Date: Sat, 8 May 93 05:21:06 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #546 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 8 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 546 Today's Topics: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - May 1993 [Part 1] Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 22:09:18 GMT From: Larry Klaes Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - May 1993 [Part 1] Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.sci.planetary THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC Volume 4, Number 10 - May 1993 ########################### TABLE OF CONTENTS ########################### * ASA Membership and Article Submission Information * Fade to White: The Loss of the Night Sky - Robert Bunge * Recent Soviet Lunar and Planetary Program Revelations - Andrew J. LePage * Grand Canyon Star Party - Courtesy of Paul Dickson ########################### ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated. The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space exploration, as well as the social and educational needs of its members. ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in astronomy and space exploration. Members receive the Journal of the ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail - Not a duplicate of this Electronic Journal) and the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine. Members may also purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY and SKY & TELESCOPE magazines. For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any of the following addresses: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA) P. O. Box 15038 Atlanta, Georgia 30333-9998 U.S.A. asa@chara.gsu.edu ASA BBS: (404) 321-5904, 300/1200/2400 Baud or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your address and/or receive the latest Society news. ASA Officers and Council - President - Eric Greene Vice President - Jeff Elledge Secretary - Ingrid Siegert-Tanghe Treasurer - Mike Burkhead Directors - Becky Long, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers Council - Bill Bagnuolo, Michele Bagnuolo, Don Barry, Bill Black, Mike Burkhead, Jeff Elledge, Frank Guyton, Larry Klaes, Ken Poshedly, Jim Rouse, Tano Scigliano, John Stauter, Wess Stuckey, Harry Taylor, Gary Thompson, Cindy Weaver, Bob Vickers ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration are most welcome. Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above Society addresses: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net You may also use the above addresses for EJASA back issue requests, letters to the editor, and ASA membership information. When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch. Back issues of the EJASA are also available from the ASA anonymous FTP site at chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29). Directory: /pub/ejasa DISCLAIMER Submissions are welcome for consideration. Articles submitted, unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated. Though the articles will not be used for profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other changes. Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is encouraged, provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s). Opinions expressed in the EJASA are those of the authors' and not necessarily those of the ASA. This Journal is Copyright (c) 1993 by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated. FADE TO WHITE: THE LOSS OF THE NIGHT SKY by Robert Bunge This article originally appeared in the November/December 1992 issue of STAR DATE magazine, published by the University of Texas at Austin McDonald Observatory. Reproduced here with permission. Readers are encouraged to circulate this article far and wide as long as this disclaimer stays attached to it. For a copy of the November/December 1992 issue of STAR DATE, send $3.00 to STAR DATE, 2601 University, Room 102, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A., or telephone (512) 471-5285. It would be hard to image in today's economy that a business, say a restaurant, would, before closing up for the night, have an employee walk around and turn on all of the water faucets. Over the course of each night thousands of gallons of water would gush down the drain - all of it expensive, treated water - wasted. It would also be hard to image a homeowner on a cold winter morning carefully walking through their house, opening each window before heading to work. During the course of the day the furnace runs, burning cubic yards of natural gas - all of it an expensive and not easily replaced natural resource - wasted. It is not hard to image, even in today's economy, that the builder of a new office building would not spend thousands of dollars to install a lighting system to protect the parking lot of the building. Each night, the lights turn on and stay lit until morning, even though at three a.m. there is not an automobile to be seen. Nonetheless, the lighting of the parking lot is accepted without question, even though it costs hundreds if not more than one thousand dollars to operate the lights. It is not hard to image a homeowner going to a local