"Soyuz" - "Apollo": docking of two systems. So similar and so different Soyuz and Apollo

Exactly 40 years ago, on July 17, 1975, a historic handshake took place in orbit. On this day, Soyuz-19, with a crew of Alexei Leonov and Valery Kubasov, docked with the Apollo spacecraft, which was carrying Thomas Stafford, Vance Brand and Donald Slayton.

The plan to launch a joint Soviet-American manned mission began to be developed in 1970. After a positive reaction from the authorities, an agreement was signed on the experimental flight Apollo - Soyuz in May 1972 (since Soyuz - Apollo sounds much simpler, I will stick to it).

The main difficulty on the mission's path was the incompatibility of the Soviet and American atmosphere. No, we are not talking about the atmosphere of freedom, but about the composition of the atmospheres on spaceships. The Apollo atmosphere consisted of pure oxygen, its pressure was 0.35 of Earth's. The atmosphere of the Soyuz was similar in composition and pressure to that of Earth. So it was impossible to simply knock and open the hatch - it was necessary to create a sealed docking compartment that would act as a decompression chamber.

As a result, a similar compartment was built: it weighed two tons and had a length of three meters and went into space along with Apollo.

The spaceships themselves also underwent certain modifications and were equipped with specially designed new docking nodes.

During the work, engineers had a number of quite unexpected questions, such as changing the composition of the material from which the suits of Soviet crews were made - because in an oxygen atmosphere it became a fire hazard.

The flight was preceded by joint training of the American and Soviet crews in the USSR and the USA.

Besides, Soviet Union conducted several test flights of a modified version of the Soyuz intended for the mission.

Both ships launched on July 15, 1975. I went first "Soyuz-19".

Behind him "Apollo".

The docking of the ships in orbit occurred on July 17, 1975.

Soon after the historic handshake, Leonov stunned the Americans with a proposal, in accordance with the good Russian tradition, to drink vodka (from tubes). They struggled for a long time, but then agreed. In the end, it all turned out to be a hoax, because the tubes contained borscht. When the Americans learned this, they were upset.

During their flight into orbit, the astronauts received a call from President Harrison Ford.

The joint flight of the two ships lasted 44 hours. On July 19, the spacecraft undocked, and Apollo was used in an experiment to create an artificial solar eclipse: it obscured the Sun, allowing the Soyuz crew to observe the solar corona.

After two orbits, another docking was made in order to better test the technology - but without the transfer of crews from ship to ship. After two more orbits, Soyuz and Apollo undocked for the last time.

Soyuz 19 landed on July 21, 1975. Apollo landed three days later on July 24, 1975. It really almost ended in tragedy. Due to an error by the crew, poisonous vapors of tetrakoskid dinitrogen, which was used as fuel in the ship's orientation system, began to be sucked into the capsule. On top of that, the capsule overturned during splashdown. After inhaling the fumes, Vance Brand lost consciousness, but the situation was saved by commander Thomas Stafford, who promptly pulled oxygen masks on everyone. As a result, the astronauts spent the next two weeks after landing in a hospital in Honolulu.

"Soyuz - Apollo" became last mission, which used the Apollo spacecraft. Soon after the completion of the flight, the conversion of NASA infrastructure for future ships began reusable. However, due to a number of delays and increasing costs of the program, the shuttles first went into space in 1981 - so the Americans did not fly into space for almost 6 years.

It is also interesting that Donald Slayton, for whom Soyuz-Apollo was the first and last flight into space, was one of the seven members of the very first American astronaut corps (the so-called Mercurian Seven) recruited back in 1959. Thus, it took him 16 years to finally go into space.

Apollo Soyuz model at the Smithsonian Museum

The Soyuz-Apollo flight is considered the informal end of the classical space race between the USSR and the USA. True, there were still ahead star Wars and a rather pointless attempt to create the Soviet Union's own reusable system as a response to the shuttle. The next joint manned missions took place only in the 1990s as part of the Mir - Shuttle program.

Ill.1. Artist's reconstruction - July 17 and 19, 1975: Apollo and Soyuz 19 docking in orbit during the joint ASPEC flight. From left to right: astronauts D. Slayton, T. Stafford and V. Brand, cosmonauts A. Leonov and V. Kubasov

1. Introduction

What is ASTP

Experimental flight "Apollo" - "Soyuz" (), English. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) is a joint flight program between the Soviet Soyuz-19 spacecraft and the American Apollo spacecraft.

