Conference 7.286::space

    Space fighter? Could be, but its more likely to be combined DoD
    and AW&ST paranoia.
    
    Anyone recall when Cosmos 1267 docked with Salyut 6 and the DoD
    described it as  "an antisatellite battle station equipped with
    clusters of infrared-homing guided interceptor that could destroy
    multiple US spacecraft"? AW&ST added  that "the podded miniature
    attack vehicles provide a new USSR capability for sneak attacks".
    
    Neither source said anything when it was later revealed to be almost
    identical to Cosmos 1443 and the podded attack vehicles were fuel
    tanks and associated plumbing.
    
    It may or may not be a space fighter, but DoD and AW&ST both have
    a vested interest in making it sound like a military threat.
    
    Personally, I think it will replace Soyuz, doing the same sort of
    things (crew rotation, short term orbital missions). I suspect the
    most expensive component of a Soyuz flight is the Soyuz itself so
    recovery would seem appealing. The ability to fly back to the
    Cosmodrome and not have to mount major recovery efforts must be
    even more appealing. There have been a couple of Soyuz flights where
    the cosmonauts had to endure the severe Russian winter weather for
    a day or so before thy could be rescued.
    
    gary

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation
Subject: Experimental NASA spacecraft resembles Soviet craft
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:48:27 GMT
  
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NASA has apparently taken a cue from the
Soviet space program in designing an experimental spacecraft, Aviation
Week and Space Technology reported Friday. 

	The HL-20 Personnel Launch System, a small, winged craft that
could ferry 10 astronauts at a time to and from a space station,
resembles a space plane the Soviets tested from 1982 to 1984, the
magazine reported in an issue to be released next week. 

	``Their work stimulated our interest,'' William Piland of
NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., told the magazine.
``We had a very keen interest in that configuration.'' 

	NASA has spent years ``gloating'' about the Soviet Buran spacecraft's 
striking similarity to NASA's space shuttle, the magazine said. 

	``I'm not aware of the U.S. ever designing one of its
spacecraft on a Soviet design,'' said Marcia Smith, a specialist in
aerospace policy for the Congressional Research Service, told United
Press International. 

	Piland noted, however, that the Soviet craft ``seems to have
evolved'' from U.S. designs, the magazine said. 

	NASA is exploring a variety of alternatives to the space shuttle 
that would allow the shuttle to be reserved for carrying large payloads. 

	A mock-up of the HL-20, built by North Carolina State
University, is 29 1/2 feet long and has a wingspan of 23 1/2 feet, the
magazine said. 

	The craft would weigh about 24,000 pounds and its wings could
be made to fold so it would fit in the space shuttle payload bay to
assure that crews could return to Earth from the space station if a
shuttle were unavailable, the magazine said. 

	It could also be used for missions to repair satellites or
rescue stranded space crews, it said. 

    re: last

    I guess in hypersonic flight, like music, what goes around comes
    around.  The HL-20 shape (based on a poor AP Laserphoto in the
    Worcester, Mass. newspaper; I haven't seen The Leak this week) seems to
    be related to the Soviet space vehicle tested in the mid-1980s, but
    that vehicle was heavily influenced by the pioneering and fruitful US
    research program in lifting bodies in the period 1955-70, the results
    of which are still valid and useful today.

    I guess you can't fault the Soviets for conserving their resources and
    allowing us to do their basic research for them, and then capitalizing
    in an area of flight vehicle design that we abandoned.  It's good to
    see that NASA is thinking about manned flight without the Shuttle; one
    only hopes the project can survive Gramm-Rudman and other funding
    problems.

The bit of trivia that I remember about lifting bodies is that Steve Austin,
a.k.a. the Six-million Dollar Man was supposed to have been in an HL-10 crash
even though the lifting body that was in the crash sequence was an M2.

As I recall, the HL-10 had three small vertical (more or less) fins while the
M2 had only two.  It was an HL-10 in the launch sequence, right?

Wook

  Maybe one fin fell off. Something caused the crash. :*)}

  "We'll rebuild him. We'll make him better than he was."

  George

And I always thought it was the X-15 that's hanging in National Air & Space
Museum in Washington, D.C.   :-)

...Roger...