hardware or discount store. Worried about rising crime rates, the owner buys the biggest and brightest all-night "security" light for $29.95. From dusk until dawn, the faithful light "protects" their property - at the tune of roughly seventy dollars each year. Nevertheless, the light is accepted as an improvement, even though it does emit a lot of glare and can be uncomfortable to live near. While the first two scenarios sound outrageous, and certainly it would be amazing to find a person who left their windows open during the winter, the last two stories are accepted practice. Hundreds of thousands of office buildings are lit at night. Millions of homes have security lights hanging above their garages. But in reality the differences are not so great. The vast majority of security lighting used in the United States is incredibly wasteful. David Crawford, Executive Director of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), an organization that encourages quality lighting, estimates that more than one billion dollars are wasted each year in the United States. This amounts to staggering amounts of fossil fuels that are burned for no use whatsoever. "It's easy to estimate - and one of our handouts does it - we spend way more than one billion dollars a year in the United States alone, doing nothing except lighting the bottoms of birds. I think that is intolerable," says Crawford. If you own or rent a security light, take a minute to look at it. Does the lamp - the part that actually produces the light - stick down below the cover over the light? If it does, then you may be wasting light - and money. What we are talking about here is light pollution - the unnecessary use of light. The root cause of light pollution is decades of cheap electrical power combined with the natural human need to feel safe at night. The effect is the destruction of the night sky and the loss of an important part of our folklore, the historical sense of who we are in this Universe. Another, more "down-to-Earth" effect of light pollution is an incredible waste of money and natural resources. There are many different types of light pollution, from a downtown building lit to attract attention to a $29.95 175-watt mercury vapor security light that is sold at almost any hardware store. However, any time light is allowed to escape - a word chosen carefully - into the night sky, light pollution is the result. That escaped light travels upwards in the atmosphere until at some point it is reflected back toward the ground by tiny particles of dust floating in the air. We see this as a brightening of the sky. Faint stars are overwhelmed by the glow. From the country, our cities can be seen from 48 kilo- meters (thirty miles) away by the glow that hovers above them. Light pollution prevents people living in our cities from seeing all but the brightest stars and planets. From the country, brightly lit cities cause "skyglow," a term that astronomers use to describe the brightening that occurs in the direction of a city. Inside the city, children can spend their entire lives unaware of the Universe around them. From the country, telescopes at observatories perform at only a fraction of their true capability. For years, astronomers have been locating their telescopes on mountain summits that are more and more isolated in an effort to avoid the lights of humanity. However, what happens when you run out of mountains or you can no longer afford to build a new observatory? What about the hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers? What about the millions of children who are deprived a very important part of nature, a part of their own culture as well as a looking glass into the past and future? Light pollution is a true threat to astronomy. From the professional end, telescopes cannot collect data as well as in the past. Multi-billion dollar facilities - like the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) located on Kitt Peak in Arizona - are becoming more and more useless as the sky gets brighter. In one case, the Mount Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles, California, the historic 250-centimeter (100-inch) Hooker telescope - the very instrument used by Edwin Hubble to discover the expanding Universe - has been shut down and put into mothballs after becoming useless for many types of research because of light pollution. In the cities, more and more of our youth never learn even the basics about the sky. It is hard to become interested in astronomy if all you can see are the Moon and a few bright stars and planets. While many children do not grow up to become professional astronomers, star gazing is more often than not a child's first introduction to science. Who cannot remember that camping trip as a child when you first discovered the thousands of stars that hang in the sky? Many of the children who have such experiences often grow up to be scientists of one sort or another. While light pollution has been around since the early Twentieth Century - if not before - today's climate of rising crime and aggressive sales on the part of electric companies and lighting manufacturers have caused light pollution to be worse than ever. For