The program was approved on May 24, 1972 Agreement between the USSR and the USA on cooperation in research and use outer space for peaceful purposes (hereinafter – abbreviations and emphases in quotations are made by the author):

- testing of elements of a compatible in-orbit rendezvous system;
- testing of active-passive docking units;
- checking technology and equipment to ensure the transition of astronauts from ship to ship;
- accumulation of experience in conducting joint flights spaceships USSR and USA.

1975: There is faith in the honesty of partners - there is no room for doubt

In July 1975, the press wrote widely about the joint flight of manned spacecraft of the two, then the only space powers (Fig. 1). On July 15, 1975, Soyuz-19 launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome (A. Leonov - commander and on board - engineer V. Kubasov). After 4 hours from the cosmodrome. Kennedy (Florida) launched Apollo (T. Stafford - commander, V. Brandt and D. Slayton). The ships docked twice: on July 17 and July 19. Astronauts and cosmonauts visited each other. Several joint experiments were carried out in space. On July 19, the ships undocked and soon returned to Earth to their assigned areas (“Soyuz-19” - July 21, “Apollo” - July 24). This is the official version of the flight.

Ill.2. Pages of Soviet newspapers dedicated to the ASTP flight on July 15 and 18, 1975

It seemed that this flight marked the beginning of new friendly relations between the great powers. Take a look at the “caps” from Soviet newspapers (ill. 2): “ Good wishes...”, “Orbit of cooperation”, “Historic handshake”. And the author, then still a young specialist, sincerely believed in everything that the newspapers wrote about this flight. Yes, and how can you not believe it? If there was a stream solemn congratulations such leading politicians as US President D. Ford, Soviet Secretary General L. Brezhnev, UN Secretary General K. Waldheim and others.

Note 1: According to NASA, the Apollo that participated in the ASTP experiment did not have its own serial number. Therefore, in cases where there is a risk of confusing the Apollo we are interested in with the previous Apollos, we will call it “Apollo-ASTR”.

The ASTP project has been nurtured by both sides since the very beginning of the lunar race

Even the first Apollo did not launch “to the Moon” (A-8, December 1968), and already in 1967 there were negotiations about what would later be called ASTER.

“Between the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician M.V. Keldysh and NASA Director Dr. Payne, an agreement was reached on a meeting of specialists to discuss cooperation in the field of manned flights. The meeting took place in October 1970 at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The American delegation was headed by the director of the Johnson Manned Flight Center, Dr. R. Gilruth, the Soviet delegation was headed by the chairman of the Council for International Cooperation in the Study and Use of Outer Space "Intercosmos" at the Academy of Sciences, Academician B. N. Petrov. (Further) meetings of specialists were held in Moscow and Houston alternately. AND were headed from the Soviet side by B. N. Petrov, and from the American side by R. Gilruth».

It was R. Gilruth who led the American “flights to the Moon” , and not Wernher von Braun, the unlucky creator of the “mythical” Saturn-5 rocket (raised on this shield completely without reason at the suggestion of the irresponsible media). In 1972 technical director project, a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences is appointed from the USSR, and from the American side - G. Lunny (NASA, Johnson Center).

By this time, the fame of American flights to the Moon had already thundered throughout the world. The last “flight to the Moon” was Apollo 17 in December 1972. And already in May 1972 in Moscow, US President R. Nixon and Secretary General Central Committee of the CPSU L.I. Brezhnev signed a final agreement on conducting a joint flight of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft.

In those years, the author did not meet anyone among his comrades and work colleagues who doubted the “moon landings.” Moreover, there was not a single reason for doubt from the Soviet leadership. And we perceived all this in such a way that from now on the USSR is the No. 2 space power. Our most powerful Protons are pale shadows of the gigantic and victorious American Saturn 5. Our Soyuz spacecraft is smaller, and therefore worse, than the American Apollo (ill. 1).

The reasoning of amateurs, but what happened was what happened. In general, we lost to America on all counts. Thank God that the Americans still agreed to some kind of international flight. All that remained was to rejoice at least in this and believe in the hopes of a future eternal world.

Note 2. Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee (Central Committee Communist Party Soviet Union) was the highest body of political power in the USSR. Secretary General The Central Committee of the CPSU and the head of the Politburo in the years under review was L.I. Brezhnev (1964-1982).

2011: faith in the honesty of partners has gone - doubts have come

What made you rethink an almost forgotten and seemingly clear event like ASTP? First of all, completely new knowledge about the history of the lunar race. Through the efforts of hundreds of researchers, facts of deception in “flights to the Moon” have been revealed.. At first these were isolated guesses, then the number of dubious facts grew into tens and hundreds. And now these researchers don’t put “flights to the Moon” except in quotation marks. And in our time, the discovery of more and more flaws in NASA’s lunar evidence is no longer without laughter.

