov. Go-ahead to actually proceed with development of the manned orbital vehicle was given on 26 June 1966 and Lozino-Lozinsky was selected as project manager. A new cosmonaut training group was established in December 1967: Titov, Kizim, Kozelskiy, Lyakhov, Malyshev, Petrushenko.

The Spiral system consisted of three main components:

  • GSR reusable hypersonic air-breathing launch aircraft
  • RB expendable two stage rocket
  • OS orbital spaceplane

The GSR was powered by four turbo-ramjet engines, and two variants were planned. The conservative first variant would use kerosene fuel and accelerate to Mach 4 and 22 to 24 km altitude before releasing the RB+OS. The longer-term second variant would use liquid hydrogen fuel, which would allow it to reach Mach 6 and 28-30 km altitude before releasing the upper stages. The GSR would return to its launch base after completing its mission.

The layout of the GSR was that of a large arrow-shaped flying wing. Vertical stabilisers were mounted at the wingtips. The engine bay was under the fuselage, with high bypass engine inlets. On the top of the wing was the launch pylon for the OS+RB, with the nose and tail portions of the pylon enclosed by ogival fairings for aerodynamic reasons.

The RB rocket that would take the OS from the back of the GSR to orbit consisted of a two-stage rocket. The conservative early version would use Liquid oxygen/kerosene propellants; the later advanced version would use Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen.

The OS orbital spacecraft was a flat-bottomed lifting body, triangular in planform, with a large upturned nose that earned it the nickname 'Lapot' (wooden shoe). It seems to have been a developed version of the Tsybin PKA orbital spaceplane design of the 1960's, which had the same nickname. . The nose design was found to greatly reduce afterbody heating during re-entry and was adopted by NASA in its HL-20 proposal of the 1980's. Again like the PKA, a unique feature of the OS were the variable dihedral wings. These were set at a 60 degree angle above horizontal during launch, orbit, and re-entry, where they served as vertical stabilisers. After becoming subsonic, dual electric actuators moved them to a horizontal position, where they served as wings, substantially increasing the lift of the spaceplane for air-breathing operations. The main body of the spaceplane had a sweepback angle of 78 degrees, and the wings, 55 degrees. The large vertical stabiliser had a sweepback of 60 degrees. Aerodynamic controls consisted of the vertical rudder, elevons in the wings, and air brakes mounted at the top rear of the fuselage.

The OS would be inserted into an initial 130 km altitude orbit by the RB, where only 2 to 3 revolutions could be maintained before orbital decay. Orbital propulsion consisted of a 1,500 kgf primary engine, with two 40 kgf backup engines. Orbital attitude control and translation were provided by two reaction control system (GDU) pods at the rear of the spaceplane flanking the backup engines. There were a total of six 16 kgf engines for coarse adjustment and ten 1 kgf engines for fine manoeuvres. Fuel tanks for these system were located in the centre of the spaceplane. All engines worked on N2O4/UDMH.

After completing its mission the OS would enter the earth's atmosphere at a high angle of attack. It was capable of large banking manoeuvres in hypersonic flight. During re-entry the wings were held vertically in the aerodynamic shadow of the fuselage shock-wave. The load-bearing structure, like that of the US X-20, consisted of a network of struts and longerons. The outer skin was articulated to permit thermal expansion during re-entry. This light metallic heat shield was of jointed construction and attached at points to the load-carrying inner frame.

After losing most of its velocity, the wings would have been moved to the horizontal lifting position, and the OS would fly to a landing at a conventional airfield. For manoeuvring the aircraft in the final landing phase and to provide a once-around capability in the event of a missed approach, a turbine engine, burning kerosene, was installed. The air-breathing propulsion consisted of a Koliesov RD-36-35K turbojet of 2,350 kgf with 500 kg of fuel, which amounted to 10 minutes of cruise at full thrust. In the orbital version, it would give the spaceplane a chance to 'go around' or divert to a secondary airfield in the event of bad weather or a missed approach (the US Shuttle was originally to have such engines, but they were dropped for weight reasons). The 176 kg engine was fed from a dorsal intake at the base of the vertical stabiliser. This intake was covered during launch and orbital operations; an actuator opened the housing once the spaceplane reached subsonic speed.

Landing was made on gear consisting of four skids, in a tail-dragging configuration, the long frontal skids deploying in a complex manner from landing gear bays mounted on the sides of the spaceplane above the heat shield.

The cosmonaut-pilot sat in an insulated escape capsule, which could be ejected free of the spaceplane in an emergency. This capsule was of Soyuz 'headlight'-shaped form. This would be catapulted from the OS, and had its own navigation system, braking rockets, and parachute allowing rescue of the pilot in all flight phases, including 'bail-out from orbit'. Normally the pilot had to climb into the spaceplane through a hatch above the seat.

Controls consisted of a conventional control column and rudder pedals, with separate controllers for the jet engine and the rocket engines. An automatic navigation and control system (SNAU) included an inertial navigation system and operated the aerodynamic or reaction controls according to the fight regime. Manual backup was available for the aerodynamic controls.

During the development phase three single-place experimental reusable prototypes of the OS would be built. These would be built in the same configuration as the Spiral OS, but have somewhat smaller dimensions, so that they could be orbited by a Soyuz launch vehicle. During the preliminary design of the OS, Korolev actually suggested that the test OS be towed into orbit by the launch vehicle (this is not as crazy as it sounds - it would eliminate the aerodynamic problems of mounting the asymmetric payload on the nose of the Soyuz; the OS was designed to resist re-entry temperatures anyway, so could be towed in the rocket exhaust; and it had advantages in case of launch vehicle failure). However the final arrangement had the spaceplane in the conventional location atop the launch vehicle.

For testing the OS in the subsonic terminal approach phase, aircraft-analogues were to be built, powered by a turbojet or rocket and air-launched from a Tu-95 bomber. Two were planned, one to be flown subsonic (article 105-11), and the other up to Mach 6 to 8 (article 105-12). The single reusable orbital manned prototype was designated article 105-13.

An important characteristic of the Spiral was its large usable payload, two to three times greater than that of a conventional launch vehicle of the same mass. Cost per kilogram of payload to orbit would be 3 to 3.5 times less. In addition the system, by using air launch, could reach any orbital inclination, manoeuvre in space, and return, even in adverse weather conditions.

The project plan for Spiral was as follows:

  • 1967 - Subsonic test flight of OS (article 105-11)
  • 1968 - Hypersonic test flight of OS (article 105-12)
  • 1970 - Unpiloted orbital flight of OS (Soyuz-launched - article 105-13)
  • 1970 - Construction of GSR to begin
  • 1972 - First rollout of LH2-propelled experimental GSR
  • 1977 - First piloted orbital flight of complete system

Initial test of the OS aerodynamic design at all flight regimes was carried out in the wind tunnels of TsAGI. After that, to investigate more completely the hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics and heat shield materials of the OS, 1:3 and 1:2 scale models of the OS were to be built. Unlike the full-scale model, these were had fixed wings and were designated BOR (unpiloted orbital rocketplane).

Interest in the project at higher levels of the Soviet hierarchy was difficult to maintain, due to the massive funding requirements, technical difficulties, and multi-year development program which could not promise quick results. After being advised that he was in command of a dead-end project, Spiral cosmonaut training group leader Titov left in July 1970. He was replaced by Filipchenko from January 1971 to November 1972, and then by Khrunov. Just before its dissolution in December 1973, the Spiral cosmonaut team consisted of Illarionov, Khrunov, Kizim, Kozelskiy, Lyakhov, and Malyshev.

Underfunded from the beginning, the project was finally reoriented to a simple test of the analogue systems without using these as the basis for a flight system. This was now designated EPOS (Experimental Piloted Orbital Aircraft) and would be flown by Soviet Air Force test pilots rather than cosmonauts. In February 1976, with the beginning of work on Buran, the project was effectively ended except for the test of the subsonic 105-11 article already built. The 105-11 incorporated the airframe and some of the systems of the planned orbital version

Initial flights of the EPOS used its own jet engine to take off from unpaved airstrips, with wheels attached to the forward skids. On 11 October 1976 the MiG 105-11 EPOS made its first flight, taking off from an old dirt airstrip near Moscow, flying straight ahead to an altitude of 560 m, and landing at the Zhukovskii flight test centre 19 km away. One year later, on November 27, the first air-drop launch from a Tu-95K (used previously for Kh-20 air to surface missile tests) was made from an altitude of 5,000 m, with landing on skids on a beaten earth air strip. The eighth and final flight was made in September 1978, ending in a hard landing which resulted in the spaceplane being written off. All flights were made by test pilot A. G. Festovets. The eight flights were considered sufficient to characterise the spaceplane's subsonic aerodynamic characteristics and air-breathing systems.

Work on Spiral assisted in development of the Buran spaceplane. The BOR subscale spaceplanes built for Spiral were used to test heat shield materials developed for Buran. These BOR-4 unmanned orbiters were equipped with braking engines. After a circuit of the earth, the spacecraft would deorbit, perform a gliding re-entry, followed by parachute deployment, splashdown in the ocean, and recovery by Soviet naval forces. Compared to the Spiral MiG 105-11 EPOS configuration, the BOR-4 had a flattened, wider body with a much smaller vertical stabiliser. The cruise-back turbojet of the 105-11 seems to have been eliminated, and the canted stabiliser tips were cut off at the Mach angle, a MiG trademark.

Although officially the Spiral spaceplane was cancelled, evidence remains that instead the project continued. It may be that the decision was taken to use the Spiral OS configuration for a larger manned orbital vehicle for launch from the Zenit booster (see Uragan Space Interceptor).


Spacecraft: MiG 105-11.

