Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO546.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 47KB

Date: Sat,  8 May 93 05:21:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 22:09:18 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
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.

        [e-mail]

        ASA BBS: [phone], 300/1200/2400 Baud

        or telephone the Society Recording at [phone] 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:

        [e-mail]
        or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
        or - [e-mail]
        or - [e-mail]

        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 [phone].

        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: [phone]
        Fax:       [phone]

    Internet Address:  [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]

        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:  [e-mail]


             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:  [e-mail]


                           GRAND CANYON STAR PARTY

        Courtesy of Paul Dickson ([e-mail]),
        Editor of the Saguaro Astronomy Club's newsletter, SACNews,

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 546
------------------------------