Ill.3."Big Forum" NASA's lunar epic

But it turned out that there are reasons to doubt the honesty of the Soviet side. No, not Soviet specialists. Each of them did everything possible for the lunar victory and completely trusted the political leadership. But research has inexorably revealed that the American the hoax of flights to the moon took place with the consent and assistance of the top Soviet leadership. Of course, the help is not selfish. And therefore The statement of NASA defenders completely loses its credibility: “Our people, if anything had been wrong, would have exposed us immediately!” . No, such exposure was disadvantageous to those who contributed to their defeat in the lunar race. As a result, our understanding of the true content of the lunar race has radically changed. What did the Brezhnev Politburo do for the success of the lunar epic? And what did it exchange for? brilliant results the selfless work of tens and hundreds of thousands of Soviet space specialists?

1968-1970: first sale of Pobeda.
Soviet cosmonauts have prepared a flyby of the Moon. CC: “NO! CANCEL!"

The now famous Soyuz spacecraft was created specifically for the task of a manned flight around the Moon. It still remains unsurpassed and therefore the only means of delivering astronauts to the ISS. To launch the Soyuz into lunar orbit, the UR-500 (Proton) rocket was created. Today she is one of the most powerful missiles in the world and launched the main modules of the ISS into orbit. But its American analogue (Saturn-1B) disappeared without a trace in the year of ASTP, apparently “ashamed” of the inevitable loss in competition. In the unmanned flight version, the Soyuz was called 7LK1 (“Zond”). The United States had nothing like the Soviet Zonds. Since 1967 to 1970 to test a successful return to Earth were launched 14 (fourteen!) launches of "Probes". (Don’t be confused by the subsequent numbering of the “Probes”; some, including the obviously unsuccessful ones, did not receive their numbers). On this path, Soviet specialists had both successes and failures, but, in the end, complete success came.

Ill.4. A) The descent module of the automatic Zond-7, returning to Earth (1969) after flying around the Moon . b) The earth above the lunar horizon, photographed by Zond 7 during its flyby of the Moon

On April 4, 1968, the Americans failed to test the Saturn 5 lunar rocket. And 19 days later they announced that on December 21 of the same year the manned Apollo 8 spacecraft would fly around the Moon. General N.P. Kamanin, head of the Cosmonaut Training Center (hereinafter referred to as the Cosmonaut Training Center) wrote in his diary:

“continue to carry out your flight program without adapting it to American tricks. “I warned everyone that we would be preparing a manned flight around the Moon for January 1969, and if the Americans successfully flew on Apollo 8, then we would postpone such a flight until April.”

In November 1968, Zond-6 circles the Moon, successfully enters the Earth's atmosphere, approaches the landing area, but at the last moment the parachutes do not work. NASA already reported in December that Apollo 8 orbited the Moon. These days, our cosmonauts are really eager to step on the heels of the Americans. Here are the words of A.A. Leonov (he was appointed to the crew to fly around the Moon):

“It was necessary to go on a manned flyby of the Moon even after Frank Borman flew around the Moon. The lunar landing program has not been cancelled; we will still have to start the landing with a flyby. There is a ship. Allow me to fly! CC: “No!” .

What lies behind this “no”? Emotions, frustration? In real politics, it is not emotions that rule, but the interests of one’s own country. Here are two relevant examples: On October 4, 1957, the USSR launched the first satellite. The Americans did not say: “We are so upset that we will not launch our satellite.” Their first satellite flew 4 months later (January 31, 1958), and the first unsuccessful attempt was made on December 6, 1957.

On April 12, 1961, Yu. Gagarin flew into orbit. Almost a year later (February 20, 1962), NASA was able to report that American ship carried out its first orbital flight. What kind of flight it was, and whether it was orbital is a topic for a separate article. The main thing is that the Americans did not hesitate to catch up or even pretend that they were catching up.

Or maybe the Politburo has lost faith in the need for the Probes or in the abilities of Soviet specialists? It’s also different, because Soviet specialists are given another year and a half to fully develop the “Probes.” And well-deserved success comes: in 1969 - 1970. Our specialists carry out two completely successful launches and return of Probes No. 7 and No. 8. The path to orbiting the Moon is open for astronauts!