all practical purposes, there is not one single spot in the United States east of the Mississippi River than is not affected. From satellite photographs it is possible to trace the Interstate Freeway system across the country. Affluent amateur astronomers pack away on "observing vacations" to dark sky locations on the highest Rocky Mountains, Hawaii, Australia, and South America. Meanwhile, disadvan- taged children are forced to retreat - if they are lucky enough - to the dome of a planetarium to see what their ancestors took for granted. There is a "dark spot" at the end of the tunnel, though. Things are slowly turning around. IDA, under the direction of Crawford and amateur astronomer Tim Hunter, are organizing various communities involved in the fight against light pollution into a force to be reckoned with. It is not too surprising that these communities include more than just the astronomers. "Professional lighting engineers know that there is a lot of bad lighting out there," says Crawford in regard to IDA members who light for a living. "We also have lighting companies, universities, observatories, astronomy clubs, people from the general public who have happened to hear about (light pollution) and are tired of their neighbor's bad light or recognize that the sky up there used to be okay and they are just tired of living in this junky nighttime environment." Others include environmentalists, naturalists who see overzealous night time lighting affecting animal and plant populations, and community planners who are interested in attracting people to their communities with good lighting. The primary focus of IDA's efforts is to encourage good lighting, not the turning off of lights. "We don't want to turn the lights off," Crawford says. "We advocate the use of better fixtures that put the light were it's needed. That helps save the sky, saves money and makes for a better night time environment." Better lighting can be accomplished by any one or combinations of several approaches: * Shielding: Perhaps the easiest and most effective use of good lighting. In the lingo of a lighting consultant, fixtures that do not allow light to escape upward are called "full cutoff fixtures." This approach is rooted in basic common sense: Put the light were you need it. By reflecting all of the light toward the ground, a lower wattage bulb or lamp can be used, saving the user money. Perhaps the most common type of fixture is called the Cobra Head. These lights, shaped like the head of the namesake reptile, allow up to twenty percent or more of their light to escape sideways or upwards. Their glare can also be painful to look at. Better lights are the "shoebox" fixtures which are slowly becoming more popular. These normally dark brown, box-like lights direct almost all of the lumination downward but still provide a coverage pattern that allows them to be used along city streets. * The right type of lamp: The most efficient type of outdoor light are called Low Pressure Sodium lamps, LPS for short. LPS can be identified from their much more common, but not as efficient, cousins, High Pressure Sodium lamps (HPS) by their deep yellow or dark orange color. By contrast, HPS tends to look pink or light orange to most people. However, LPS lamps, unlike HPS, emit only yellow light - meaning that they are monochromatic - making it harder to see different colors when you stand under them. Thus, it makes sense to use LPS in situations - like all-night security lighting along a campus or city walkway - where it is not necessary to be able to see different colors. * Effective use of lighting: All too often, homespun or even municipal lighting is poorly designed and used in a shoddy fashion without much thought given as to its desired effect. The results of this are seen along glary, even dangerous roads and highways on rainy nights. They may also be found along brightly - often too bright - lit suburban roads were the glare from poorly shielded cobra head fixtures cause the environment to be unattractive and even trashy. Again, the main point is simple: Put the light were you need it! The remedies are simple: Use glare-free full cutoff fixtures, pick the best and most efficient light source for the job, and hire a quality light designer or consultant who is knowledgeable about light pollution and cares about good lighting - not a fast buck and $29.95 light fixtures. While astronomers - both professional and amateur - are interested in seeing more people and cities use low pressure sodium lighting, because they can filter out the yellow light without affecting the data they collect, Crawford and IDA suggests that a good solution is to push for full cutoff fixtures and better education. Nonetheless, LPS should be attractive to homeowner and cities alike because of its affordability. A large city - one with 30,000 or more street lights - will save over three million dollars each year after changing from HPS to LPS. In addition to saving money, an aggressive updating of street lighting will result in more savings as old mercury vapor lights are exchanged and unshielded lights are replaced by full cutoff fixtures. A typical town street in the United States is