The MiG OKB had studied a two stage manned orbital spacecraft in collaboration with the Korolev (overall system integration) and Tupolev (Mach 6 airbreathing first stage) since 1965. Go-ahead to actually proceed with development of the manned orbital vehicle was given on 26 June 1966 and Lozino-Lozinsky was selected as project manager. However the ambitious project never had the leadership support or funding to meet its aggressive schedule. A cosmonaut training group was formed, but went through many changes before being dissolved. After the decision to proceed with the Buran space shuttle, all that was left of Spiral was a subsonic aerodynamic test vehicle, now designated EPOS (Experimental Passanger Orbital Aircraft) and flown by Air Force test pilots. On 11 October 1976 this made its first flight, taking off from an old dirt airstrip near Moscow, flying straight ahead to an altitude of 560 m, and landing at the Zhukovskii flight test center 19 km away. One year later, on November 27, the first air-drop launch from a Tu-95K (used previously for Kh-20 air to surface missile tests) was made from an altitude of 5,000 m, with landing on skids on a beaten earth air strip.The eighth and final flight was made in September 1978, resulting in a hard landing and the writeoff of the aircraft. First and last flights were made by test pilot A. G. Festovets. The eight flights were considered sufficient to characterize the spaceplane's subsonic aerodynamic characteristics and airbreathing systems. Although the MiG 105-11 was designed by the bureau to be adapted directly into a manned orbital spaceplane for launch from a Vostok or Soyuz booster, the decision was taken to use the configuration but develop a larger manned orbital vehicle for launch from the Zenit booster (see Uragan).

The 105-11 incorporated the airframe and some of the systems of the planned orbital version. The spaceplane itself was a flat-bottomed lifting body with a large upturned nose that earned it the nickname 'Lapot' (wooden shoe). The nose design was found to greatly reduce afterbody heating during reentry and was adopted by NASA in its HL-20 proposal of the 1980's. The load-bearing structure, like that of the US X-20, consisted of a network of struts and longerons. The outer skin was articulated to permit thermal expansion during reentry. A unique feature of the spaceplane were the variable dihedral wings. These were set at a 60 degree angle above horizontal during launch, orbit, and reentry, where they served as vertical stabilizers. After becoming subsonic, dual electric actuators moved them to a horizontal position, where they served as wings, substantially increasing the lift of the spaceplane for airbreathing operations. The main body of the spaceplane had a sweepback angle of 78 degrees, and the wings, 55 degrees. The large vertical stabilizer had a sweepback of 60 degrees. Aerodynamic controls consisted of the vertical rudder, elevons in the wings, and air brakes mounted at the top rear of the fuselage. Landing gear normally consisted of four skids, in a tail-dragging configuration, the long frontal skids deploying in a complex manner from landing gear bays mounted on the sides of the spaceplane above the heat shield.

The airbreathing propulsion consisted of a Koliesov RD-36-35K turbojet of 2,350 kgf with 500 kg of fuel, which amounted to 10 minutes of cruise at full thrust. This was used, with wheels attached to the forward skids, for takeoffs from unpaved airstrips. In the orbital version, it would give the spaceplane a chance to 'go around' or divert to a secondary airfield in the event of bad weather or a missed approach (the US Shuttle was originally to have such engines, but they were dropped for weight reasons). The 176 kg engine was fed from a dorsal intake at the base of the vertical stabilizer. This intake was covered during launch and orbital operations; an actuator opened the housing once the spaceplane reached subsonic speed.

Orbital propulsion consisted of a 1,500 kgf primary engine, with two 40 kgf backup engines. Orbital attitude control and translation were provided by two reaction control system (GDU) pods at the rear of the spaceplane flanking the backup engines. There were a total of six 16 kgf engines for coarse adjustment and ten 1 kgf engines for fine maneuvers. Fuel tanks for these system were located in the center of the spaceplane.

The cosmonaut-pilot sat in an insulated escape capsule, which could be ejected free of the spaceplane in an emergency. Normally the pilot had to climb into the spaceplane through a hatch above the seat. Controls consisted of a conventional control column and rudder pedals, with separate controllers for the jet engine and the rocket engines. An automatic navigation and control system (SNAU) operated the aerodynamic or reaction controls according to the fight regime. Manual backup was available for the aerodynamic controls.


Spacecraft: BOR-4.

To investigate the hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics and heat shield materials of the manned Spiral OS lifting body, 1:3 and 1:2 scale models of the OS were to be built. Unlike the full-scale model, these were had fixed wings and were designated BOR (unpiloted orbital rocketplane). BOR-1, -2, and -3 were increasingly sophisticated models of the configuration, flown on suborbital trajectories. After the cancellation of Spiral in favour of the Buran, BOR-4 subscale spaceplanes were used to test heat shield materials developed for Buran. Certain essential tests of these heat shield materials could not be done in the lab. These included interaction with the plasma sheath during re-entry, chemical disassociation effects, etc. The BOR-4 was clad in 118 tiles of the type developed for Buran as well as carbon-carbon nose cap and leading edge. These BOR-4 unmanned orbiters were equipped with braking engines. After a circuit of the earth, the spacecraft would deorbit, perform a gliding re-entry, followed by parachute deployment, splashdown in the ocean, and recovery by Soviet naval forces. BOR-4 flew four successful test flights at speeds of from Mach 3 to 25 and altitudes of 30 to 100 km. These test flights confirmed the physical, chemical, and catalytic processes that operated on the selected heat shield materials in the re-entry plasma. BOR-4 also provided important data on the acoustic environment during launch and re-entry. Compared to the Spiral MiG 105-11 EPOS configuration, the BOR-4 had a flattened, wider body with a much smaller vertical stabiliser. The cruise-back turbojet of the 105-11 seems to have been eliminated, and the canted stabiliser tips were cut off at the Mach angle, a MiG trademark.


Spacecraft: Uragan Space Interceptor.

Russian sources continue to maintain that the Uragan manned spaceplane project never existed. However Western intelligence was very convinced in the climactic phase of the Cold War. The tale told at that time was that completion of test of the 4,220 kg MiG 105-11 manned subsonic test bed did not mark the end of the Spiral spaceplane project but rather a rebirth. It was reported that development of a larger manned 'space interceptor' was authorised in September 1978. This spaceplane, supposedly called 'Uragan', was to be launched atop the new Zenit launch vehicle. The BOR-4 unmanned subscale orbital test craft verified the configuration in four hypersonic re-entry tests between 1982 and 1984 (however expert Russian space historians maintain that these were merely tests of heat shield materials for the Buran shuttle using available Spiral project subscale models). A first group of six Air Force pilot cosmonauts were selected to work on the program from the outset. A second group of at least three cosmonauts was selected in 1985, seeming to indicate that flights would begin in the next few years. The U. S. Department of Defense issued drawings of the spaceplane atop the Zenit launcher and artist concepts of it operating in orbit in 1986. The DoD claimed that the interceptor was to be armed with space-to-space missiles, evidently in response to US military shuttle missions. Uragan was said to have been cancelled in September 1987 for unknown reasons before the first flight of the Buran shuttle. Possibly the cancellation of US Shuttle polar orbit military missions from Vandenberg after the Challenger explosion eliminated the space interceptor's mission. Or perhaps it never existed and was merely the subject of a very successful disinformation campaign. Adding even more confusion is that it is now known that at least two spaceplanes - Chelomei's LKS, for launch on Proton, and Molniya's OK-M, for launch on Zenit, were being designed concurrently with Buran. And the official history of the MiG OKB, states cryptically that after completion of the 105-11 flight tests development of the spaceplane continued....


Spacecraft: MTKVA.

In 1974 the N1 heavy launch vehicle project was cancelled and Glushko was appointed chief designer of the new NPO Energia enterprise, replacing Mishin as the head of the former OKB-1. At the same time in the United States development work was underway on the space shuttle. The US Defence Department planned to use the shuttle for a range of military missions. The Soviet military, seeking strategic parity, wished development in the Soviet Union of a reusable manned spacecraft with analogous tactical-technical characteristics.

To reduce development costs, NASA and USAF trade studies settled on a partially reusable design. While the solid propellant booster rockets were recovered, the cryogenic main propellant tank of the shuttle core was expendable. The main engines and guidance system were recovered with the orbiter.

The American shuttle design was studied intensively by Russian rocket scientists, but important aspects of it were rejected based on Soviet engineering analysis and technology:

The Soviet Union at this point had no experience in production of solid rocket motors, especially segmented solid rocket motors of the type used on the shuttle. Glushko favoured a launch vehicle with parallel liquid propellant boosters. These would use a 700 tonne thrust four-chamber Lox/Kerosene engine already under development.

The high chamber pressure, closed-cycle, reusable 230 tonne thrust Lox/LH2 main engine being developed for the shuttle was well outside engineering experience in the Soviet Union. No production engine using these cryogenic propellant had ever been used in Russian rockets, and the largest such engine under development was the 40 tonne thrust 11D57. Glushko believed that while a Soviet cryogenic engine of 200 tonnes thrust could be developed in the required time, to develop a reusable engine would be impossible due to limited experience with the propellants.

This conclusion led to other important design decisions. If only expendable engines were to be used, there was no need to house them in the re-entry vehicle for recovery. This meant that the orbiter itself could be moved from the lateral mounting of the space shuttle to an on-axis vertical loading position. The result was the Vulkan launch vehicle - a classic Soviet launch vehicle design: booster stages arranged around a core vehicle, with the payload mounted on top. The elimination of the lateral loads resulted in a lighter booster, and one that was much more flexible. The vehicle could be customised for a wide range of payloads by the use of from two to eight booster stages around a core equipped with from one to four modular main engines. Either a payload container for heavy unmanned payloads (mainly the elements of Glushko's LEK lunar base) or the military's required spaceplane could be placed on the nose as the payload.

As far as the manned orbital vehicle itself, the OKB-1 specialists who had developed the Soyuz capsule disapproved of the winged US shuttle design. They knew from the extensive aerodynamic studies undertaken to develop Soyuz that there were large weight penalties and thermal control problems in any winged design. Their studies indicated that a lifting body shape capable of high angles of bank at hypersonic speed could nearly match winged designs in cross range. They felt that the parachute and retrorocket soft vertical landing methods developed for Soyuz could be applied to a larger spacecraft as well.