And then, quite unexpectedly, the Politburo cancels the task of a manned flight around the Moon. Two ships, fully equipped for a manned flyby of the Moon, remain on Earth. It turns out that automatic machines can fly around the Moon, but astronauts cannot! Absurd?

And this is how you look at it. But one thing became obvious: it was not concern for the astronauts that was at the heart of the Politburo’s first ban on manned flights of the Moon, pronounced in December 1968.

The assertions that the Soviet Union decided to withdraw from the lunar race for purely economic reasons are also unfounded. Every year the USSR spent hundreds of times more money on the arms race. And at that time no one was going to reduce these funds. In addition, the development space rockets was only a relatively insignificant branch in terms of costs from a much larger and costly state task - the nuclear missile weapons of the USSR. Thus, to launch the first satellite (SS), one R7 rocket was needed. And soon hundreds of R7 missiles went on combat duty. The PS itself was cheap metal ball, equipped with a radio transmitter and filled with batteries. So there was no way the space race could ruin the Soviet Union. But the international response after the launch of the PS was enormous.

Let's return to the manned flyby of the Moon. Its role in the growth of the international prestige of the USSR would be enormous. For this project, as already mentioned, a pair was developed - the Soyuz spacecraft and the Proton rocket. And here the costs were miniscule compared to the costs of the arms race. It is worth adding to this that both of these products have already paid for themselves a hundredfold in commercial launches alone. Yes, and when with money on space flights a bit tight, they are not thrown around and thrown into a landfill "two ships fully equipped for a manned flyby of the Moon". So the thesis “the space race” ruined the USSR was invented by unscrupulous authors, and does not stand up to the simplest criticism.

Behind all this there is another reason:

THE POLITIBURO DID NOT STRIVE FOR VICTORY IN THE MOON RACE, ALTHOUGH IT HAD ALL THE TECHNICAL PREREQUISITES FOR THIS.

That is why it turned a blind eye to the Apollo 8 flyby of the Moon and the Apollo 11 landing. For what price? More on this below. But until the “Probes” learned to reliably return to Earth, the Politburo did not have a stash effective means pressure on the Americans. You can’t grab Apollo 8 “by the tail” at all. After all, according to NASA, it was only circling around the Moon. And there are no traces left in orbit. The first “landing” of Apollo 11 is a different matter. It is impossible to land and not be left behind. One landing stage from the lunar module, supposedly remaining on the Moon, is a trace that is impossible not to notice when flying over the landing site. And here The double success of Probes No. 7 and No. 8 gave the Politburo its first excellent means of blackmail. Experts perceived this success as opening the way for astronauts, and for the Politburo, “Probes No. 7 and No. 8” were bargaining chips that they had long dreamed of getting. Now, gentlemen, Americans, we have demonstrated our capabilities to fly around and control the Moon. And your “landings” are in our hands. If you skimp, we will send not automatic “Probes” around the Moon, but full-fledged ships with crews. And they will quickly establish whether there is at least something at the site of the so-called “landings.” Well, if we agree, then the crews will not fly, and you can continue your “moon landings.” Blackmail? Of course! But that’s what it’s all about big politics.

And this will happen, as we will see, more than once. Soviet specialists allowed us to come close to solving one or another milestone problem of the lunar race. But as soon as the light of success flared up at the end of the tunnel of endless technical difficulties, the signal “STOP!” immediately followed from the Central Committee. Is it because blackmail and bargaining are possible only when the threat is quite real, but not carried out?

P.S.: The story is like about the ASTP project will be quite long due to both the significant volume of material under consideration and the accumulated questions regarding the “oddities” of the Russian and American space programs, and not only space programs. There will be inevitable repetitions of facts and assumptions already known to part of the audience. In short, there will be a lot of things, but it will, I hope, be informative and interesting, especially in those cases when familiar and seemingly obvious facts and phenomena suddenly sparkle with new unexpected facets and turn out to be not so familiar...

And I would like to immediately warn you about one more thing: the author in the original of his articles, for reasons that are quite clear to me, uses literally a huge mass of links to third-party sources. I, unlike him, do not plan to prove anything to anyone, and therefore I will simply omit most of these often, in my opinion, redundant links, leaving only those that seem significant to ME PERSONALLY. An astute reader can always turn to the source and use the links there.

Experimental flight "Apollo" - "Soyuz" (abbr. ASTP; more common name - the Soyuz program - "Apollo"; English Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP)), also known as Handshake in Space - a joint experimental program flight of the Soviet spacecraft Soyuz-19 and the American spacecraft Apollo.

