Outer Space

Exploring the final frontier.

Kaputnik

Vanguard TV3

Today is the anniversary of a rather dubious event in the history of the American space program. It could be summed up with one word: oops.

On December 6, 1957, the United States prepared to launch an artificial satellite called Vanguard TV3, or simply Vanguard. It was going to the American response to the Sputnik launch of two months earlier. The launch had been hyped for weeks, and it was getting all kinds of media coverage. The launch of Sputnik had been a big surprise, and a major embarrassment for the United States. Theoretically the United States was the world leader in technological innovation. Why then wasn’t the first artificial satellite an American one?

OK, so the Soviet Union got the jump. However, Sputnik was never more than a proof of concept vehicle. Sputnik’s primary function was to transmit a series of signals from low earth orbit to see how satellite communications operated. It also had an experimental radio camera, which was a prototype for devices planned for future satellites. It wasn’t a spy satellite or weapon targeting system, as some of the urban legends of the time said. It was a test vehicle. But even so, it was a major political coup for the USSR. They caught the United States with their pants down!

Well, the USA wasn’t going to let this stand. So Vanguard was designed to actually do some important stuff. It had a test relay signal of it’s own, but it also had some experimental receivers and transmitters that would later be used in communications satellites. Also, it was going to travel to a higher orbit than Sputnik, where it could be kept operational for a longer period of time, and serve as a test for a variety of other ideas.

Perhaps Vanguard wouldn’t be the first artificial satellite to orbit the earth, but it would be the first to do something truly important. And the USA was quick to point that out, and they were going to make sure the world knew it. Just about every news service in the world had someone at Cape Canaveral that morning to watch Vanguard rise into the sky, and outshine Sputnik.

Two seconds after liftoff, after reaching an altitude of roughly four feet, the rocket failed, and collapsed to the ground. As embarrassing as the Sputnik launch had been, this was a complete humiliation. Given that the United States had been touting Vanguard as proof of its technical prowess, the very public and very complete failure of the launch vehicle made the United States an international laughing stock.

Vanguard blows up

If Vanguard hadn’t had so much hype, the launch would have received little notice, and might have been written off as just another missile test. Several newspapers dubbed the launch “Kaputnik.” A short time later, as a cruel joke, the Soviet Union asked the United Nations to see if the United States qualified for international relief funds allocated to “underdeveloped nations.”

The United States did successfully launch an artificial satellite in January, called Explorer 1, and the laughing died down. Explorer was launched with little or no fanfare, and wasn’t given any until after it was successfully in orbit. Furthermore, Explorer achieved more than earlier satellites, by performing a series of scientific experiments. The Explorer program confirmed the existence of the Van Allen belt, for example.

In a humorous twist, the Vanguard TV3 satellite itself was blown clear of the exploding rocket and was later recovered, with its transponder still working. An analysis of the damaged satellite resulted in several design revisions to both the satellite and the launch vehicle. Other satellites from the Vanguard series were later launched successfully and generally had good results. One of them, Vanguard 1, is still aloft, having logged over 50 years in orbit. The damaged TV3 satellite couldn’t be repaired, but is now on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum.

If there is a moral in this story, it’s that hubris is generally not a good thing, and that caution, prudence, and patience usually get better results. This is something that both the United States and the Russians have needed to be reminded of over the years.

Flight of the Buran

energiya-buran-launch
An artist’s portrayal of the Buran launch of November 15, 1988.

November 15 is the anniversary of one of the biggest “what if” stories in the history of space development. The exploits of the United States Columbia class space shuttle are well documented, but on this day in 1988, another contender appeared.