lit with a string of 200-watt High Pressure Sodium lamps. The HPS lamps, which each produce an average of 19,800 lumens - a measure of the amount of light - can be replaced with 135-watt LPS lamps that produce an average of 22,500 lumens. For each new LPS lamp installed, an average of 271 kilowatt-hours of electricity are saved and more light is aimed at the ground. In a similar fashion, a homeowner can switch their 150-watt incandescent porch light to an 18-watt LPS light and save close to forty dollars per year, meaning that the 100 dollars or so cost of changing the light is paid back in just two years. Perhaps the biggest drawback to LPS is that it is hard to find. Unless you live in an area where it is already in use - many U.S. West Coast and Arizona cities and towns - it can be hard to find in local lighting stores. Probably the best idea is to mail order lamps from lighting stores in Tucson, Arizona, where LPS is required by law. Even if LPS is rejected because of its monochromatic light, full cutoff fixtures represent a major improvement. Full cutoff fixtures are readily available across the U.S.. Even some hardware stores are starting to carry full cutoff security lights. If you have a choice, pick the right one! If you have an old-fashion 175-watt mercury vapor lamp in your backyard - and it is old fashioned, as many of these lights were designed in the 1930s - replace it with a full cutoff HPS fixture. However, even with the choices on the market today, it is still a matter of educating the people who light your streets, shopping malls, office complexes, and the house next door. And education may well be the most important key to bringing back the night sky. The primary reason to light the night is for security. We feel safer if we know that the area around our house or the streets that we walk on are lit. Even though there is little, if any, direct evidence to link a decrease in crime with an increase in lighting, there is no doubt that increased lighting makes us feel more secure. No one is asking that the lights be turned off, only that the light be used properly. Good lighting only makes sense. Aside from the efforts of groups like IDA, one of the best ways to educate people is for you to help out. From talking to that neighbor with a bad light, to passing a copy of this article to persons involved in the lighting of your streets, to giving a short presentation to your local officials, it is one of the best ways to educate. Our future is literally at stake. Sidebar 1 - Light Pollution Education: Getting Started If you are interested in improving the lighting in your area, perhaps the first thing to do is to join the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). They have a large collection of "information sheets" that are packed with lots of detail, ideas, and data. The IDA address is: International Dark-Sky Association Dave Crawford, Executive Director 3545 N. Stewart Tucson, Arizona 85716 U.S.A. Telephone: 602-325-9346 Fax: 602-325-9360 Internet Address: crawford@noao.edu or dcrawford@noao.edu This is important, for you will make a better spokesperson, information source, or speaker if you know more about the topic - light pollution - than anyone else there. Part of this process is learning your own area. Look around at night. Identify locations of good and bad lighting. Learn who is responsible and let them know - good or bad - that you have noticed. Learn who is responsible for designing the street lighting in your area. If you are the bashful type, send them copies of this article or IDA handouts. If you cannot see the stars at night, call up your local newspaper and talk to a reporter about it. Send them copies of IDA information sheets. Newspapers love to print human interest stories that can also affect public policy. If you are the outgoing type and enjoy a debate, contact a local talk-radio show host and convince them that light pollution needs to be discussed. "You have to learn who the people are in the local media. You have to learn the names of the people in the city who will be making decisions to allow such things to happen. And you have to get your input in. After all, you are citizens and you have as much a right as not to have that as the people who are doing the lighting," says Crawford. Arrange for talks at local groups, from the Boy Scouts to the Lions Club. Network and talk to people. Chances are that you know someone who is helping to set some sort of lighting policy somewhere. Do not be afraid to approach schools. Talking to school children will help insure that future generations will be sensitive to the issue of light pollution. At the least they will have heard of the issue. Sidebar 2 - Doing Good Lighting It might surprise many people as to how they can affect the growth of light pollution. From the lighting of your own home to the lighting of your work location to having a say about new street lights in your community, many everyday folks come into contact with the lighting of the night sky. More often than not, you can make a difference. One of the first things is to check out your own house. Replacing those incandescent porch lights with low pressure sodium can have an