Therefore the preferred 1974 design was an unwinged spacecraft, consisting of a crew cabin the forward conical section, a cylindrical payload section, and a final cylindrical section with the engines for manoeuvring in orbit. The MTKVA would be launched by the Vulkan launch vehicle into orbit, and after completing its mission undertake a controlled re-entry, using a hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio of 1.0 to make wide cross-range manoeuvres for recovery on Soviet territory from almost any orbit. The MTKVA would glide to the landing zone at low subsonic speed. The final landing manoeuvre would use parachutes for initial braking, followed by a soft vertical landing on skid gear using retrorockets.

After a great deal of detailed analysis the definitive MTKVA design proposed in May 1976 had a refined aerodynamic shape with a rounded triangular cross section. This gave it the ability for high bank angles at hypersonic speeds and increased cross-range manoeuvrability. Small vertical stabilisers and a body flap at the base of the vehicle were sufficient for manoeuvring the vehicle in the atmosphere. Numerous small soft landing rockets were exposed when the landing gear deployed. The 200 tonne vehicle had over twice the shuttle's mass and nearly three times the shuttle's payload.

After two years of preliminary work on the Vulkan and MTKVA, the Soviet military and political leadership declared a national requirement for a spacecraft of the same class as the US space shuttle. Comparison with the competing concepts indicated that despite the evident advantages of the MTKVA approach, there were serious technical and operational problems with that design. There was considerable technical risk in realizing the vertical landing itself - and considerable operational risk in completing the fast and complex series of operations necessary to achieve the landing. There were also problems in ground handling - how to move the vehicle after it had landed, especially if this occurrred outside of the normal landing zone. The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution was an orbiter of the aircraft type. The MTKVA and Vulkan designs were modified to meet this order. The Buran orbiter, a straight aerodynamic copy of the US space shuttle, replacing the MTKVA and was moved to the lateral position. But the engines, for the reasons given earlier, remained in the core vehicle. The liquid boosters were retained, but reduced to four in number. After being restressed for the lateral launch loads, the resulting Energia launch vehicle and Buran space plane had only half the payload capability of the original design. Only in considering this evolutionary history can the design of the Energia/Buran be understood.


Spacecraft: Buran.

The Energia-Buran Reusable Space System (MKS) had its origins in NPO Energia studies of 1974 to 1975 for a 'Space Rocket Complex Program'. In 1974 the N1-L3 heavy lunar launch vehicle project was cancelled and Glushko was appointed chief designer of the new NPO Energia enterprise, replacing Mishin as the head of the former OKB-1. At the same time in the United States development work was underway on the space shuttle. The US Defence Department planned to use the shuttle for a range of military missions. The Soviet military, seeking strategic parity, wished development in the Soviet Union of a reusable manned spacecraft with analogous tactical-technical characteristics. The success of Apollo and the failure of the N1-L3 program pointed to serious deficiencies in the technology base of the Soviet Union. The time-honoured Soviet method of rectifying such situations was to copy the foreign technology.

To reduce development cost and risk, NASA and USAF shuttle trade studies had settled on a partially reusable design. While the solid propellant booster rockets were recovered, the cryogenic main propellant tank of the shuttle core was expendable. The main engines and guidance system were recovered with the orbiter.

The American shuttle design was studied intensively by Russian rocket scientists, but important aspects of it were rejected based on Soviet engineering analysis and technology:

The Soviet Union at this point had no experience in production of large solid rocket motors, especially segmented solid rocket motors of the type used on the shuttle. Glushko favoured a launch vehicle with parallel liquid propellant boosters. These would use a 700 tonne thrust four-chamber Lox/Kerosene engine already under development.

The high chamber pressure, closed-cycle, reusable 230 tonne thrust Lox/LH2 main engine being developed for the shuttle was well outside engineering experience in the Soviet Union. No engine using these cryogenic propellants had ever been used in Russian rockets, and the largest such engine under development was the 40 tonne thrust 11D57. Glushko believed that while a Soviet cryogenic engine of 200 tonnes thrust could be developed in the required time, to develop a reusable engine would be impossible due to limited experience with the propellants.

This conclusion led to other important design decisions. If only expendable engines were to be used, there was no need to house them in the re-entry vehicle for recovery. This meant that the orbiter itself could be moved from the lateral mounting of the space shuttle to an on-axis position at the top of the rocket core. The result was the Vulkan - a classic Soviet launch vehicle design: booster stages arranged around a core vehicle, with the payload mounted on top. The elimination of the lateral loads resulted in a lighter booster, and one that was much more flexible. The vehicle could be customised for a wide range of payloads by the use of from two to eight booster stages around a core equipped with from one to four modular main engines. Either a payload container for heavy payloads (Glushko's LEK lunar base) or the military's required spaceplane could be placed on the nose as the payload.

As far as the manned orbital vehicle itself, three different primary configurations were studied extensively, as well as a range of more radical proposals. The obvious choice was a straight aerodynamic copy of the US shuttle. The shuttle's form had been selected by NASA and the US Air Force only after painstaking iterative analysis of over 64 alternate configurations from 1968 to 1972. It would obviously benefit the Soviet engineers to take advantage of this tremendous amount of work.

However the NPO Energia specialists who had developed the Soyuz capsule disapproved of the winged US shuttle design. They knew from the extensive aerodynamic studies undertaken to develop Soyuz that there were large weight penalties and thermal control problems in any winged design. Their studies indicated that a lifting body shape capable of high angles of bank at hypersonic speed could nearly match winged designs in cross range. Therefore their preferred 1974 design was an unwinged spacecraft, consisting of a crew cabin in the forward conical section, a cylindrical payload section, and a final cylindrical section with the engines for manoeuvring in orbit. This unwinged MTKVA would glide to the landing zone at low subsonic speed. The final landing manoeuvre would use parachutes for initial braking, followed by a soft vertical landing on skid gear using retrorockets. After a great deal of detailed analysis the definitive MTKVA design proposed in May 1976 had a refined aerodynamic shape with a rounded triangular cross section. The 200 tonne vehicle had over twice the shuttle's mass and nearly three times the shuttle's payload.

The third configuration was a smaller spaceplane launched by a Proton-class booster. OKB MiG had been developing the Spiral lifting body spaceplane since 1965, but the project was underfunded and years behind schedule. Spiral was an ambitious concept that was to be launched by a hypersonic air breathing first stage. But the spaceplane itself had been refined in form as a result of years of analysis, wind tunnel, and sub-orbital sub-scale model tests. Chelomei's OKB, whose Raketoplan spaceplane had been cancelled in 1965 in preference to Spiral, also had a contender, the LKS. Evidently owing nothing to earlier Raketoplan designs, this used a shuttle-type wing on a smaller 20 tonne spacecraft.

The government decree 132-51 authorising development of the Energia-Buran system was issued on 12 February 1976 with the title 'On development of an MKS (reusable space system) consisting of rocket stages, orbiter aircraft, inter-orbital tug, guidance systems, launch and landing facilities, assembly and repair facilities, and other associated facilities, with the objective of placing in a 200 km Northeast orbit a payload of 30 tonnes and returning a payload of 20 tonnes'. The Ministry of Defence was named the Program Manager, with NPO Energia as the prime contractor. The official military specification (TTZ) was issued at the same time with the code name Buran. A declaration of the Presidium on 18 December 1976 directed co-operation between all concerned user, research, and factory organisations in realising the project. Chief Constructor within NPO Energia was I N Sadovskiy. Chief Designer for the launch vehicle was Y P Kolyako and for the orbiter P V Tsybin. NPO Yuzhnoye in the Ukraine would build the booster rockets. While NPO Energia would build the booster engines, the core Lox/LH2 engines would be built by Kosberg. Chelomei and MiG were to continue, at a modest level, design and test of their LKS and Spiral smaller spaceplanes as backups.

The specification of the TTZ set forth payload requirements a bit greater than those set for the US shuttle. It required that the OK orbiter be accomplish the following:

  • Denial of the use of space for military purposes by the enemy

  • Research into questions of interest to the military, science, and the national economy

  • Applied military research and experiments using large space complexes

  • Delivery to orbit and return to earth of spacecraft, cosmonauts, and supplies

  • Delivery of 30 tonne payload to a 200 km, 50.7 degree inclination orbit, followed by seven days of orbital operations and return of 20 tonnes of payload to earth.

  • Exploit the technology developed for the American space shuttle in order to enhance Soviet space technology capability

The MTKVA and Vulkan were used as a starting point, but modified to meet this requirement. Study of the competing designs indicated that despite the evident advantages of the MTKVA approach, there were serious technical and operational problems with that design. There was considerable technical risk in realising the vertical landing itself - and considerable operational risk in completing the fast and complex series of operations necessary to achieve the landing. There were also problems in ground handling - how to move the vehicle after it had landed, especially if this occurred outside of the normal landing zone. The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better. This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior solution just because it was original.

Therefore a straight aerodynamic copy of the US space shuttle, was selected as the orbiter configuration on 11 June 1976. MiG was selected as subcontractor to build the orbiter. For this purpose MiG spun off a new design bureau, Molniya, with G E Lozino-Lozinskiy as chief designer. Wind tunnel tests were conducted on a wide range of possible arrangements of rocket stages and orbiter positions. In the end, Buran was moved to the lateral position, as with the US space shuttle. The main engines, for the reasons given earlier, remained in the core vehicle. The liquid boosters were retained, but reduced to four in number. After being re-stressed for the lateral launch loads, the resulting Energia launch vehicle had half the lift-off mass and payload of the Vulkan. This was sufficient to carry the Buran with its required internal payload of 30 tonnes.