The program was approved on May 24, 1972 by the Agreement between the USSR and the USA on cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.
Director of the Soyuz-Apollo Project Center accompanies the Russian delegation

The main goals of the program were:
testing elements of a compatible in-orbit rendezvous system;
Dick and Vance training in a pressure chamber

While studying in Houston

testing of active-passive docking units;
Thomas Stafford on a Soviet simulator

checking technology and equipment to ensure the transition of astronauts from ship to ship;
During training at the Soviet space center

accumulation of experience in conducting joint flights of spacecraft of the USSR and the USA.
From left to right: astronauts Donald Slayton K., D. Vance Brand and Thomas Stafford P., cosmonauts Valery Kubasov and Alexey Leonov

Press conference

Nixon looks at the Apollo command module after the briefing

In addition, the program involved studying the possibility of controlling the orientation of docked ships, testing inter-ship communications and coordinating the actions of the Soviet and American mission control centers.
Crews

American:
Thomas Stafford - commander, 4th flight;

Vance Brand - command module pilot, 1st flight;

Donald Slayton - docking module pilot, 1st flight;

Soviet:
Alexey Leonov and Valery Kubasov, Soyuz-19 crew

Alexey Leonov - commander, 2nd flight;
Valery Kubasov - flight engineer, 2nd flight.

Chronology of events
On July 15, 1975, at 15:20, Soyuz-19 was launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome;

At 22:50, Apollo was launched from the Cape Canaveral launch site (using the Saturn 1B launch vehicle);
Launch vehicle "Saturn-1B" on the launcher

The Apollo crew poses near Saturn 1B on the site the day before launch

The day before the start

Before the start

Start

On July 17, at 19:12, the Soyuz and Apollo docked;
Apollo docking

Historical handshake

On July 19, the ships were undocking, after which, after two orbits of the Soyuz, the ships were re-docking, and after two more orbits the ships were finally undocked.
During a shared flight

Atmosphere on ships
At Apollo, people breathed pure oxygen under low blood pressure(≈0.35 atmospheric), and the Soyuz maintained an atmosphere similar to the earth’s in composition and pressure. For this reason, direct transfer from ship to ship is impossible. To solve this problem, a transition compartment-gateway was specially developed and launched together with Apollo. To create the transition compartment, developments from the lunar module were used, in particular, the same docking unit was used to connect to the ship. Slayton's role was called "transition compartment pilot." Also, the atmospheric pressure in Apollo was slightly increased, and in Soyuz it was reduced to 530 mm Hg. Art., increasing the oxygen content to 40%. As a result, the duration of the desaturation process during sluicing was reduced from 8 hours to 30 minutes.
President Gerald Ford speaks to members of the American crew live

Flight time:
“Soyuz-19” - 5 days 22 hours 31 minutes;
"Apollo" - 9 days 1 hour 28 minutes;
Mission control center during the joint Soviet-American expedition

The total flight time when docked is 46 hours 36 minutes.
Apollo splashdown

The Apollo command module descends onto the deck of the USS New Orleans after splashdown in Pacific Ocean, west of Hawaii

Memory

By the day of docking spacecraft The Novaya Zarya factory and the Revlon enterprise (Bronx) each produced one batch of Epas perfume (“Experimental Flight Apollo - Soyuz”), each with a volume of 100 thousand bottles. The packaging of the perfume was American, the contents of the bottle were Russian, with some French components used. Both batches were instantly sold out.
Omega watches released for this event

In the Soviet Union in 1975, Soyuz-Apollo cigarettes were produced jointly with the USA, which were very popular thanks to high quality tobacco and have been on sale for several years.
Model of Soyuz-19 in Star City

Patch on the spacesuits of expedition members

Without a signature

There are days when our entire planet lives with one breath, one interest. And on all continents of the earth, opening newspapers, people are looking for messages about one thing. And they think about one thing.

This is exactly what July 1975 was like. The whole world watched with excitement and undiminished interest the first joint flight of Soviet and American spacecraft in the history of mankind under the Soyuz-Apollo program.

For the first time, the idea of ​​cooperation in space was expressed by our compatriot. More than half a century ago, in 1920, K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s book “Outside the Earth” was published. In this science fiction story, the scientist outlined a long and comprehensively thought-out program for preparing for space travel and its implementation. Tsiolkovsky was a great seer, for he argued: it is most expedient to conquer and develop space with the help of an international team of scientists, engineers, workers, and inventors.