impact in your own community. If you are involved in a lighting project at home or work, where professional lighting designers/electricians are involved, make sure they are members of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES). While IES supports many of IDA's positions, be sure to quiz the designers on light pollution. In the best of worlds, do not hire them if they are not educated in this area. In a last resort, educate them yourself. Insist on good lighting. It might be tempting to buy those cheap fixtures now, but you will save money in the long run if you purchase good fixtures with the best source of light for the job. Encourage public officials to make wise choices in regards to night time lighting. Use LPS in full cutoff fixtures for street lighting. At least drum in the idea of full cutoff fixtures. Also encourage regulations controlling new lighting and requiring that billboards be lit from the top and that billboards and building lighting be turned off after midnight (12:00 a.m.). Sidebar 3 - Types of lamps and recommendations for their use: Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) - This is the most efficient type of light. However, because it is monochromatic, use where it is not necessary to see colors. Roadways, walkways, and some parking areas. Large outdoor areas needing security lighting. High Pressure Sodium (HPS) - Sports parks and Tennis courts. Security areas where color is needed. Some parking lots. Metal Halide (MH) - Display lighting where color rendering is critical. Some sports lighting. Mercury Vapor (M-V, or HG) - Not an energy efficient source: Not recommended. If color is needed, use MH or HPS instead. Incandescent, including quartz - Not energy efficient, but okay for low wattage applications. Good for infrared motion detector security lights that need to turn on quickly. Timers - These are good for many applications, like billboards, decorative lighting of buildings, and outdoor scenes and some porch lighting. A source for LPS fixtures: Telephone The Ecology Store at (602) 327-3235 and ask for a copy of their catalogue or talk to one of their consultants. Related EJASA Articles - "Stopping Space and Light Pollution", by Larry Klaes and Phil Karn - September 1989 "When the Light Gets in Your Eyes, You Shouldn't Have to Drive to the Country", by James Smith and Ken Poshedly - February 1991 "Curbing Light Pollution in Ohio", by Robert Bunge - June 1991 "Street Lights: The Real Cost", by Steve and Stephanie Binkley - August 1991 "The Battle Against Light Pollution in Central Ohio", by Earl W. Phillips, Jr. - September 1991 About the Author - Robert Bunge is an amateur astronomer who has been involved in educating the public about light pollution for the past several years. Robert is the author of the following EJASA articles: "Stephan's Quintet" - February 1991 "Curbing Light Pollution in Ohio" - June 1991 "How to Make a High-Quality Fifty-Millimeter Finderscope" - December 1991 Robert's Internet address is: rbunge@access.digex.com RECENT SOVIET LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAM REVELATIONS by Andrew J. LePage As has happened so many times in the past couple of years, as soon as I write an article on the former Soviet space program, new and exciting information comes to light. In recent months, new information on the early days of the Soviet lunar and planetary exploration program has become available. One of the reasons I have not published the next part of my recent "The Great Moon Race" series in the EJASA is that I have been waiting for the dust to settle somewhat from the most recent flurry of revelations to come out of Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. While the next installment in this series is still several months away, I have had enough time to digest the new information to summarize the Soviet attempts to explore the Moon, Venus, and Mars during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Early LUNA Missions Since writing the article, "The Great Moon Race: In the Beginning...", much new information on the early LUNA missions has become available. No information has come to light on the possible unsuccessful launches of May 1 and June 25, 1958, identified by Western intelligence sources. However, there is new information regarding the attempt made on September 23, 1958. This first acknowledged launch took place on the afternoon of that day, but failed when the VOSTOK launch vehicle broke up after ninety-two seconds of flight. The second presently acknowledged LUNA launch attempt occurred on the morning of October 12, 1958, just hours after the launch of the American lunar probe PIONEER 1. The Soviet Chief Designer, Sergei Korolov, determined that a probe launched at that time would just beat the American craft to the Moon. As it turned out, the VOSTOK booster for this mission broke up just one minute and forty seconds into the flight. An investigation of these two failures concluded that the addition of the Block E escape stage to the basic R-7 rocket shifted the launch vehicle's center of gravity in such a way that violent resonant vibrations would occur after 1.5 minutes of flight, literally shaking the ascending