The MKS draft project was completed on 12 December 1976. The military assigned the system the index number 1K11K25 and the launch vehicle the article number 11K25. The draft project was reviewed by the expert commission in July 1977, leading to a government decree 1006-323 of 21 November 1977 setting out the development plan. The technical project was completed in May 1978. The flight test plan at the beginning of the project foresaw first launch of the booster in 1983, with the payload being an unmanned OK-ML-1 mock-up of the orbiter. This would not have a heat shield and remain attached to the booster. A second mock-up, OK-ML-2, would be used on the second launch, but be separated from the vehicle after burnout. However it would also be without heat shield, and be expended. The first flight Buran was to fly unpiloted in 1984. Manned flights were to be routine by the 1987 seventieth anniversary of the Soviet Union.

The approved launch vehicle layout consisted of the core Block Ts stage, surrounded by 4 Block A liquid propellant boosters and the Buran orbiter or a payload canister. During assembly, transport, and on the pad these were attached to a Block Ya launch services module, which provided all pneumatic, electrical, hydraulic, and other services to the vehicle prior to launch.

The modular Energia design could be used for payloads of from 10 to 200 tonnes using various combinations of booster stages, numbers of modular main engines in the core stage, and upper stages. The version with two booster stages was code-named Groza; with four booster stages, Buran; and the six-booster stage version retained the Vulkan name. The 7.7 meter diameter of the core was determined by the maximum size that could be handled by existing stage handling equipment developed for the N1 programme. The 3.9 meter diameter of the booster stages was dictated by the maximum size for rail transport from the Ukraine.

Propellant selection was a big controversy. Use of solid propellants in the booster stages, as used in the space shuttle, was considered again. But Soviet production of solid fuel motors had been limited to small unitary motors for ICBM's and SLBM's. There was no technological base for production of segmented solid fuel motors, and transport of the motor sections also presented problems. The final decision was to use the familiar Lox/Kerosene liquid propellants for the boosters. In the 1960's Glushko had favoured use of toxic but storable chemical propellants in launch vehicles and had fought bitterly against Korolev over the issue. It is surprising that he now accepted use of Lox/Kerosene. But Korolev was dead, and the N1 a failure. Glushko's position had been vindicated, perhaps he now had to agree objectively that use of the expensive and toxic propellants in a launch vehicle of this size was not rational.

Another factor may have been that the propellants of the core were going to be cryogenic anyway. Lox/Kerosene propellants for the core were considered, but a primary objective of the project was to seek technological parity with the United States by exploiting technologies developed there. Chief among these in the field of liquid fuel rocketry was the use of Lox/LH2 propellants. Therefore the engines of the core were based on the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) of the USA, with the same thrust rating and specific impulse specifications.

Although the SSME may have been the starting point, Soviet engine technology led that of the United States in many other detailed points of liquid rocket design. By the mid-1960's the USA had practically abandoned development of liquid fuel engines, with the sole exception of the SSME. The US military preferred to use solid rocket motors for missile and booster stage applications. Russian rocket engineers had spent their entire lives perfecting military liquid fuel rockets and had never favoured solid fuel. Therefore Russian Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene and N2O4/UDMH engines were of much higher performance than those in the US. The contribution of unique Soviet technology and the inevitable changes that occurred during development resulted in the MKS RD-0120 main engine being different in detail from the SSME while retaining the same performance.

Drawing on this blend of mature American technology and Soviet innovation, the RD-0120 had a relatively trouble-free development program. The final engine represented for the Soviet Union new technical solutions in engine reliability, control, throttleability, and performance. These were the first fully throttleable Soviet engines, and their first production Lox/LH2 engines.

By contrast the RD-170 engine for the booster stage was a purely Soviet design and experienced a slow and difficult development program. These were exactly the kind of closed-cycle liquid oxygen/kerosene engines that Glushko had opposed developing in the 1960's. In addition the TTZ required that they be reusable for ten missions. Glushko fell back on his old solution when being unable to handle combustion stability problems: an engine unit consisting of four chambers fed by common turbopumps. Providing adequate wall cooling for the high temperature / high pressure combustion chambers seemed at times insoluble. One problem followed another and finally the RD-170 became the pacing item, with rocket stages completed but lacking engines. As costs reached the project ceiling, Glushko and Minister Afanasyev had to escalate the fight to the highest levels of the Soviet leadership. But Glushko defended his people, retained his job, and the problems were eventually solved.

The Block A 11S25 booster stages were the responsibility of KB Yuzhnoye in the Ukraine, F Utkin, General Constructor. They were to be reused ten times, and were therefore fitted with parachute containers. Solid fuel soft landing rockets in the parachute lines provided a soft landing downrange. It's not clear how the 35 tonne boosters were to be transported back to base for reuse.

In 1979 the EUK13 dimensional model of the launch vehicle was delivered to Baikonur for handling demonstrations and production of tooling. Continued development problems with the booster rockets led to a management shake-up at Yuzhnoye in January 1982. By this time the project was several years behind schedule. The originally planned first flight in 1983 was obviously unattainable. Also in 1982 the 3M-T transport aircraft was completed and began delivery of central block propellant tanks and structural elements for construction of a realistic mock-up of the booster. The 3M-T was a heavily modified M-4 bomber, and was limited to 50 tonnes loads carried on the top of the fuselage. By December 1982 the 4M Energia mock-up was completed, leading to dynamic/vertical/load tests in May-October 1983. The 4M was then returned to the shop for fitting of complete functional propellant systems.

The OK-KS Buran systems test stand was built at NPO Energia to conduct tests not possible on other stands. These included electrical layout, pneumo-hydraulic tests in abort conditions, EMI tests, failure mode response, telemetry, interface with the launch vehicle, software systems test. The test stand was completed in August 1983 and the test series was completed in March 1984. 77% of the tests of the OK were automated, compared with only 5% for the Soyuz-TM.

The 50 payload limitation of the 3M-T transport meant that the Buran orbiters had to be delivered in a severely incomplete and stripped-down condition to the cosmodrome. They were delivered without orbital systems, engine section, crew cabin, vertical stabiliser, landing gear, and with only 70% of the heat shield tiles. This meant that complex final assembly operations had to conducted at the MIK-OK at Baikonur. The OK-ML-1 orbiter mock-up arrived atop the 3M-T at Baikonur in December 1983 (This action seems to have been in the fine Soviet tradition of individual enterprises proving they have met the plan, even if the method of doing it is useless. OK-ML-1 was to have been used in the first launch of the Energia, by the end of 1983. By delivering it to Baikonur by December 31, the spacecraft builders could claim, "well, we met OUR part of the plan..."). OK-ML-1 was used for handling and pad compatibility tests. It was followed by the OK-MT in August 1984. This functional mock-up was used for systems integration tests, and was to be expended on the second test flight.

From March-October 1985 the Ts core stage was back on the UKSS for cold flow tests. A total of nine cryogenic fuelling cycle were completed with the 4M Energia mock-up, representing the first operational use in the world of super-chilled hydrogen.

The OK-GLI Buran analogue flight vehicle, for horizontal subsonic approach and landing tests, was delivered to Zhukovskiy test flight centre near Moscow, followed by its first flight with Cosmonaut Igor Volk at the controls on 10 November 1985. Two flying labs, based on Tu-154 transports, were used to prior to this to duplicate anticipated Buran handling and test systems software. They conducted 140 flights before Buran's first flight, including 69 automatic landings at Zhukovskiy and at the Jubilee airfield at Baikonur.

In December 1985 the wings of the first flight OK arrived at Baikonur. This was followed by what was to be the first 20 second Energia main engine firing test. This was terminated at 2.58 seconds when the automatic control system detected a slow spool up of an engine turbine. In a the first attempt at a full-duration test helium leaks contaminated electro-hydraulic systems, leading to a situation where the tanks could not be drained. An engineering brigade had to work on the fuelled booster for 55 minutes, attach another helium tank, which led to successful de-fuelling of the vehicle. The second engine test was a complete success, the engine running for 390 seconds. This test required the entire city of Leninsk to be without water for ten days in order to accumulate enough water for the UKSS cooling system.

By January 1986 it was clear that the project, now three years behind schedule, had no prospect of completion due to problems in obtaining deliveries of equipment for Buran, numerous problems in assembling the orbiters and lack of manpower at Baikonur, and a general loss of management focus. Minister O D Bakhnov called large group of industry leaders to the cosmodrome to review measures to concentrate and accelerate the remaining work. Three 'Tiger Teams' were set up. The first, led by Semenov, was to finish the flight Buran orbiter and associated facilities in time for a third quarter 1987 launch. The second, led by B I Gubanov, was to finish the Energia launch vehicle and fly it, without the Buran mock-ups if necessary, at the earliest possible date. The third group, led by S S Banin, was to complete the assembly and launch facilities.

These groups were given unlimited authority to obtain necessary resources to complete their missions. As was usual on crash programs, working in parallel meant that there was some duplication of effort and some work had to be repeated to take into account changes made by the other groups. But the results were immediate. Facility 211 at Baikonur alone increased from 60 to 1800 staff by March 1986.

The first Buran payload, 37KB module s/n 37070, arrived in Baikonur in February 1986. The 37KB modules, similar to the Kvant module of the Mir space station, were to be standard on the early Buran flights. 37KB-37070 itself primarily contained instrumentation to measure the performance of the orbiter and its structure on its first flight.

As with the American shuttle, tile installation was a big problem. However once adequate manpower was provided the work was completed in three months. Electrical tests of the Buran flight vehicle began in May 1986. Tests of the orbiter's ODU engine unit uncovered an apparent defect in gaseous oxygen valves of the reaction control system. Although it threatened to delay flight of the Buran, it was eventually discovered to be a software problem and remedied within days.