    In the novelised versions of the Six Million Dollar Man, and also in
    the Martin Caidin "Cyborg" series, Steve Austin was flying a thing
    called an M3F5, or some such designation, when he crashed.
    
    Dave Hazel

Article: 68268
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Spiral spaceplane (was Re: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X...))
Organization: Motorola
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:56:33 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Net News)
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: 

>In <[email protected]>
>[email protected] (Dennis Newkirk) writes: 
>
>>"When the decision on the development of the Soviet aerospace system was 
>>made, the Molniya Scientific Production Association, which Lozino-
>>Lozhinskiy heads, proposed to take as a basis its "ancient" (13 years 
>>had been lost) Spiral design. However, it was rejected with a quite 
>>strange explanation: "This is not at all what the Americans are doing." " 
>>[Moscow KRASNAYA ZVEZDA (First edition) in Russian 31 Jul 91 p 4, [Article
>>by Colonel M. Rebrov "The Revolutions of 'Spiral'. A Biography and 
>>Portrait of the Chief Designer of the Buran Space Plane"] 
>>FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]
>
>>"[The Spiral] was very good project, but it was one more mistake of our 
>>government. They said Americans didn't have a space shuttle and we 
>>shouldn't have one [either] and it was destroyed. And then after you 
>>made your space shuttle, immediately they demanded a space shuttle. 
>>It was very crazy of our government."
>>[Interview with cosmonaut Georgi Grechko by Dennis Newkirk, 4/6/93] 
>
>So just what did 'Spiral' look like and why did it make sense where
>Buran/Shuttle do not?  Was it more like the original proposals for the
>Shuttle system?  Just where was it different?
 
What I write about below comes from several articles, and published
interviews with the designer, but should not be taken as the last word
about Spiral. Much more has been written and these are just the basics.
 
Spiral was started about 1962 after proceeding work by Korolev
Myashashev into cruise missiles/boost-glide and orbital
spaceplanes. Spiral was to be a X-20 size spaceplane. Different
booster configurations were considered including a Soyuz type
booster and air launch from a Mach ~5 aircraft (together called
project 50-50). Mig was to build the craft which measured 8 meters
long, 7.4 meters wide, 3.5 meters high and eventually weigh 
10,300 kg. The craft decended from the Lapot project of Korolev.
 
Work at Mig's special section at Dubna began in 1967 to build the
EPOS test vehicles. Some were 1/2 an 1/3 scale and designated
105.13 (hypersonic analog), 105.11 (sub-sonic atmospheric tests),
105.12 (supersonic tests). One of the Sprials unique features
was its wings were folded up nearly vertically until after
reentry when they would be folded down into a conventional 
delta-wing type aircraft configuration.
 
Its mission has never been explained fully but could have been a  
space bomber or recon platform, ASAT weapon or manned ABM interceptor,
or simpily an R&D project. By about 1969-70 wooden mockups were
rocket launched to evaluate some aerodynamics before burning up
on reentry. By 1976 the 105.11 was tested in flight several
times. It was equipped with a RD-36K jet and began take-off and
landing tests on its own. Later it was drop tested from a Tu-95K
bomber. By Sept. 1978 flights of the 105.11 ended when the craft
was damaged on landing. But by 1976 governmental support for the
project was fading and the shift to support for a Buran exceeded
Spiral support. Several test pilots had flown the craft by then. 
 
In the same period there have been reports of similar proposals
for space planes from NPO Lavochkin, the Chelomei KB and Sukhio's
T-100/101 plane has been reportedly tied to work on an air launcher
for a space plane.
 
The MiG special branch working on Spiral was transformed into the
Molnyia NPO which later built the Buran orbiters. To save time they
used the Spiral design in the Kosmos spaceplanes launched in the
1980's (BOR-4) to test the Buran thermal protection system. The 
design was also used by NASA Langely in their recent HL-20 project. 
NASA claims it really originated the design but declines to explain
just how they did this when the Soviets began flying their design
in the late 1960's and Korolev's preliminary design of early 1960's
was apparently used as the basis for Spiral. 
 
The 105.11 prototype is on display at the Air Force museum in Monino. 
It's usually over looked, but many photos have been published over 
the last few years in Spaceflight, Av. Week and Aerospace America
and more in Russia.
 
Dennis Newkirk ([email protected])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL