Western Views - SL-16 The J-Vehicle
This was the first totally new launch vehicle to appear since Proton back in 1965. In 1979, when discussing the appearance of a new launch vehicle, now known as the F-2, Sheldon indicated that he would call the next completely new vehicle "J" having tentatively used "H" in speculating on the use of high energy propellants. (31)
Mention of a new medium-lift launch vehicle (MLLV) was made in the DOD's 1983 edition of Soviet Military Power which, in discussing the new launch facilities being built at Tyuratam to handle new generations of Soviet launch vehicles which would move from the developmental to the operational stage in the latter half of the decade, referred to "another somewhat smaller expendable booster." 32 A diagram comparing new U.S. and Soviet space launch vehicles estimated its payload capability as 13 tonnes to LEO, less than that of the D-vehicle, but approximately twice that of the A-vehicle. (33)
A new Soviet launch vehicle, "comparable in size with the USAF Titan 3D" was reported to be on the launch pad at Tyuratam, being prepared for its first flight, at the beginning of 1984. (34) It was said to employ some of the same booster stage hardware used in the much larger Saturn V-class launch vehicle, which was also on a pad awaiting its first launch. Analysts said that the smaller vehicle was much closer to a first launch than the larger one and could be used later to launch a piloted winged spaceplane that had already flown three times in an automated sub-scale mode.(35)
This assessment was repeated in the 1984 edition of Soviet Military Power, which revised the payload capability to something in excess of 15 tonnes and depicted a reusable spaceplane, under development, as one of its possible payloads. (36) The new MLLV was said to be "evidently designed for high launch rates." (37) An artist's impression shows the new MLLV and the new heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) erected on launch pads in the background as a Soviet space shuttle lifts-off. (38)
The three new launchers were reported to have coordinated designs to enable the same or similar propulsion stages to be used in all three programs and the Soviets were said to be "on the verge of flying liquid oxygen and hydrogen high-energy propulsion stages." (39)
One analyst speculated that the first stage of the MLLV is also used as a strap-on booster for the two larger launch vehicles and might also employ liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen as propellants. (40)
On June 21, 1985, U.S. Space Command's Space Surveillance Center catalogued three fragments in orbits with inclinations close to 64.5° and with periods of less than 90 minutes from which they decayed within a week. These were never acknowledged by the Soviets although they were shown to be consistent with a launch from Tyuratam on June 21. (41) Western analysts, on the alert for the appearance of the new MLLV, had entertained thoughts that Cosmos 1603 and Cosmos 1656, which had entered 102 min orbits at 71° inclination after maneuvering from a 51.6° parking orbit via an intermediate orbit at 66.6°, might have used such a vehicle, despite the obvious pointers to a Proton launch provided by the initial parking orbits. These fragments were much more promising in that the inclination was close to those chosen for the flight tests of all new vehicles launched from Tyuratam. (42)
When Cosmos 1697 went directly into the 102 minutes, 71° orbit four months later it was not unreasonable to suspect that it had been launched by the SL-X-16, also to be called the J-l. Cosmos 1714, at the end of the year, was intended for a similar orbit but was stranded in the transfer orbit when an engine failed to fire at apogee and circularize the orbit.
Optical observations by the Kettering Group revealed that the rocket of Cosmos 1697 was at least a stellar magnitude brighter than the payload, whereas payloads and rockets of Cosmos 1603 and Cosmos 1656 had been of equal brightness. This led them to the conclusion that Cosmos 1697 rocket was larger than the earlier two and prompted them to speculate that it was a test of a new launch vehicle.43 Their observations of Cosmos 1714, at stellar magnitude —1 convinced them that it remained attached to the rocket body. (44)
The MLLV was designated SL-X-16 in a diagram in the 1986 edition of Soviet Military Power, reproduced as figure 7. (45) The latest edition points out that the payload capability in excess of 15 tonnes "fills a gap in the [Soviet's] current space launch vehicle inventory for an economical means of launching medium-weight pay-loads." (46) It went on to report that the SL-X-16 had been flight-tested, placing at least three payloads into orbit, and would soon be fully operational. (47)
In reply to an inquiry, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) strongly hinted that the unannounced event and two Cosmos missions in 1985 were tests of the SL-X-16. (48)
Two launches in 1986 exhibited new variations. Cosmos 1767 flew at a 64.9° inclination at a height which suggested to some analysts that it was a photoreconnaissance payload. However, it made no in orbit maneuvers and decayed naturally over the South Indian Ocean after 17.5 days. The slow rate of decay suggested that it was quite dense, although visual observations by the Kettering Group showed it to be of the same stellar magnitude as a standard recoverable photographic reconnaissance Cosmos satellite.
Cosmos 1786, at the same inclination, had an otherwise unique orbit. If an apogee firing to circularize the orbit was planned and failed it would have still been a unique orbit. Nicholas Johnson draws attention to the fact that these two satellites and the unannounced event of 1985 were all launched at around the same time of day (as was Cosmos 1873 in the following year) and offers the suggestion that they were merely flight tests, unrelated to any specific program. (49)
Lieutenant General Perroots, Director of DIA, stated at a press conference in Washington, D.C., in November 1987, that "the SL-16 became operational about three months ago." (50) This would imply that the 10-tonne Cosmos 1871, in retrograde orbit, was the first operational launch as that far exceeds the retrograde-orbit payload capability of the A-l launch vehicle, the only Soviet launch vehicle to have been used for that purpose prior to that time.
References:
1. SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS: 1981-87, PILOTED SPACE ACTIVITIES, LAUNCH VEHICLES, LAUNCH SITES, AND TRACKING SUPPORT PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES SENATE, Part 1, MAY 1988, Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 1988
31. Sheldon, C.S., private communication to G.E. Perry, January 12, 1979.
32. Dept. of Defense. Soviet Military Power 1983. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
March 1983, p. 66.
33. Ibid., p. 68.
34. Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 9, 1984, p. 15.
35. Ibid.
36. VS. Dept. of Defense. Soviet Military Power 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., April 1984, p. 44.
37. Ibid., p. 45.
38. Ibid., pp. 102-103.
39. Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 12, 1984, p 111
40. Pariitt, J. Spaceflight, November 1984, p. 410.
41. The Royal Aircraft Establishment Table of Earth Satellites 1957-1986. London, 1987, p. 834.
42. The fragments were given an international designation by NORAD,'but tnis report does not count the "launch" in its tabular statistics since either it was a suborbital test that accidentally put fragments in orbit, or was an unsuccessful attempt to launch a payload.
43. White, M. Kettering Group Tech Memo: MW8601, October 1986. p. 4.
44. Ibid., p. 3.
45. U S. Dept. of Defense. Soviet Military Power 1986. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1986. p. 49.
46. U.S. Dept. of Defense. Soviet Military Power 1987. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1987. p. 54.
47. Ibid.
48. Letter to C. P. Vick from DIA Public Affairs, June 11, 1986.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