In August-September 1986 further UKSS tests of Energia were conducted in preparation of a test launch without Buran. These were conducted using a dummy payload and solid rocket motors to simulate loads from the booster rockets. Following this vehicle 6SL was selected for the first actual launch. The launch vehicle used by itself without Buran was named Energia by Glushko only just before the launch. Energia was to deliver the military Skif-DM Polyus battle station into orbit. This was to be followed by ten flights of Energia-Buran, only the first of which was to be unpiloted.

Due to delays in completion of the enormous static test facility at Baikonur, which could test the entire Energia vehicle stack, it was decided to launch the vehicle without the verification the tests would provide. The launch of 6SL was planned for 11 May 1987 at 21:30 Moscow time. It was delayed five hours when a leak was detected in the Block 3A electrical distribution section, then by another hour due to a fault LH2 thermostat. The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed to inject itself into orbit due to a guidance system failure.

With the launch vehicle finally proven, the focus moved to clearing Buran for flight. Two variants of the first unmanned mission were considered: a three day flight, or a two orbit flight. The three day flight would represent a complete shakedown of the orbiter's systems, but would require that most of the orbiter's systems be completed and certified for flight. The two orbit flight could be done without fuel cells, opening the payload bay doors, deploying the radiators, etc. It could be accomplished earlier and would prove the essential automated launch, orbital manoeuvre, and landing systems.

While this debate was underway a collective letter was sent to the Soviet government by workers on the project, including the cosmonauts Volk and Leonov. This letter argued that the first flight should be piloted, as was the American space shuttle. In order to resolve the issue, a special commission was appointed to study the alternatives. The commission decided in favour of the two orbit automated flight.

Buran was first moved to the launch pad on 23 October 1988. The launch commission met on 26 October 1988 and set 29 October 06:23 Moscow time for the first flight of the first Buran orbiter (Flight 1K1). 51 seconds before the launch, when control of the countdown switched to automated systems, a software problem led the computer program to abort the lift-off. The problem was found to be due to late separation of a gyro update umbilical. The software problem was rectified and the next attempt was set for 15 November at 06:00 (03:00 GMT). Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with 20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director decided to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee of 154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251 km x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module 37KB s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor Volk in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud. It completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that had debugged the systems before they flew.

But this triumph was also the last hurrah. Buran would never fly again. The Soviet Union was crumbling, and the ambitious plans to use Buran to build an orbiting defence shield, to renew the ozone layer, dispose of nuclear waste, illuminate polar cities, colonise the moon and Mars, were not to be. Although never officially cancelled, funding dried up and completely disappeared from the government's budget after 1993.

Originally three flight orbiters were to be built, but this was increased to 5 in 1983. Structurally the first three orbiters were essentially completed, while the extra two remained unbuilt except for the engine units The final Buran test flight plan at the beginning of 1989 was as follows:

  • Flight 2 (2K1) - fourth quarter 1991 - first flight of second orbiter, one to two days unmanned, with 37KB s/n 37071.

  • Flight 3 (2K2) - first or second quarter 1992 - second orbiter, seven to eight day unmanned flight with payload 37KB s/n 37271. The orbiter would open the payload bay doors, operate the manipulator arm, dock with Mir, and return to earth.

  • Flight 4 (1K2) - 1993 - unmanned, second flight of first orbiter, 15-20 days with 37KB s/n 37270

  • Flight 5 (3K1) - 1994 or 1995 - first flight of third orbiter. First manned flight; the third orbiter was the first outfitted with life support systems and ejection seats. Two cosmonauts would deliver the 37KBI module to Mir, using the Buran manipulator arm to dock it to the station's Kristal module.

Development of the launch vehicle cost 1.3 billion roubles, with an estimated total economic effect of 6 billion roubles. Total cost of the Energia-Buran project was put at 14,5 billion roubles. It involved the work of 1206 subcontractors and 100 government ministries. The cost of Buran - a significant part of the effort to maintain strategic and technical parity with the United States - contributed to the collapse of the Soviet system and its own demise. Today the flight orbiters sit in their assembly halls in Baikonur, covered in dust. The Energia core stages sit in the MIK assembly hall, immense exhibits. The booster stages are in forlorn rows, their engines stripped for more lucrative use on Zenit and Atlas boosters launched by American companies. The orbiter mock-up stands in the safing area, quietly crumbling in the desert. The apartment buildings are vacant. The rest is silence.

Buran Technical Description

Although of the same aerodynamic shape and size as the shuttle, Buran differs in detail. The following table compares the two spaceplanes:

Shuttle - Buran Comparison
ShuttleBuran
Mass Breakdown (kg):  
Total Structure / Landing Systems46,60042,000
Functional Systems and Propulsion37,20033,000
SSME14,200
Maximum Payload25,00030,000
  
Total123,000105,000
 
Dimensions (m):  
Length37.2536.37
Wingspan23.8023.92
Height on Gear17.2516.35
Payload bay length18.2918.55
Payload bay diameter4.574.65
Wing glove sweep81 deg78 deg
Wing sweep45 deg45 deg
 
Propulsion  
Total orbital maneuvering engine thrust5,440 kgf17,600 kgf
Orbital Maneuvering Engine Specific Impuse313 sec362 sec
Total Maneuvering Impulse5 kgf-sec5 kgf-sec
Total Reaction Control System Thrust15,078 kgf14,866 kgf
Average RCS Specific Impulse289 sec275-295 sec
Normal Maximum Propellant Load14,100 kg14,500 kg
Schedule:  
Go-aheadJul 26 1972Feb 12 1976
Years after go-ahead:  
Delivery to launch complex6.69.3
Flight Readiness Firing8.510.3
First launch vehicle flight8.711.2
First orbiter flight8.712.7

Overview

The Buran orbiter was designed for 100 flights. Optimum crew was four, a pilot, co-pilot, and two cosmonauts specialising in EVA and payload operation. These four crew members were on the upper deck and all were provided with ejection seats. However up to ten crew could be carried by using additional seats on the lower deck. Four to six of these would be researchers, depending on the mission. Buran could achieve a 1,700 km cross range on re-entry, protected by 39,000 tiles of two types. Synthetic quartz fibre tiles were used in low temperature areas, and black high-temperature organic fibre tiles were used on high temperature areas. Carbon-carbon material was used for the nose and wing leading edges.

Modular universal equipment was developed for Buran that would be used on other spacecraft and space stations. These included the docking module, airlock, manipulator arm, and payload cradle. These items represented 12,000 kg of Buran's lift-off mass.

The Buran launch sequence was as follows:

  • T -30 minutes - LH2 loading starts and pad cleared

  • T -11 minutes - launch systems go to automatic sequence

  • T -8 seconds - Core engines ignite

  • T=0 - Booster engines ignite; liftoff

  • T +150 seconds - Boosters separate at 60 km altitude

  • T +480 seconds - Core burns out at at 110 km altitude (re-enters in Pacific). Buran separates and engines fire for 67 seconds at 160 km altitude.

  • T+47 minutes - Buran executes a 42 second cicularisation burn at 250 km altitude

Buran's maximum payload was 30 tonnes to a 250 km 50.7 degree orbit with 8 tonnes or propellant loaded. 27 tonnes could be placed into a 450 km with the maximum 14.5 tonne propellant load. Supplementary propellant tanks, fitted in the payload bay, would allow the orbiter to achieve orbital apogees of up to 1000 km. Maximum landing mass was 87 tonnes with a 20 tonne payload; nominal landing mass was 82 tonnes with a 15 tonne payload. Normal flight duration was 10 days, which could be extended to 30 days with extra consumable tanks and supplies. G-loads on the crew were no greater than 3.0 G on ascent and 1.6 G on re-entry. The Buran had a lift-to-drag ratio of 1.5 hypersonic and 5.0 subsonic. Landing speed was 312 km/hour nominal and 360 km/hr with maximum payload. Landing run with three drag chutes was 1100 to 2000 m.

Crew Cabin - The Buran crew cabin had a total habitable volume of 73 cu. m and consisted of two sections. The upper command module had two crew positions (RM-1 and RM-2) for the pilot and co-pilot equipped with ejection seats. There was also an emergency evacuation hatch in the cabin ceiling from which exit could be made by ropes in case of a crash landing or ditching at sea. A later variant would provide two double ejection seats for four crew. Crew controls in the command module consisted of the MKP command guidance module, the GSP gyro-stabilisation platform; RVV radio-altimeter; and NIVS navigation visualisation system. The lower cabin section was the BO living cabin, with accommodations for up to 8 additional cosmonauts. The cabin crew wore Strizh space suits, which provided five minutes of independent oxygen in the case of cabin depressurisation. EVA's would be conducted using the Orlan suits developed for Salyut and Mir.

Payload Bay - The OPG payload section, 18.55 m x 4.65 m, also housed the guidance system electronics, the engine control systems, propellant piping and conduits, the electric fuel cell generators, and the fuel cell reactant tanks. According to mission, within the payload bay were also the SKPG payload cradle holding fixture and associated electrical/electronic/hydraulic/pneumatic interfaces; the SM docking module (spherical, 2.67 m diameter with a cylindrical tunnel); the APAS androgynous docking unit.

Base Block - The BB base block housed the modular ODU orbiter engine unit, three VSU auxiliary power units (split into left and right modules), the hydraulic system, and a hermetically sealed instrument compartment.

Wings - the wing profile was developed by TsAGI after many tests at all speed regimes. The basic double delta wing has a 45 degree sweep, with 78 degrees of sweep at the wing gloves. The wing form consists of symmetrical base file, with thickness 12% of cord, 40% of length. Fuselage is of cylindrical form, with a 14 degree transition section. The vertical stabiliser has a 60% sweep.

Structural materials - The orbiter structure was built of conventional aircraft-grade Aluminium alloy D16. Fuselage details were of aluminium 1163, and the cabin module of Aluminium 1205. Titanium VT23 was used in high strength structural members - the girdle longerons of the wings, the fuselage spanners, the barrel section of the payload bay, the wing gloves, and the fuselage spanners carrying the launch vehicle loads. Nomex blankets were used in the payload bay.