40 years later, in the Pravda newspaper, the great Russian scientist Sergei Pavlovich Korolev - this is what comrade L. I. Brezhnev called the designer of rocket and space systems in his speech dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences - wrote:

“One can hope that in this noble, gigantic undertaking there will be more and more expansion the international cooperation scientists imbued with the desire to work for the benefit of all humanity, in the name of peace and progress.”

And now the idea is being implemented. The outstanding joint Soviet-American experiment became a true cosmic holiday for the people of Earth. Its success opens up new prospects for the joint work of various countries in the study and exploration of outer space for the benefit of all mankind.

For more than three years, scientists, engineers, technicians, workers, cosmonauts and astronauts in the USSR and the USA tirelessly solved complex organizational, technical and simply human problems, exchanging knowledge, experience, and ideas in order to successfully complete the Soyuz-Apollo program. This became possible thanks to positive changes in Soviet-American relations, thanks to the steady implementation of the Peace Program proclaimed by our party.

The Soviet country strives to ensure that business cooperation between states on a mutually beneficial basis brings increasingly fruitful results. The Soyuz-Apollo program clearly showed ample opportunities and the mutual benefit of combining the efforts of the two largest countries peace for the sake of solving those gigantic tasks that face all of humanity. These are conservation issues. environment, development of energy and natural resources, research and development of space and the World Ocean.

The experience of the successful implementation of the Soyuz-Apollo program can serve as a good basis for conducting new international space flights in the future.

This book talks about the joint work of Soviet and American specialists on the preparation and implementation of an unprecedented space flight. Each chapter is a story about solving one of those technical or organizational problems that the participants of ASTP, the Soyuz-Apollo experimental program, encountered.

July 15 marked the 40th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, a historic flight often considered the end of the space race. For the first time, two ships built on opposite hemispheres met and docked in space. Soyuz and Apollo were already the third generation of spacecraft. By this time, the design teams had already hit their stride with the first experiments, and the new ships had to stay in space for a long time and perform new complex tasks. I think it will be interesting to see what technical solutions design teams arrived.

Introduction

It’s curious, but in the original plans both Soyuz and Apollo were supposed to become second-generation devices. But the United States quickly realized that several years would pass between the last flight of Mercury and the first flight of Apollo, and in order to ensure that this time would not be wasted, the Gemini program was launched. And the USSR responded to Gemini with its Voskhods.

Also, for both devices the main target was the Moon. The USA spared no expense on moon race, because until 1966 the USSR had priority in all significant space achievements. The first satellite, the first lunar stations, the first man in orbit and the first man in outer space - all these achievements were Soviet. The Americans tried with all their might to “catch up and overtake” the Soviet Union. And in the USSR, the task of a manned lunar program against the backdrop of space victories was overshadowed by other pressing tasks, for example, it was necessary to catch up with the United States in the number of ballistic missiles. Manned lunar programs are a separate big conversation, but here we will talk about the vehicles in the orbital configuration, such as in which they met in orbit on July 17, 1975. Also, since the Soyuz spacecraft has been flying for many years and has undergone many modifications, when talking about the Soyuz, we will mean versions close in time to the Soyuz-Apollo flight.

Extraction means

The launch vehicle, which is usually rarely remembered, puts the spacecraft into orbit and determines many of its parameters, the main ones being the maximum weight and the maximum possible diameter.

In the USSR, to launch a new spacecraft into low-Earth orbit, they decided to use a new modification of the R-7 family of rockets. On the Voskhod launch vehicle, the third stage engine was replaced with a more powerful one, which increased the payload capacity from 6 to 7 tons. The ship could not have a diameter greater than 3 meters, because in the 60s analogue control systems could not stabilize the over-caliber fairings.

On the left is a diagram of the Soyuz launch vehicle, on the right is the launch of the Soyuz-19 spacecraft of the Soyuz-Apollo mission.

In the USA, the Saturn-I launch vehicle, specially designed for Apollo, was used for orbital flights. In the -I modification, it could launch 18 tons into orbit, and in the -IB modification - 21 tons. The diameter of Saturn exceeded 6 meters, so restrictions on the size of the spacecraft were minimal.

On the left is a cross-section of Saturn-IB, on the right is the launch of the Apollo spacecraft of the Soyuz-Apollo mission.

In size and weight, the Soyuz is lighter, thinner and smaller than the Apollo. "Soyuz" weighed 6.5-6.8 tons and had a maximum diameter of 2.72 m. "Apollo" had a maximum weight of 28 tons (in the lunar version, for near-Earth missions the fuel tanks were not completely filled) and a maximum diameter of 3. 9 m.