rocket to pieces. No mention is made of a possible November 15, 1958 LUNA launch. The next admitted attempt took place on December 4, just two days before the launch of PIONEER 2. This LUNA failed due to a malfunction in the core's RD-108 engine at four minutes and five seconds into the flight. The next attempt took place on January 2, 1959, with the launch of LUNA 1. There is as yet no mention of an alleged follow on attempt on January 9. The next launch attempt took place at some unspecified date that summer (possibly June 16). This probe failed because of a malfunction in the second stage's navigation system. The next attempt was LUNA 2, launched on September 12. After LUNA 2 successfully impacted the Moon, the Soviets turned their attention to LUNA 3-style missions. This program succeeded on the first try with the launch of LUNA 3 on October 4, 1959. Starting the day after LUNA's October 7 picture-taking session, attempts to transmit the images began. The first four transmissions were unsuccessful because of the large amounts of noise caused by LUNA 3's great distance from Earth. The first two images were finally returned on the fifth attempt when the probe was closer and after special measures were taken to minimize radio noise in the vicinity of the tracking station in the Crimea. In all, seventeen images of "rather satisfactory quality" were returned before LUNA 3 ceased to function. After this mission, at least two additional LUNA 3-type probes were constructed. They were designed to take higher resolution images at closer range than LUNA 3 and were fitted with more powerful transmitters to help improve the quality of the returned photographs. The first attempt was made on April 15, 1960. This mission was cut short when the Block E escape stage shut down too early, leaving the probe in a short-lived, highly elliptical Earth orbit. This was a fate similar to the early United States PIONEER probes. The last attempt was the most spectacular failure of all. This probe was rolled out onto the launch pad shortly after the failure of the April 15 LUNA probe. On the afternoon of April 16, the craft was launched and immediately ran into problems. The RD-107 engine of one of the four strap-on boosters failed to ignite. After struggling upwards 150 to 200 meters (500 to 650 feet), the VOSTOK launch vehicle finally started to tumble out of control with all four strap-on boosters breaking free of the core. Two of the boosters crashed and exploded near the launch pad. Another passed a mere 30 to 40 meters (100 to 130 feet) over the heads of some spectators located 1.5 kilometers (4,900 feet) from the pad. The rocket detonated on impact, shattering the windows of the MIK (Assembly and Test Building) for the VOSTOK. The core with the Block E escape stage and payload crashed into a small salt lake some 800 meters (0.5 mile) from the pad. This was the last Soviet LUNA mission until their landing program began. Early VENERA and MARS Missions The design work for the first Soviet interplanetary probes began just as the first unmanned flights to the Moon started in middle 1958. In August of 1959, the Applied Mathematics Division of the Mathe- matical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. released a report detailing the requirements to reach Venus and Mars. It was concluded that, using the 8K78 launch vehicle (now known as the MOLNIYA) then under development, a 500-kilogram (1100-pound) payload could be sent to Mars during the September of 1960 launch window and an 800-kilogram (1760-pound) payload could be sent to Venus in January of 1961. It has been recently revealed that only one launch attempt to Mars was made during the 1960 launch window. On October 14, 1960, a probe similar to VENERA 1 was launched with the intent of impacting on the Martian surface during the third week of May, 1961. Without a mid-course correction capability, however, the chances of an impact were slim. Only simple particle and fields instrumentation were carried and no camera was included in this payload. Unfortunately, this attempt reached a peak altitude of only 120 kilometers (74 miles) due to a failure of the turbopumps in the RD-461 engine in the new Block I stage. While more than one probe was probably prepared for launch, according to some sources this was the only launch attempt actually made during that time. Another launch failure on October 10 that was previously identified by Western intelligence as a Mars probe apparently had nothing to do with the MARS program, just as an October 24 launch failure and deadly explosion of an R-16 ICBM development flight was thought to be a Mars probe mission until being revealed as otherwise in 1989. Less than four months after their first attempt to launch a spacecraft to Mars, the Soviets were ready for the Venus launch window. The Type 1VA probes' mission was to, hopefully, impact on Venus. As with the first Mars probe, these probes carried no mid-course correction motor to negate any launch errors and fine-tune their aim, so an impact was unlikely. Still, just in case one of the probes chanced to be placed on a collision course with Venus, a small sphere designed to float in any Venusian ocean