Major systems:

  • Auxiliary Power Unit - the VSU produced 17 to 105 kW from a 5500 rpm turbine operating on hydrazine fuel. The 235 kg unit was provided with 180 kg of hydrazine, allowing 75 minutes of operation during launch and landing operations.

  • ODU Orbital Propulsion Unit - The unique ODU differed completely from American shuttle systems. The two restartable reusable 8800 kgf main engines were developed from the 11D68 used in the Block D Proton upper stage. They burned non-toxic liquid oxygen and Sintin (synthetic kerosene). The reaction control system, operating from the same propellant tanks, used gaseous oxygen and Sintin. Two main engines had a specific impulse of 362 seconds and provided a total impulse of 5 million kgf-seconds for orbital operations. With additional propellant tanks up to 9.7 million kgf-sec of manoeuvre capability was possible. The orientation engines consisted of 38 x 400 kgf and 8 x 20 kgf reaction control jets with a specific impulse of from 275 to 295 seconds.

    Guidance - Buran was equipped with an AIK redundant flight control system and gyro platform. Unlike Soyuz, this was a full-time system, which did not require platform alignment and spin-up for each manoeuvre. The automated flight system could detect system failures, and switch to backup equipment. Alternate programs were stored for emergency flight situations. All docking and manipulator arm operations were automated as well, the sole exception being the final stage of docking when using the manipulator arm. Radio navigation systems built by Vympel, developed by NIP Gromov, integrated several radio navigation aids to provide redundant means of precision automatic landing. Manual control was used only as a backup when all else failed.

    Fuel cells - Built by the Ural Electrochemical Combinat (UEK), Savchuk. They produced 30 kW, with a power density of 600 w-hr/kg. These were the first Soviet operational fuel cells and the first in the world to use critical-phase cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen. The four fuel cells were fed by two spherical hydrogen cryostats, two oxygen cryostats, and two sump units. The water they produced as a by-product were used for orbiter utility water needs. Cryogenics aboard Buran would last 15 to 20 days without refrigeration.

Buran Development

Over 232 experimental test stands were built during Energia development. Development of the Buran orbiter required a further 100 test stands, 7 complex modelling stands, 5 flying laboratories, 6 full-scale mock-ups, and 2 flight mock-ups (OK-ML-1 and OK-MT).

Functional system qualification tests were conducted before first flight on 780 individual equipment items and 135 systems. Rigorous qualification tests were conducted of all structural components. Structural elements were tested individually, and then in ever larger assemblies. 1000 experiments of various types were conducted on 600 structural subassemblies. The result was that the flight data very closely followed predictions, and both the launch vehicle and orbiter flew successfully on their very first flights. This was in sharp contrast to the numerous early failures of the Soyuz and N1 programmes in the 1960's.

Six full-scale functional mock-ups of Buran were built:

  • OK-M was the primary mock-up for parts fit tests. It was also used in normal temperature static loads tests, to determine the orbiter's moment of inertia, and to test payload mass mock-ups. After this work completed it was redesignated OK-ML-1 and flown to Baikonur on the 3M-T and used for interface tests (horizontal and vertical) with the launch vehicle. In the original program plan it would have been expended on the first launch of the Energia, remaining attached to the core. Instead it ended its days in the orbiter safing area at Baikonur, exposed to the elements.

  • OK-GLI for horizontal flight tests. This Buran BST-02 'analogue' had the same aerodynamic, centre of gravity, and inertial characteristics as the orbiter. It differed in being equipped with four AL-31 turbojet engines, mounted at 4 degrees off the horizontal axis. These allowed the analogue to fly from conventional air fields and conduct the repetitive tests necessary to develop the automated landing system. The analogue was equipped with the same essential systems as the orbiter, including the RM-1 and RM-2 ejection seats, the GSP and VIU navigation systems; the landing gear, landing system antennae, thermal sensors, and first and second group accelerometers. Prior to completion the OK-GLI was used on the 3M-T transport to test fight characteristics of the 3M-T/orbiter combination, the OK-launch vehicle interface attach points, and to develop the optimal transport configuration. After completion it began a series of test flights to verify the subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of the design and develop the manual and automatic flight and landing systems.

  • OK-MT for technological development and mock-up duties. This was used in development of technical and transport documentation for the spacecraft; working out loading methods for liquids and gases; hermetic system integrity tests; crew entry and exit tests; development of the military operations manuals; development of the fabrication, maintenance, and flight operations manuals. After this work was completed it was redesignated OK-ML-2 and flown to Baikonur on the 3M-T and used for functional interface tests with the launch vehicle. In the original program plan it would have been expended on the second launch of the Energia booster, burning up in the atmosphere after testing separation from the rocket core.

  • OK-TVA for heating and static vibration tests. Second stage static tests were conducted on the OK-TVA in the unique TPVK-1 environmental chamber at TsAGI. The TPVK-1 was 13.5 m in diameter and 30 m long. It was equipped with 10,000 quartz lamps and could take the orbiter form -150 degrees C to 1500 degrees C, from sea level to vacuum, in real time. At the same time OK-TVA was subjected to loads tests on the nose, wings, vertical stabiliser, elevons, balance. The test rig could apply 8,000 kN of force horizontally and 2,000 kN vertically and took the airframe to 90% of design load limits, which were 1.3X anticipated life limit load. The OK-TVA was then put in the TsAGI RK-1500 acoustic chamber. This had a floor space of 1500 square meters, and was equipped with 16 sound generators which would subject the spaceframe to 166 dB sound levels at frequencies of 50 to 2000 gHz. These environmental tests resulted in redesign in detail of the flight orbiters' structure and heat shield, especially hermetic seals and acoustic isolation. The OK-TVA then went on to the dynamic test chamber of 423 square meters. There it was placed in electrodynamic and electrohydraulic test stands. After all this punishment, this may have been the article moved to Gorki Park and turned into a space ride in the late 1990's.

  • OK-KS for complex electronic and electric tests and mock-up duties. This was supplemented by the KEI electronic system test stand. The OK-KS was also used for EMI tests. This mock-up remained at the Energia factory in Korolev and could still be seen there in 1997.

  • OK-TVI for environmental chamber heat/vacuum tests. This was tested in all thermal regimes, including abort, vacuum of down to 1.33 x 10^-3 torr. The 700 square metre chamber had 132 square meters of sun lamps for solar radiation simulation. Disposition of this article is unknown.

In addition to the full-scale mock-ups, the following were instrumental in Buran development:

  • An additional full-scale crew section was built for medical-biological tests, crew station development, and system development. This life support model include the crew cabin and SZhO life support system.

  • Tu-154LL Flying Laboratories: These aircraft simulated the flight characteristics of the orbiter and was essential in development of the automated landing systems. They made over 200 automatic landings, 70 of them at the airfield at Baikonur.

  • Weather effects on heat shield materials up to Mach 3 were tested on Il-18 and MiG-25 aircraft.

  • GLI Horizontal Flight Simulator - this allowed the flight control software to be fine tuned as more and more concrete information became available from the wind tunnels and test spacecraft. The result was a significant improvement in actual to specified landing system performance. Specified deviation from touchdown point, plus or minus 1000 m, actual -250 m, +400 m; specified deviation from runway centreline plus or minus 38 m, actual -12 m, +15 m; specified vertical velocity at touchdown from 0 to 3 m/s; actual 0.1 to 0.8 m/s.

  • Wind tunnel models - 85 wind tunnel models were built in scales for 1:3 to 1:550 to determine the vehicle's aerodynamic coefficients at all velocities, the effectiveness of the aerosurfaces, the moments of inertia, and the interference effects between Buran and the launch vehicle during launch and separation. These models were run through 39,000 simulated launches at wind tunnel speeds of from M 0.1 to M 2.0. 12 special test stands were built to test Buran/launch vehicle interference characteristics.

  • Gas dynamics models - these were tested at scales of from 1:15 to 1:2700 and Mach 5 to 20 and Reynolds numbers of 10^5 to 10^7.

  • BOR-4 - Certain essential tests of the heat shield materials could not be done in the lab. These included interaction with the plasma sheath during re-entry, chemical disassociation effects, etc. Therefore Buran heat tiles were tested on the BOR-4 sub-scale model of the Spiral space plane. This was clad in 118 tiles of the type developed for Buran as well as carbon-carbon nose cap and leading edge. BOR-4 flew four successful test flights at speeds of from Mach 3 to 25 and altitudes of 30 to 100 km. These test flights confirmed the physical, chemical, and catalytic processes that operated on the selected heat shield materials in the re-entry plasma. BOR-4 also provided important data on the acoustic environment during launch and re-entry.

  • BOR-5 - The aerodynamic characteristics of Buran at hypersonic speeds were validated by the BOR-5 1:8 sub-scale model of Buran. The BOR-5 was boosted on sub-orbital trajectories on altitudes of 100 km and velocities of from 4,000 to 7,300 km/s. These proved the handling characteristics, aerodynamic moment, and control effectiveness from Mach 1.5 to Mach 17.5, at Reynolds numbers of from 1.05 to 2.1 and angles of attack from 15 to 40 degrees. They also allowed study of flow separation at the fuselage surface and thermodynamic characteristics of the design. Final results indicated a lift-to-drag ratio of 1.3 at hypersonic speed, 5.0 at Mach 2, and 5.6 at subsonic speed.

  • Acoustic model - a 1:10 acoustic model of the launch vehicle was equipped with solid rocket motors to measure acoustic levels on the test stand.

Buran Assembly / Processing / Launch / Landing Facilities

Using the N1 facilities at Baikonur as a starting point, major modifications had to be made and several new buildings erected to assemble and launch Buran at the remote Baikonur cosmodrome. The land-locked location of Baikonur meant that major assembly work on the orbiter and launch vehicle had to be conducted on site, instead of at the subcontractors factories. The liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks of the core, and the Buran orbiters, were flown to Baikonur on the back of the 3M-T transport. The booster stages and all other material and equipment were brought in by rail.