Appearance

"Soyuz" and "Apollo" implemented what had already become standard scheme dividing the ship into compartments. Both ships had an instrumentation compartment (in the USA it is called a service module) and a descent module (command module). The Soyuz descent vehicle turned out to be very cramped, so a living compartment was added to the ship, which could also be used as an airlock chamber to exit into open space. In the Soyuz-Apollo mission, the American ship also had a third module, a special airlock chamber for transition between ships.

According to Soviet tradition, the Soyuz was launched entirely under the fairing. This made it possible not to worry about the aerodynamics of the ship during launch and to place fragile antennas, sensors, solar panels and other elements. Also, the living compartment and the descent module are covered with a layer of space thermal insulation. The Apollos continued the American tradition - the launch vehicle was only partially closed, the bow was covered by a ballistic cover, designed structurally together with the recovery system, and the tail section of the ship was covered by an adapter-fairing.

Soyuz-19 in flight, filmed from Apollo. Dark green coating - thermal insulation

"Apollo", filming from the Soyuz. The paint on the main engine appears to have bulged in places.

"Soyuz" of a later modification in section

"Apollo" in section

Lander shape and thermal protection

Descent of the Soyuz spacecraft in the atmosphere, view from the ground

The Soyuz and Apollo landers are more similar to each other than was the case in previous generations of spacecraft. In the USSR, designers abandoned the spherical descent vehicle - upon returning from the Moon, it would have required very narrow corridor input (maximum and minimum height, between which you need to get successful landing), would create an overload of over 12 g, and the landing area would be measured in tens, if not hundreds, of kilometers. The conical descent vehicle created lift when braking in the atmosphere and, turning, changed its direction, controlling the flight. When returning from Earth orbit, the overload decreased from 9 to 3-5 g, and when returning from the Moon - from 12 to 7-8 g. The controlled descent significantly expanded the entry corridor, increasing the reliability of the landing, and very seriously reduced the size of the landing area, facilitating the search and evacuation of astronauts.

Calculation of asymmetrical flow around a cone during braking in the atmosphere

The Soyuz and Apollo landers

The diameter of 4 m, chosen for Apollo, made it possible to make a cone with a half-opening angle of 33°. Such a descent vehicle has a lift-to-drag ratio of about 0.45, and its side walls practically do not heat up when braking. But its drawback was two points of stable equilibrium - Apollo had to enter the atmosphere with its bottom oriented in the direction of flight, because if it entered the atmosphere sideways, it could roll over into a nose-first position and kill the astronauts. The diameter of 2.7 m for the Soyuz made such a cone irrational - too much space was wasted. Therefore, a “headlight” type descent vehicle was created with a half-opening angle of only 7°. It uses space efficiently, has only one point of stable equilibrium, but its lift-to-drag ratio is lower, on the order of 0.3, and thermal protection is required for the side walls.

Already developed materials were used as a heat-protective coating. In the USSR, phenol-formaldehyde resins were used for tissue based, and in the USA - epoxy resin on a fiberglass matrix. The mechanism of operation was the same - the thermal protection burned and collapsed, creating additional layer between the ship and the atmosphere, and the burnt particles took on and carried away thermal energy.

Apollo thermal protection material before and after flight

Propulsion system

Both Apollo and Soyuz had propulsion engines for orbit correction and attitude thrusters for changing the spacecraft's position in space and performing precise docking maneuvers. On the Soyuz, the orbital maneuvering system was installed for the first time for Soviet spacecraft. For some reason, the designers chose a not very successful layout, when the main engine ran on one fuel (UDMH+AT), and the mooring and orientation engines ran on another (hydrogen peroxide). Combined with the fact that the Soyuz tanks held 500 kg of fuel, and 18 tons on Apollo, this led to an order of magnitude difference in the characteristic speed reserve - Apollo could change its speed by 2800 m/s, and Soyuz "only at 215 m/s. The greater reserve of characteristic speed of even the under-fuelled Apollo made it an obvious candidate for an active role during rendezvous and docking.

The stern of the Soyuz-19, the engine nozzles are clearly visible

Close-up of Apollo attitude thrusters

Landing system

Landing systems developed the developments and traditions of the respective countries. The US continued to ground ships. After experiments with the Mercury and Gemini landing systems, a simple and reliable option- the ship had two brake and three main parachutes. The main parachutes were redundant, and a safe landing was ensured if one of them failed. Such a failure occurred during the landing of Apollo 15, and nothing terrible happened. Parachute redundancy made it possible to eliminate the need for individual parachutes for Mercury astronauts and Gemini ejection seats.