that might exist was carried containing a commemorative medal. This small sphere was placed behind a "thermal cover" to protect it during the descent through Venus' thick atmosphere. These Venus-bound craft were hurriedly constructed. Due to the tight schedule, many factory tests were not performed to save time. The first probe was launched on February 4, 1961. Due to a timer malfunction, the escape stage never ignited and stranded the Venus- probe-to-be in a low Earth orbit. This new satellite was called Tyazhyolyi Sputnik, or simply "Heavy Satellite". A second probe was successfully launched on February 12 and eventually named VENERA 1. Contact with VENERA 1 is now known to have been lost enroute to Venus "on the second million kilometers of its trajectory". The Next Round In 1961, S. P. Korolov, the Soviet Chief Spacecraft Designer, decided to use a single spacecraft design to explore Venus and Mars, since the next launch windows for those planets (August/September and October/November of 1962, respectively) were so close to each other. This design was simply called Object MV. It was to serve as *the* spacecraft design for all Venus missions for the next eleven years and all Mars missions into the middle 1960s. There were four variants of this design: The MV-1 had a launch mass of 948 kilograms (2,090 pounds) and was designed to land a probe on the surface of Venus. The 935-kilogram (2,060-pound) MV-2 was designed to flyby Venus. MV-3 and MV-4 were designed to go to Mars. The 1,042 kilogram (2,294 pound) MV-3 would deliver a lander to Mars while the MV-4, weighing 1,037 kilograms (2,283 pounds), would conduct a photographic flyby. As with the American SURVEYOR lunar lander, these spacecraft proved to be too heavy for the launch vehicles then available. A great deal of weight was shaved off the original designs, especially the Mars probes. Possibly as many as four of these new spacecraft were readied for the Venus window, but only three were actually launched. The first two, launched on August 25 and September 1, 1962, were Type 2MV-1 for landing on Venus, but they were stranded in Earth parking orbits due to failures in their escape stages. The third launch, on September 12, was for a Type 2MV-2 photographic flyby probe similar to MARS 1, but it too failed. Before the sting from these failures could wear off, the Mars launch window opened. The first probe was launched on October 24, 1962, and was left stranded in its parking orbit. The second probe was successfully launched on November 1 and became MARS 1. With a launch weight of 893.5 kilograms (1,967 pounds), this MV-4 type probe was about 144 kilograms (316 pounds) lighter than in its original design. The third probe, launched on November 4, failed to leave Earth orbit. No concrete information is available (yet!) on the mission of the two failed probes but it is quite likely one or both were of the MV-3 type designed to land on Mars. The Early ZOND Flights After this string of launch failures and with the early demise of MARS 1 before reaching its intended target, two new MV designs were developed. These probes, called ZOND, were stripped-down engineering test versions of the previous MV design. Two types of spacecraft were designed: ZOND A, with a launch mass of 800 kilograms (1,760 pounds) was equipped for a flyby of Venus. ZOND B weighed in at 996 kilograms (2,190 pounds) and would be targeted for a Mars flyby. The first of the ZOND missions, using a Type 3MV-1A probe, was to be launched towards the Moon to provide a test of vital flyby systems close to home. Launched on November 11, 1963, this first engineering test became the victim of an all too common experience of previous probes. The escape stage failed to operate and the probe, now called KOSMOS 21, was stranded in Earth orbit. The next batch of four Type 3MV-1A ZOND probes were meant for exploring Venus. The probes launched on February 19 and March 1, 1964, never even made it to Earth orbit. A third craft, launched on March 27, got stranded in its parking orbit and was named KOSMOS 27. The last, ZOND 1, weighing 825 kilograms (1,827 pounds), finally made it into a Venus-bound trajectory only to fail enroute. These are the only known flights of either original ZOND design. The next ZOND missions apparently made use of improved versions of the original MV design. The details of the late 1966 Mars window payloads are still hazy. While only ZOND 2 was actually launched towards Mars on November 30, 1964, at least one MV-4 flyby spacecraft carrying a photo-television and spectrometer package was scheduled to be launched to "complement" the payload of ZOND 2. While this is not quite yet proof, it strengthens the belief I have supported that ZOND 2 was a MV-3 type probe meant to land a package on the surface of Mars. The MV-4 type spacecraft that missed this launch window was eventually launched on July 18, 1965, as ZOND 3. This vehicle conducted a photographic flyby test of the Moon. During the next Venus launch window, four probes, two of each type, were prepared for launch. The first launched was a 3MV-2 spacecraft on November 12, 1965, named VENERA 2. The second, VENERA 3, was launched on November 16 and was a Type 