Under a veil of secrecy, the Soviet Union launched a re-useable launch vehicle of their own, called Buran (Snowstorm). On the surface, the resemblance to the United States counterpart is obvious, but the engineering was a bit different. For example, Buran did not have an on-board launch engine. Whereas the American shuttle carried a trio of heavy rocket engines that fed off an external fuel tank, the Buran orbiter was designed to ride as a side-mounted payload on a specially configured Energia booster. This would have given Buran a larger payload capacity than the Columbia class shuttle, but at the same time, Buran wouldn’t have had the orbital range of a Columbia. Buran would have been limited to low-earth orbit, which would have been fine for visiting Mir, or later the International Space Station. But something like the Hubble telescope, or any of the high orbiting communication or research satellites, places that the Columbia series did visit, would have been beyond Buran’s reach.

Another major difference with Buran was that the ship could be flown entirely by remote control. In fact, her one and only flight was handled entirely by ground control crew, and the flight was almost flawless. The idea was that Buran could be used both as a personnel transport module, and as a recoverable excursion module. There were some scientific and military missions planned for Buran, mostly in the area of materials engineering, where the orbiter would remain in orbit for several months while on-board computers conducted experiments on various materials. At the conclusion of the experiments, the orbiter would return to earth, loaded with samples.

The biggest difference with Buran was its overall modular design. The Columbia series had some modularity, but not to the same extent. The Buran program had specialized modules and components that could perform a wide variety of applications. All of the components used the same core specifications, making it possible to piece together a targeted spacecraft for almost any type of mission imaginable. It was a wonderful design, with a lot of potential.

Unfortunately, this versatile and modular design was perhaps it’s downfall. Many people have criticized the Columbia series for its extreme cost and sometimes unreliable performance. The big irony here is that the Columbia series had been optimized for cost efficiency! At one time, the Space Shuttle program was as extensive and ambitious as Buran, if not more so. But over time almost every optional feature was removed in the interest cost cutting. And even with all of the cost cutting measures, the Space Shuttle was never as cost effective as the designers had hoped. Many people have looked at the original specs and determined that given the available technology, the Shuttle would never have been economically viable.

Buran had the same problem, only more so. The Soviet Union, having a command driven economy, wasn’t as concerned with cost effectiveness as the United States, so it designed it’s shuttle program to full spec. When Buran made her first test flight in 1988, the system was taking shape at various facilities around the USSR. But the infrastructure, manpower, and supply requirements were turning out to be enormous! Even the most liberal of estimates were falling far short of what was actually going to be required. But the Russians soldiered on.

Sadly, by 1990 the shortfalls of the Soviet economy had become impossible to ignore, and Buran’s future looked bleak. Just about everyone in the USSR knew that things could not continue as they had been since the 1920’s, but no one yet knew what would emerge to replace the old system. There was hope that with proper planning the Buran program would continue, but it didn’t.

The USSR imploded in 1991, and the Russian Space Agency officially cancelled the Buran program in 1993. There are some who theorize that the extreme cost and breadth of the Buran program was a key cause in the Soviet Union’s collapse. I don’t know about that, but it certainly didn’t help.

Here is the most bitter pill of all. The USSR built their space shuttle program to full spec, and it proved too large and too expensive to maintain. The United States, meanwhile, built their program for cost efficiency, and ultimately it was still too large and expensive to maintain! Aerospace designers on both sides of the world have since concluded that the “reusable shuttle” concept was an unwise path from the beginning.

What makes Buran a big “what if” scenario are the events that followed. The orbiter itself was placed in a hanger near the Baikonur in Kazakhstan. At some point in the late 1990’s, when the space faring nations were planning what eventually became the International Space Station, there was a lot of exchange of ideas between the Russian and American aerospace designers. At one point, a handful of engineers from the Space Shuttle program examined the Buran orbiter, still languishing in its dusty hanger. They concluded that with a mechanical overhaul and an upgrade to the electrical system, the Buran could be made space worthy again. Given that heavy rockets capable of lifting the orbiter were still being built and used by the Russians, and the Americans had groups of technicians available to service shuttles of a very similar design, the necessary infrastructure and manpower was available. It would have taken some tinkering, but Buran could have been made operational for the building of the International Space Station.