Apollo landing diagram

In the USSR, it was traditional to land a ship on land. Ideologically, the landing system develops the parachute-jet landing of the Voskhods. After dropping the lid of the parachute container, the pilot, brake and main parachutes are activated sequentially (a spare one is installed in case of system failure). The ship descends on one parachute, at an altitude of 5.8 km the heat shield is dropped, and at an altitude of ~1 m the jet engines soft landing(DMP). The system turned out to be interesting - the operation of the DMP creates spectacular shots, but the comfort of landing varies over a very wide range. If the astronauts are lucky, the impact on the ground is almost imperceptible. If not, then the ship may hit the ground hard, and if you are completely unlucky, it will also capsize on its side.

Planting scheme

Completely normal operation of the DMP

Bottom of the descent vehicle. Three circles on top - DMP, three more - on the opposite side

Emergency rescue system

It is curious, but, taking different paths, the USSR and the USA came to the same system of salvation. In case of an accident, special solid fuel engine, standing at the very top of the launch vehicle, tore off the descent vehicle with the astronauts and carried it away. The landing was carried out using standard means of the descent vehicle. This rescue system turned out to be the best of all the options used - it is simple, reliable and ensures the rescue of astronauts at all stages of ascent. In a real accident, it was used once and saved the lives of Vladimir Titov and Gennady Strekalov, taking the descent module away from the rocket burning in the launch facility.

From left to right SAS "Apollo", SAS "Soyuz", different versions CAC "Soyuz"

Thermoregulation system

Both ships used a thermal control system with coolant and radiators. Painted in White color For better heat radiation, the radiators were placed on service modules and even looked the same:

Means of providing EVA

Both Apollo and Soyuz were designed taking into account the possible need for extravehicular activities (spacewalks). Design solutions were also traditional for countries - the USA depressurized the entire command module and went outside through a standard hatch, and the USSR used the household compartment as an airlock.

Apollo 9 EVA

Docking system

Both Soyuz and Apollo used a pin-to-cone docking device. Since the ship was actively maneuvering during docking, pins were installed on both the Soyuz and Apollo. And for the Soyuz-Apollo program, so that no one would be offended, they developed a universal androgynous docking unit. Androgyny meant that any two ships with such nodes could dock (and not just pairs, one with a pin, the other with a cone).

Apollo docking mechanism. By the way, it was also used in the Soyuz-Apollo program, with its help the command module was docked with the airlock

Diagram of the Soyuz docking mechanism, first version

"Soyuz-19", front view. The docking point is clearly visible

Cabin and equipment

In terms of equipment, Apollo was noticeably superior to Soyuz. First of all, the designers managed to add a full-fledged gyro-stabilized platform to the Apollo equipment, which high accuracy stored data on the position and speed of the ship. Further, the command module had a powerful and flexible computer for its time, which, if necessary, could be reprogrammed directly in flight (and such cases are known). Interesting feature"Apollo" was also a separate workplace for celestial navigation. It was used only in space and was located under the feet of astronauts.

Control panel, view from the left seat

Control Panel. The flight controls are located on the left, the attitude control engines are in the center, the emergency indicators are on top, and communications are on the bottom. On the right side are fuel, hydrogen and oxygen indicators and power management

Despite the fact that the Soyuz equipment was simpler, it was the most advanced for Soviet ships. The ship featured an on-board digital computer for the first time, and the ship's systems included equipment for automatic docking. For the first time in space, multifunctional indicators on a cathode ray tube were used.

Soyuz spacecraft control panel

Power supply system

Apollo used a very convenient system for flights lasting 2-3 weeks - fuel cells. Hydrogen and oxygen, when combined, generated energy, and the resulting water was used by the crew. The Soyuzs had different power sources in different versions. There were options with fuel cells, and for the Soyuz-Apollo flight, solar panels were installed on the ship.

Conclusion

Both the Soyuz and Apollo turned out to be very successful ships in their own way. The Apollo missions successfully flew to the Moon and the Skylab station. And the Soyuzs enjoyed an extremely long and successful life, becoming the main ship for flights to orbital stations, since 2011 they have been carrying American astronauts to the ISS, and will carry them at least until 2018.

But a very high price was paid for this success. Both Soyuz and Apollo became the first ships in which people died. What’s even sadder is that if designers, engineers and workers had been in less of a hurry and had not stopped being afraid of space after their first successes, then Komarov, Dobrovolsky, Volkov, Patsayev, Grissom, White and Cheffi