3MV-1 lander. A third probe, also a Type 3MV-1 lander, was launched on November 23, but due to an escape stage failure, it was stranded in an Earth parking orbit and became KOSMOS 96. The fourth and last probe, a 3MV-2 flyby probe like VENERA 2, was launched on November 26 but failed to achieve Earth orbit. Later Mars and Venus Missions After five unsuccessful Mars and thirteen unsuccessful Venus missions, along with the death of Korolov in January of 1966, the Soviets changed their direction. All work on the planetary probes was transferred from the Korolov Design Bureau (then deeply involved in the Soviets' manned lunar landing mission development) to the Babakin Design Bureau. No more photographic missions to Venus would be attempted. Instead, all work in this area was directed towards preparing two highly modified MV-1 payloads, known as V-67, to land on Venus. Not much is still known about the direction of the MARS program at this time, but all further flights of MV-3 and MV-4 payloads were suspended. The American Mars probe, MARINER 4, probably dealt the Soviets a double blow: First, data returned from MARINER 4 in July of 1965 indicated that the Martian atmosphere was at least a factor of ten thinner than previously believed, making the MV-3 lander design useless. Second, the Soviets at the time had the mindset of "do it first or, if someone does it before you, do not do it at all". The fact that MARINER 4 succeeded in its photographic mission made flights of the MV-4 design politically unnecessary. Instead it appears that the Soviets began design work on a new and heavier spacecraft to be launched towards Mars using the new 8K82K or PROTON rocket vehicle. It has recently been revealed that the first pair of these spacecraft were launched towards Mars on March 27 and April 14, 1969. These probes were similar to MARS 2 and 3, launched in 1971, but did not carry landers like the failed KOSMOS 419, also launched in 1971. The 1969 probes were meant to be orbiters and would have beat the Americans to Martian orbit by two years. The Soviet craft would have also made the mission of MARINER 6 and 7 - scheduled for a late July and early August, 1969 flyby of Mars - look second- rate. Unfortunately, while the MOLNIYA had matured to the point where launch failures were relatively uncommon, the PROTON was still plagued with failures. Both new Mars probes failed to reach their Earth parking orbits due to the relatively new Soviet booster. Bibliography - Clark, Phillip, THE SOVIET MANNED SPACE PROGRAM, 1988 Harvey, Brian, RACE INTO SPACE, 1988 Hendrickx, Bart, "Correspondence: Soviet Mars Missions", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), March 1991 Klaes, Larry, "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), August 1990 LePage, Andrew J., "The Mystery of ZOND 2", JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY (JBIS), to be published. Lyssov, Yegov, "Correspondence: Soviet Moon Probes", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), August 1992 Lyssov, Yegov, "Correspondence: Soviet Moon Probes", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), October 1992 Pesavento, Peter, "Correspondence: Soviet Mars Mission Attempts", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), February 1993 Varfolomeyev, Timothy, "The Soviet Venus Programme", SPACEFLIGHT (BIS), February 1993 Related EJASA Articles - "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" by Larry Klaes - October 1989 "How True is Our Astronomical Knowledge? The Case of the Planets" by William G. Bagnuolo, Jr. - December 1989 "Mars 1994" by Andrew J. LePage - March 1990 "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part One" by Andrew J. LePage - December 1990 "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part Two" by Andrew J. LePage - January 1991 "The Mystery of ZOND 2" by Andrew J. LePage - April 1991 "The Great Moon Race: New Findings" by Andrew J. LePage - May 1991 "The Great Moon Race: In the Beginning..." by Andrew J. LePage - May 1992 "The Great Moon Race: The Commitment" by Andrew J. LePage - August 1992 "The Great Moon Race: The Long Road to Success" by Andrew J. LePage - September 1992 "The Soviets and Venus, Part 1" by Larry Klaes - February 1993 "The Soviets and Venus, Part 2" by Larry Klaes - March 1993 "The Soviets and Venus, Part 3" by Larry Klaes - April 1993 About the Author - Andrew J. LePage is a scientist at a small R&D company in the Boston, Massachusetts area involved in space science image and data analysis. He has written many articles on the history of spaceflight and astronomy over the past few years that have been published in many magazines throughout North America and Europe. Andrew has been a serious observer of the Soviet space program for over one dozen years. Andrew is the author of numerous articles in the EJASA, all of which may be found in the "Related EJASA Articles" section of this work. Andrew's Internet address is: lepage@bur.visidyne.com GRAND CANYON STAR PARTY Courtesy of Paul Dickson (Dickson@SYSTEM-M.AZ05.BULL.COM), Editor of the Saguaro Astronomy Club's newsletter, SACNews, ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 546 ------------------------------