Soviet Imagery Intelligence - 1962-1971
USE OF THE A-l AND A-2 LAUNCH VEHICLES FOR MILITARY
RECOVERABLE OBSERVATION MISSIONS
Had the Russians not stopped flying in 1971 their FOBS and their interceptors, these might have become the central, dominant part of the program, with degrees of escalation of rivalry which are almost better not contemplated. The many other uses have important contributions in toto. But the commitment of resources to large payloads of which the A-2 in particular is able to put up, and the fact that there are more of these flights each year than in any other category makes them very important.
Analysis of these flights has taken much time, which is commensurate with their importance. The world leader in such work, as far as the public domain is concerned, is Geoffrey E. Perry whose name has come up in many other contexts in this study. Because his original international reputation was built on his ability to understand the variations in these Kosmos flights, he has been invited to make some direct contributions to this study, and two of these are offered as annexes to this chapter (as well as an additional study as an annex to a different chapter). The Kettering work grew out of observations of the Doppler shift of frequencies received from Soviet satellites as an instructional aid to the teaching of physics. The continuing work over lunch hours provided unconscious training in the "scientific method" to successive generations of pupils, some of whom are named in the annexes to this chapter for their specific contributions.
Many Soviet military observation recoverable flights whose prime purpose is believed to be photographic reconnaissance, although other military data gathering and a variety of supplemental payloads may also be carried. Not unexpectedly for a large and high priority program, the Russians have lavished considerable attention on improving both hardware and flight operations. The Russians have barely acknowledged the program even exists, and then only obliquely; hence, it is not easy to understand everything about its character and subtleties. These individual flights can be sorted by year, by major hardware generations, by possible camera resolutions, and by telemetry patterns and recovery beacons, with further indications about supplemental payloads or experiments where known or suspected. The duration of each flight until it was recalled to Soviet territory for recovery, or showing it was exploded if recovery seemed doubtful.
The choice of the A-l and A-2 launch vehicles often matches the particular inclinations reported by the Russians and hence is another way of identifying some launch vehicles beyond the usual methods of making observations visually and by radar of the final stage in orbit.
1. Flight Durations
While during the first year, the average duration of flights was 4.6 days, this quickly stabilized for the next seven years at about 8 days. Then 12 and 13 day flights were phased in, and the average for all the more recent years has been around 12 days. A few flights stay up 14 days. Those brought back in shorter times in a few cases may reflect malfunctioning equipment, but more often seem to be associated with crisis situations where a quick look for order of battle makes it more important to have pictures in hand than to obtain maximum use from the payload. As explained earlier, if it is impossible to orient the flight for recovery or if retrofire fails, the payload is exploded to prevent its random decay in some place outside Soviet territory in nearly intact form.
2. Launch Sites
From 1962 on, flights have come from Tyuratam, and in 1966 Plesetsk was also brought into use, now being the more commonly used of the two sites. No obvious reason is evident, nor is there any regular pattern visible in the switch of launches back and forth between the two sites.
3. Inclinations
Tyuratam alone is used to send flights to inclinations around 52 degrees. Plesetsk alone is used to send flights to about 81 degrees. Now both sites come close to duplicating each other's coverage in the range from 62 to 73 degrees. .
Usually a pair of flights is sent each spring to about 81 degrees latitude, presumably to give coverage of the ice movement along the Northern Seas Route across the top of Eurasia . The Kettering Group has also demonstrated that sending summer flights at about 52 degrees will give some twice-daily coverage of northern hemisphere target areas of interest, during good daylight hours. (40)
Some of the other reasons for choice of inclination are to cover areas of interest either as soon as possible after launch, or with the right lighting conditions, or to be timed to match some ground event.
The immediately preceding table (6-13) showed that some of the slight differences in inclinations that are similar can be correlated with use of either the A-l or the A-2 launch vehicle. One can imagine that perhaps with a pair of launch pads at a given site, originally both intended for the A-l vehicle, that one was adapted first for use with the taller A-2 rocket, by adding extra service platforms at greater height, and this shift to a particular pad then showed up for a time in the inclinations attained because of the guidance techniques used during the launch phase. Later, the second pad was also adjusted, as the last of the A-l's was withdrawn from that part of the program, again reflected in inclinations as the A-2's came into greater use.