Major Buran facilities at Baikonur, in the order of their occurrence in the orbiter process flow, were:

  • MIK-OK was the orbiter assembly building at Baikonur. This was a new facility, 222 m long, 132 m wide, and 30 m high. It was divided into the following environmentally-controlled bays:

    • Payload bay
    • Heat shield maintenance bay
    • Assembly-disassembly bay for autonomous test of equipment, repairs and test of hermetically sealed equipment units, and engine unit repair
    • KIS bay for electric tests and close-up operations before the orbiter was moved to the MIK-RN for integration wit the launch vehicle
    • BEK anechoic chamber, 60 m x 40 m x 30 m, for antenna tests and to shield electronic testing from American ELINT satellites
    • Hangar bay, 30 m x 24 m, for holding of orbiter awaiting processing in other bays

  • TA - orbiter transporter moved the orbiter on a special 12 m wide Baikonur road network. It weighed 126 tonnes empty, and could accommodate payloads of 100 tonnes. It had a length of 58.8 m, a width of 5.4 m, and was 3.2 m high. Maximum speed was 10 km/hour with Buran, 40 km/hour without payload. The TA would take the orbiter from the MIK-OK to the OKI for propellant loading and then to the MIK-RN for integration with the launch vehicle.

  • MIK-RN was the launch vehicle assembly building. It was originally built for on-site assembly of the N1 launch vehicle. It was 190 m x 240 m and had 5 bays, two of them 27 m high, and three 52 m high.

  • TUA - two launch vehicle transporter / erectors were modified from those built for the N1 and moved the entire launch vehicle on double rail lines from the MIK-RN assembly building to the launch pad. Each weighed 2,756 tonnes empty, and could accommodate payloads of 571 tonnes. Each had a length of 56.3 m (90.3 m with the launch vehicle), a width of 25.9 m, and was 21.2 m high. Maximum speed was 5 km/hour. The two 1.524 m gauge railroad tracks on which the TUA road were 20 m apart. The dual 20 m tracks lead from the MIK-RN to the MZK and thence to the SK launch pad.

  • MZK - was a new building for loading of propellants into the orbiter and payload, and for vertical static tests of the entire Energia-Buran vehicle. It had 9000 square metres of floor area, was 134 m x 74 m in floor plan, and was 58 m high.

  • 17P31 UKSS was an enormous new combined launch pad/test stand for Buran. Here the launch vehicle could be run for full-duration test firings.

  • 11P825 SK were the two N1 launch pads, adapted for use with Buran

  • IVPP - The Buran landing field was a first class aerodrome 12 km from the launch pad with a runway 4500 m long and 84 m wide. It could accommodate aircraft of up to 650 tonnes gross takeoff weight. Parallel and 50 m to the side of the IVPP was a compressed earth emergency strip with 12 Mpa bearing strength. Asphalt run out strips, 500 m x 90 m, were at each end of the main strip. The ramp area was 400 x 180 m. The IVPP shared with the orbiter equipment of the five radio navigation systems used for the automatic landing of Buran. These included the Svecha-3M radio landing system, the Vympel radio guidance, landing, and aerodynamic manoeuvre system, the Skala-MK long distance radiolocator system, the Ilmen airfield radiolocator system, and the Volkhov-P landing radiolocator. Using these systems Buran could navigate itself towards the airfield from a range of 400 km and guide itself to a precise touchdown from a range of 45 km. A Tu-134BV test bed verified system functioning prior to a Buran landing. Finally, the Obzor-2 meteorological observation system provided the orbiter with information on weather conditions at the field needed for final touchdown.

  • Abort facilities - Buran had several abort modes: lose one booster, abort once around; lose two boosters, abort return to site. Reserve landing strips were at Simferopol, and in the "East of the country".

Spacecraft: BOR-5.

The aerodynamic characteristics of Buran at hypersonic speeds were validated by the BOR-5 1:8 sub-scale model of Buran. The BOR-5 was boosted on sub-orbital trajectories on altitudes of 100 km and velocities of from 4,000 to 7,300 km/s. These proved the handling characteristics, aerodynamic moment, and control effectiveness from Mach 1.5 to Mach 17.5, at Reynolds numbers of from 1.05 to 2.1 and angles of attack from 15 to 40 degrees. They also allowed study of flow separation at the fuselage surface and thermodynamic characteristics of the design. Final results indicated a lift-to-drag ratio of 1.3 at hypersonic speed, 5.0 at Mach 2, and 5.6 at subsonic speed. Typical trajectory: ascent to 120 km; pitch down to drive model in atmosphere at 45 degree at Mach 18.5. None were reflown but at least 4 were recovered.


Spacecraft: Buran Analogue.

OK-GLI for horizontal flight tests. This Buran OK-GLI 'analogue' had the same aerodynamic, centre of gravity, and inertial characteristics as the orbiter. Its purpose was to conduct the repetitive tests necessary to develop the automated landing system. The OK-GLI differed from the space-rated orbiters in being equipped with four AL-31 turbojet engines, with a total thrust of 40 tonnes, mounted at 4 degrees off the horizontal axis. These allowed the analogue to take off from conventional air fields. After reaching 5,000 m altitude, the engines would be shut off, and a manual or automatic landing would be accomplished. The analogue was equipped with the same essential systems as the orbiter, including the RM-1 and RM-2 ejection seats, the GSP and VIU navigation systems; the landing gear, landing system antennae, thermal sensors, and first and second group accelerometers. Prior to completion the OK-GLI was used on the 3M-T transport to test fight characteristics of the 3M-T/orbiter combination, the OK-launch vehicle interface attach points, and to develop the optimal transport configuration. It has been claimed that some of these tests were to be manned, and that on the first such flight cosmonauts Georgi Shonin and Yevgeni Khrunov were involved in an accident when the 3M-T ran off the runway. However it is now known that the payload capacity of the 3M-T was limited to 50 tonnes, so this story seems unlikely (an empty orbiter would weigh at least 70 tonnes). After these tests the OK-GLI was returned to the shop for completion. Thereafter it began a series of test flights to verify the subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of the design and develop the manual and automatic flight and landing systems. The aircraft was retired to the Zhukovskiy test center near Moscow, where it is often rolled out for exhibition during air shows.


Spacecraft: LKS.

Chelomei’s earlier work on the Raketoplan manned spaceplane had been cancelled in 1966. However work on manned spaceplanes was resumed in 1975. At this point in time, the American space shuttle had begun development and the existing Soviet Spiral spaceplane project looked decidedly limited by comparison. The Buran project, a copy of the US space shuttle, was officially selected in for development in 1976 but work continued on Chelomei’s light spaceplane (LKS) as a backup or competitor. The advanced project for the LKS was completed in 1979, including construction of a full-scale mock-up. It has been said that the mock-up was built in one month and displayed to the military leadership in an attempt to get the Buran program cancelled.

The LKS consisted of a reusable winged spacecraft forward of an expendable payload section. Equipment or samples to be returned to the Earth would be moved to the payload bay of the LKS itself before re-entry using a remote manipulator arm. This arrangement was similar to that proposed later for the European Hermes spaceplane. The LKS itself had a shuttle-like nose and double-delta wings, but twin canted horizontal stabilisers. It would be launched atop a Chelomei Proton booster.

Endless Kremlin politics again ensnared Chelomei and brought the project to a halt. In 1981 further development of the LKS was stopped. A group of unidentified saboteurs (possibly KGB) broke into the premises of NPO Mashinostroyeniye in early March 1991 and destroyed the mock-up. The relationship, if any, of the cancellation of the LKS to the ‘Uragan’ spaceplane the US Department of Defence claimed was under development in the 1980’s is unknown.


Spacecraft: OK-M.

In the 1980's NPO Energia and OKB Molniya studied designs of spaceplanes smaller than Buran to replace Soyuz and Progress spacecraft for space station crew rotation/replenishment tasks. Molniya favoured an air-launched solution (see MAKS) while Energia favoured conventional rocket launch. The earliest design, the OK-M, was designed to be launched by the Zenit launch vehicle. The aerodynamic scheme and double-delta planform of the OK-M was derived from Buran. A notable difference was a unitary fuselage (no cargo bay doors - payloads were extracted through a hatch at the rear). The crew cabin was not connected to the payload bay. After entering orbit the nose of the spaceplane hinged up to reveal an androgynous docking mechanism and crew hatch. in which the crew docked with the station through an androgynous docking apparatus. The thermal protection system would use the tiles and carbon-carbon nose cap material developed for Buran. The engine, guidance, and control systems were derived from those developed for the Soyuz-TM. Two 400 kg main engines were supplemented by a reaction control system of 26 x 50 kgf and 8 x 5 kgf thrusters. These were all housed in two gondolas positioned on either side of the vertical stabiliser (leaving the base free for the payload hatch). In orbit a 25 square meter solar panel would be deployed, supplementing 16 batteries of 1000 A-hours capacity, delivering a maximum of 2.5 kW.

The OK-M had a payload bay 2.2 m in diameter and 7 m long, with a total volume of 20 cubic metres. Normal crew was a two. Up to four additional passengers could be transported if required in a special module in the cargo bay. Landing mass of the OK-M without payload was 10,200 kg. With a crew of two the OK-M1 could deliver 3500 kg of payload to a 250 km orbit. However payload delivered to a 450 km space station orbit was limited to 2000 kg.

Total booster mass at lift-off with the OK-M was 400 tonnes. The OK-M was mated to the Zenit by a monocoque transition section, on which four solid abort motors of 25 tonnes thrust each were fitted. These would push the spaceplane away from the Zenit in the case of a first stage launch failure. At second stage ignition, they were ignited to provide an extra boost. The Zenit inserted the spaceplane into a 120 km altitude orbit at 51 degrees inclination. The OK-M used its own engines to manoeuvre into a higher orbit.