It’s likely that the program would have eventually become unmanageable and out of date, much like the Space Shuttle program did. But it could have been made operational for a time, and during that time it would have been a boon. If the space faring community had access to another shuttle, the station could have been completed as much as three years earlier. Had that happened, many other options might now be available in the area of space development. If nothing else, the aerospace community would now have more experience with heavy lifting boosters and computer-based navigation. I suspect the cost of getting Buran operational again was too much for the coalition of nations to seriously consider, especially since (in theory) four space shuttles were already available.

When the fleet of operational shuttles went from four to three in February of 2003, it was too late. Buran’s life ended with a sad whimper. Poor maintenance of the hanger where she was stored caused it to collapse during a storm in 2002. Eight workers were killed, and the orbiter itself was destroyed.

The Russians are currently designing a new generation of Soyuz capsules for future applications, and some of the technologies developed for Buran are being re-visited. This is not unlike the Orion program, which incorporates many technologies from both the Space Shuttle program and the earlier Apollo program.

The legacy of Buran is still being written.

buran_landing

SSM module: Isadora

isadora

I have made a few modules for Space Station Manager, though it would be more accurate to call them hacks than modules. I wanted to experiment with different configurations of station, so I made up modules that handle resources differently than the standard ones.

One such module is the Isadora artisan studio. This module is based on an actual proposal by Brazilian artist and engineer, Ricky Seabra.

The basic idea is that Isadora is an art studio in outer space. It provides space for artisans in much the same way science modules provide space for scientists. Seabra is reported to have once asked “Why should scientists have all the fun?”

Why indeed?

Within the confines of this simulator, Isadora generates income from the production of high quality astronomy photographs and holograms, motion pictures, recordings of micro-gravity dance and gymnastics, and the production of micro-gravity sculpture. When artisans aren’t using the studio, it can also serve as a lounge for crew members, or as a destination for space tourists. It doesn’t generate as much income as a science module. But by the same token it doesn’t require as many resources to operate and maintain as a science module.

Within the simulation, Isadora looks like a standard module with sky-blue portals.

Requires: 2 energy, 1 cooling, 1 life support
Provides: 1 lab space, 4 credits

Isadora (Class: Commercial)

48 KB, ZIP Gaming Isadora module for Space Station Manager.

Columbia

OV-102 Columbia

First of the line…

Today is the anniversary of yet another dark day in space exploration. On this date in 2003, the space shuttle Columbia (OV-102) broke up during re-entry, killing all seven crew members. A hairline fracture in the leading edge of the port wing, caused by falling ice during the January 16th launch, allowed superheated plasma to enter the superstructure of the shuttle during re-entry, causing it to break up.

The names of her crew were Rick D. Husband, William McCool, Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan Ramon.

In contrast with the loss of Challenger, seventeen years earlier, my reaction to the loss of Columbia was one of outrage and anger. Columbia failed because of bad management and political inertia, things that were theoretically corrected after the Challenger accident. As I understand it, for almost the entire 16-day mission, mid-level engineers at NASA (and it’s contractors) were frantically trying to inform mission control about possible damage to the orbiter’s leading wing edge, and were trying to come up with alternatives, but to no avail. The high level executives at NASA were more concerned about their political positions and their professional reputations than with the welfare of the astronauts.

On top of this, the loss of Columbia showed that the Space Shuttle system, while an amazing piece of engineering, was a fundamentally flawed and unreliable system. There were just too many places where things could go wrong. In truth, many people, including many aerospace engineers who helped develop the system, had been saying this for a long time. Many have since stated that the space program should have chosen a different avenue back in the 1970s, and gone with something other than the shuttle.

The shuttle program is now finished, and at the moment, the United States is currently developing a replacement system. A lot of space development is now being handled by the private sector. This may actually turn out for the best, at least for now. Even so, I can’t help but be skeptical. But at the same time, I’m not hopeless.

I have one rather flippant question to pose. The worst accidents in the history of the United States space program have all taken place in late January. Why does NASA still launch manned vehicles during this time period?