4. Altitudes of the Flights
These summary tables did not include information on the altitudes of the flights, which details 'are carried, however, in Appendix A, the master log of all flights. One reason is that there seems no discernible pattern that ties variations in altitude to camera systems or stay time in orbit. Apogees have ranged from 236 kilometers to 415 kilometers, with 300 to 350 probably most typical. Perigees have ranged from 147 kilometers to 298 kilometers with 200 to 210 probably most typical.
The later generation maneuverable satellites now sometimes lower their perigees during flight which may be to improve resolution, and may require additional maneuvers to maintain the flight for its full length.
A probable reason for some differences in altitude is to supplement variations in flight inclination as a way of producing a ground trace which will pass close to targets of interest for observation.
5. Identification of Variants
The separation between the first and second generation flights was possible because the A-2 rocket is about three times as long as that of the A-l when this final stage is discarded in orbit. Optically, the difference in stellar magnitude makes it possible to distinguish the two
sizes, and radar analysis provides more specific measurements. (41) The inference has been that the second generation payloads which are put up by a more powerful upper stage probably have an improved camera system that would permit higher resolution pictures.
Among the second generation A-2 flights, two telemetry modes appeared, and the flights were intermixed. The tentative assumption was that there might be two different degrees of resolution, with perhaps the simpler camera systems leaving weight and space over for carrying other sensors to permit synoptic measurements of military interest. This hypothesis which at first was hard to prove from public evidence in time received added support when the third generation flights appeared. There were similar differences and cross links in telemetry patterns suggesting a continuity of function, and the third generation flights definitely could be sorted into maneuvering and non-maneuvering payloads, strengthening the implication that fine maneuvers were to position high resolution cameras, while absence
of maneuver was more likely to mean wider area coverage in search missions at lower resolution before the detailed study at high resolution.
As to the payloads themselves, they have not been put on display. >From the general launch patterns and orbital behavior, the assumption has been that the first and second generation military observation flights were probably using essentially the same system as Vostok/Voskhod, which even though manned, operated either automatically or by ground control, so that a minimum change in the hardware for the vehicle bus and service module would be required in moving from the manned program to the unmanned military flights.
What is less clear is whether the third generation flights which typically stay up 12 or 13 days also use Vostok/Voskhod hardware, or whether the program has graduated to Soyuz-related hardware. The advantage of the Soyuz system would be greater ability to maneuver, and the development of some lift during the reentry phase, because of the change of shape of the reentry body. Since many of the third generation payloads cast loose a "capsule" (to use the RAE terminology), this may represent either a modification of the work compartment carried by Soyuz or more specialized hardware that fits in the same place. There have been no confirmed reports of gull-like solar panels on these third generation flights, so they may use chemical batteries as do the manned Soyuz ferry craft of the present period. However Geoffrey Perry and David Hawkins observed Kosmos 599 to be brighter than most earlier satellites of the recoverable series.
The first generation flights seemed to have only one basic family. The second generation flights had two basic types, of differing resolutions. All three of these families might on occasion carry a supplemental scientific or technical experiment. But the third generation flights have proliferated into at least five major families or subgroups, and a few additional flights either are anomalous or contradictory, and not enough evidence has been gathered to supply an adequate interpretation of the reasons for their differences.
While the third generation flights use the A-2 and may use a modified Soyuz, the identification of types can be approached several ways. General tracking evidence reveals whether or not they maneuver, and whether or not they cast loose late in the flight a portion of the payload which usually in a few days decays without any attempt at recovery in the Soviet Union . As suggested, maneuvering ships are more likely high resolution systems.
A second approach to sorting out the types relates to the frequencies on which they send back telemetry. A third approach has to do with the signal formats of the telemetry. A fourth approach relates to the recovery beacon code. Because data are not always available in the public domain in every one of these categories, it requires combining as many as possible and in most cases like identification from a partial fingerprint, it is possible to get a fairly positive identification of the mission. When a particular flight is anomalous in some degree, one has to ask whether data are being misinterpreted, or whether there has been a partial flight failure, or whether still another new variant has appeared on the scene.