The low net payload the OK-M could deliver to a space station was considered unacceptable. Therefore NPO Molniya developed the OK-M1 and OK-M2 designs. These used other launch vehicles (the MMKS or Energia-M) and were over twice the size of the OK-M.


Spacecraft: OK-M1.

The OK-M1 was designed by NPO Molniya as a follow-on to the OK-M of NPO Energia. The OK-M1 was an integrated part of a unique launch vehicle, the MMKS reusable multi-module space system. This consisted of three components arranged in parallel: an RVK unmanned booster stage derived from the Buran spaceplane; a PTO expendable external propellant tank; and the OK-M1. Six dual-thrust tri-propellant engines operated at lift-off: four mounted in the RVK and two in the OK-M1. These burned liquid oxygen and Sintin (synthetic kerosene) at lift-off, transitioning to liquid oxygen and hydrogen at higher altitudes. Within what would normally be the payload bay and crew cabin of the RVK spaceframe were Sintin and liquid oxygen tanks. The PTO external tank carried only liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. After depletion of its propellants the RVK separated and glided back to a landing at Baikonur. The PTO/OK-M1 continued on into orbit, where the external tank was jettisoned. Total mass of the MMKS was 800 tonnes at lift-off.

The crew of the OK-M1 were equipped with ejection seats. Saving the crew in the event of a launch vehicle failure was a complex problem. Special safety suits allowing crew ejection, even in the fireball of a booster explosion. The OK-M1 itself had a unique shape, a blend of the Buran and the ‘Lapot’ lifting body shape of Spiral. The result was a straight delta wings joined to a broad fuselage with an upturned nose. The OK-M1 used liquid oxygen and kerosene both as orbital manoeuvring system propellants and to operate three 7 kW generators for electrical power. These were supplemented with lithium batteries. The two power buses together could provide up to 60 kW of power at 270 V.

Two 2000 kgf main engines were supplemented by a reaction control system of 10 x 40 kgf and 8 x 2.5 kgf thrusters. Normal crew was four. Up to four additional passengers could be transported if required in a special module in the cargo bay. Landing mass of the OK-M1 without payload was 22,400 kg. With a crew of four the OK-M1 could deliver 7200 kg of payload to a 250 km orbit. Payload delivered to a 450 km space station orbit was 5000 kg. Maximum payload that could be returned to earth was 4200 kg. The cargo bay was 3.0 m diameter x 6.5 m long, with a total volume of 40 cubic metres.

The OK-M1 / MMKS, with its new tri-propellant engines and RVK flyback booster, would be costly to develop. However Lozino-Lozinskiy was more interested in applying the same propulsion systems and orbiter to his MAKS air-launched system.


Spacecraft: OK-M2.

The OK-M2 was designed by NPO Molniya as a follow-on to the OK-M of NPO Energia with less development cost and risk than the OK-M1 / MMKS. The OK-M2 would be launched in a conventional manner on the nose of an Energia-M launch vehicle. The transition fairing from the orbiter to the launch vehicle was equipped with solid rocket motors for aborts in the case of launch vehicle failure. The solid rockets would be used for final orbital insertion normally, maximising manoeuvring propellant reserves aboard the orbiter. Total mass of the Energia-M with the OK-M2 was 1060 tonnes at lift-off.

The OK-M2 had the same shape as the OK-M1, a straight delta wings joined to a broad fuselage with an upturned nose. Uniquely the OK-M1 used liquid oxygen and ethanol both as orbital manoeuvring system propellants and to operate three 7 kW generators for electrical power. These were supplemented with lithium batteries. The two power buses together could provide up to 60 kW of power at 270 V.

Three 2700 kgf main engines were supplemented by a reaction control system of 19 x 40 kgf and 8 x 2.5 kgf thrusters. Normal crew was four. Up to four additional passengers could be transported if required in a special module in the cargo bay. Landing mass of the OK-M2 without payload was 17,600 kg. With a crew of four the OK-M2 could deliver 10,000 kg of payload to a 250 km orbit. Payload delivered to a 450 km space station orbit was 6,000 kg. Maximum payload that could be returned to earth was 8,000 kg. The cargo bay was 2.85 m diameter x 6.17 m long, with a total volume of 40 cubic metres.


Spacecraft: MAKS.

The MAKS spaceplane was the ultimate development of the OK-M studies NPO Molniya conducted with NPO Energia. The draft project for MAKS was completed in 1988 and consisted of 220 volumes, generated by NPO Molniya and 70 sub-contractors and government institutes. Development of MAKS was authorised but cancelled after Perestroika. At the time of the cancellation, mock-ups of both the MAKS orbiter and the external tank had been finished. A 9,000 kgf experimental engine with 19 injectors was tested. There were 50 test burns proving the separate modes and a smooth switch between them. Since it was expected that MAKS could reduce the cost of transport to earth orbit by a factor of ten, it was hoped in the 1990’s that development funding could be found. However this has not happened to date. MAKS was to have flown by 1998.

The MAKS air-launched manned space system weighed 620 tonnes on takeoff and consisted of three elements:

  • An-225 Mriya carrier aircraft, the largest in the world, originally developed to transport the Buran orbiter. The Mriya would take the 275 tonne MAKS piggy-back to an altitude of 8,000 to 9,500 m and then release it at a speed of 900 kph.

  • External tank. This carried liquid oxygen, kerosene, and liquid hydrogen propellants. It was 6.38 m in diameter and 32.1 m long, with a total mass of 248,000 kg and an empty mass of 11,000 kg.

  • MAKS Orbiter. This spaceplane, designed for 100 reuses, was derived from the OK-M1 designed for NPO Energia. On-board systems were based on those already developed for Energia and Buran. The orbiter had an empty mass of 18,400 kg, with a wingspan of 12.5 m and a length of 19.3 m. An unmanned version could deliver 9.5 tonnes to a 200 km, 51 degree orbit in a payload bay 3.0 m diameter x 8.7 m long. The manned version took two crew and a payload of 8.3 tonnes in a bay 2.6 m diameter x 6.8 m long to the same orbit. At MAKS’ tail were two RD-701 tripropellant engines. These were designed for 15 re-uses and used dense kerosene and liquid oxygen for initial operations, then switched modes to a reduced thrust and higher specific impulse using low density liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This reduced the size of the huge hydrogen tank otherwise required. The RD-701 engine assembly in the MAKS had a total mass of 3990 kg and delivered a total thrust of 400,000 kgf at separation from the An-225.


Spacecraft: Tu-2000.

In reaction to US X-30 project, government decrees of 27 January and 19 July 1986 ordered development of a Soviet equivalent. The Ministry of Defence issued technical specifications on 1 September for an MVKS, a single-stage reusable aerospaceplane system. The MKVS was to provide effective and economic delivery to near-earth orbit; develop the technology for effective transatmospheric flight; provide super high-speed intercontinental transport, and fulfil military objectives in and from space. It is known that the Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Energia design bureaux submitted designs.

Tupolev seems to have received the development go-ahead. The Tu-2000A was to be an experimental design to test the many advanced technologies required. It would have been 55 to 60 m long, have a 14 m wingspan, and a takeoff mass of 70 to 90 tonnes. It would have only been capable of Mach 6. Before work was stopped in 1992, some development work was completed: a wing torque box of nickel alloy had been built, as well as fuselage elements, cryogenic fuel tanks, and composite fuel lines. The Tu-2000A would have used a variable cycle turboramjet engine using methane or hydrogen fuel.

The Tu-2000A was to have been followed by two production designs, as Tupolev felt no single design could meet all of the military requirements. The Tu-2000B would have been a 10,000 km range bomber with a crew of two. 350 tonnes at takeoff, 200 tonnes empty, it would have been 100 m long, with a wing of 40.7 m span and 1250 square metres area. Six liquid hydrogen powered engines would take the bomber to Mach 6 cruise speed at 30,000 m altitude.

The Tu-2000 space launcher would have weighted 260 tonnes at lift-off and be capable of Mach 25 (orbital velocity). An 8 to 10 tonne payload would have been delivered to a 200 km orbit. As with the X-30, airbreathing flight to orbit seemed questionable. The 8 turboramjets would have to be supplemented by a scramjet or a rocket engine in order to achieve orbit.


Spacecraft: VKS.

In reaction to US X-30 project, government decrees of 27 January and 19 July 1986 ordered development of a Soviet equivalent. The Ministry of Defence issued technical specifications on 1 September for an MVKS, a single-stage reusable aerospaceplane system. The MKVS was to provide effective and economic delivery to near-earth orbit; develop the technology for effective transatmospheric flight; provide super high-speed intercontinental transport, and fulfil military objectives in and from space. It is known that the Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Energia design bureaux submitted designs.

At NPO Energia Tsybin was appointed the Chief Designer for the project. The Energia VKS was designed as a hypersonic rocketplane with multi-regime engines. These engines were turbo-ramjet with in-line rocket chambers. The VKS was sketched out as having a 700 tonne takeoff mass, of which 140 tonnes was structure. A 25 tonne payload could be delivered to a 200 km / 51 degree orbit. Length would have been 71 m, wingspan 42 m, and height 10 m to the top of the fuselage.

Work was abandoned as the Soviet Union broke up and the Tu-2000 seemed the preferred solution.


Spacecraft: Yakovlev MVKS.

In reaction to US X-30 project, government decrees of 27 January and 19 July 1986 ordered development of a Soviet equivalent. The Ministry of Defence issued technical specifications on 1 September for an MVKS, a single-stage reusable aerospaceplane system. The MKVS was to provide effective and economic delivery to near-earth orbit; develop the technology for effective transatmospheric flight; provide super high-speed intercontinental transport, and fulfil military objectives in and from space. It is known that the Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Energia design bureaux submitted designs. No details of the Yakovlev design have become available to date.


Ref.: #8(28.09.1999) - update: 22.06.20 Home