On the basis of these several indicators, the third generation flights seem to divide up as follows: (1) Those whose telemetry is usually of the PDM (pulse duration modulation) type, most typically broadcasting on 19.994 MHz, and whose recovery beacon is typically the Morse signal, "TG". These typically 12-day duration flights do not maneuver. If word 7 of the telemetry close to the time of launch is short, and suddenly lengthens, then the main satellite releases a supplemental payload toward the end of the flight, which supplemental payload decays in a few days. If word 7 is very long from the outset, there is not a supplemental payload separated. (2) Those whose telemetry is usually of "Morse code" in a series of three "letters" which actually are quantitative data in binary form, and these most typically broadcast in 19.150 MHz, and their recovery beacons send back the Morse letters "TK", either on 19.995 or 20.005 MHz. These flights maneuver, and cast loose the maneuvering engine late in the flight which usually last 13 days. These flights have now been phased out. (3) Those which emit two-tone signals on about 19.989 MHz, but have no detectable telemetry at this frequency. When these are recovered, their beacon broadcasts the letters "TF". These flights maneuver, and typically last 13 days. An additional class are flights which also use two-tone signals without telemetry, but do not maneuver. They broadcast on 19.994 MHz like the PDM flights and have a TL recovery beacon. They cast loose an object toward the end of the flight, so the assumption is they are low resolution with some kind of science payload.
Every PDM payload which separated a pickaback with a Kosmos number up through all of the 400 series has subsequently been identified by the Russians as conducting scientific work, but all such numbered 500 and above have not. Of the two-tone, non-maneuvering flights using the PDM frequency, and casting loose a pickaback, the first was Kosmos 470, and it has not been identified by the Russians as doing scientific work; nor have they identified any others of this subset with numbers above 500 as 'doing scientific work.
Finally, there have been a few flights, not yet well enough understood to label conclusively, which fit classes listed above, but they seem to have associated with them during the flight "TK" signals as if they were about to be recovered, yet they fly on for their full appointed number of days. This raises the question of whether like Salyut 3 they are making an early return of a film carrying capsule which is recovered, in contrast to the pickabacks which are cast loose merely to decay through air drag. If this is so, it would make sense to permit a quick look at early coverage without terminating the whole mission which could continue for additional days to photograph other targets.
Three remaining observations: (1) A reminder that labeling a supplemental or pickaback "scientific" in the context of these flights is only to reflect the fact that for the first years after 1968 when such extra experiments appeared they were identified by the Russians as geophysical or biological. However, since mid-1972, not a single additional identification has been supplied, so the label may be a misnomer if their function has become military. (2) Flights identified on the basis of having a frequency of 19.994 or 19.995 MHz may suddenly switch to 19.989 or 19.990 MHz to clear the first frequency for a second launch which is about to go up before the former one has been recovered, so that identification of group by frequency requires finding the frequency at the right time during the flight before conclusions can be drawn about categorizing the mission. And (3), a word about two main families of supplemental experiments: From the earliest days of the military observation recoverable flights, a number of them carried extra experiments, but cast loose no pickaback. Presumably, if these were using the Vostok/Voskhod hardware, the experiment was probably contained within the recoverable cabin. Today, most but not all supplemental experiments seem to be linked with a separate compartment which is cast loose, and this is a factor strengthening the notion that the Soyuz hardware is being used, but this is anything but conclusive. Even now, some supplemental experiments may be carried by the same third generation hardware which may be Soyuz related, and yet what most often is cast loose is a maneuvering engine. This suggests that as with the early flights, the supplemental experiments are returned to Earth in the main cabin, rather than cast off in orbit to decay through air drag. However, these interpretations are only speculative.References:
A. SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS, 1971-75, OVERVIEW, FACILITIES AND HARDWARE MANNED AND UNMANNED FLIGHT PROGRAMS, BIOASTRONAUTICS CIVIL AND MILITARY APPLICATIONS PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE PLANS, STAFF REPORT , THE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE .SCIENCES, UNITED STATES SENATE, BY THE SCIENCE POLICY RESEARCH DIVISION CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, VOLUME – I, AUGUST 30, 1976, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1976,
11. Kondrat'yev. K. Ya. Earthly concerns of the cosmos, Komsomol'skaya Pravda, Moscow , December 23, 1967 , p. 4.
12. Khozin, Major G. Second generation of space spies. Aviatslya i Kosmonavtika, Moscow , No. 7, 1968, pp. 91-92.
13. Borisov, T. Space reconnaissance, Trud, Moscow , September 25, 1969 , p. 3.
14. Moscow Radio, July 14, 1970 , 1900 GMT.
40. Perry, G. B., Spaceflight, London , 14 May 1972 , p. 184.
41. Pilkington, J. A., Flight International. London , 86 October 1, 1964 , 605-607.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
