-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document has been provided to the Friends and Partners in Space WWW
Server by the author for user reference only. It may not be reproduced or
re-published in any form without the direct consent of the author. E-mail 
addresses can be found in the author bibliographies if they were provided.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPACE DEBRIS INCIDENTS INVOLVING SOVIET/RUSSIAN LAUNCHES
        
        Phillip S Clark
        Molniya Space Consultancy, Heston, Middx.
        
        
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        ABSTRACT   Interest in the issues raised by the space debris 
        population has increased greatly in the last decade.   This paper 
        briefly describes the Russian space surveillance system and then 
        reviews the disintegrations and possibly related "anomalous events" 
        which have been noted in connection with payloads and rocket bodies 
        launched by the former Soviet Union (FSU).
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        
        
        1.   INTRODUCTION
        
             To the middle of 1994 there have been 68 breakups or debris 
        "anomalous events" involving satellites launched by the former Soviet 
        Union - more recently Russia.   In addition 18 similar events have 
        been discovered involving rocket bodies and other propulsion-related 
        operational debris.
        
             Table 1 provides a summary of the satellites and other objects 
        which have been involved in the creation of space debris, the objects 
        being classified by mission class for satellites and launch vehicle 
        stage for rocket breakups.
        
             Ignoring the creation of operational space debris (ie, discarded 
        rocket stages, rocket and payload shrouds, etc which remain intact 
        while in orbit), two types of debris production are generally 
        recognised.   Satellite (or rocket) breakups which are normally 
        explosive events resulting in the creation of a large cloud of debris 
        while anomalous events which appear to be non-destructive and only 
        produce one or two additional objects in orbit long after the parent 
        has been launched.
        
             In any discussion of space debris it has to be realised that 
        there is far more debris orbiting the Earth undetected than that which 
        has been tracked.   The ability to track an object is a function of 
        its size, orbital parameters and composition.
        
             There is also a limitation involving the placement of the 
        USSPACECOM tracking network.   A specific example involves the 
        disintegration of the Cosmos Oko series of early warning satellites in 
        Molniya-type orbits.   When passing over US sensors the debris is too 
        high to be tracked - apart from the larger object(s) - while the 
        location of the low perigee where small pieces of debris could be 
        tracked is deep in the southern hemisphere where USSPACECOM has no 
        facilities for the tracking of objects.
        
             Much of the public-domain study of space debris has been 
        undertaken by Teledyne Brown Engineering, with a series of reports 
        having been prepared over the years.   Those responsible for the 
        Teledyne Brown reports have been Nicholas L Johnson and David J Nauer, 
        but after Mr Johnson began working for Kaman Sciences (still dealing 
        with space debris) the reports became the responsibility of Mr Nauer.   
    The latest edition of the Teledyne Brown reports [1] is the major 
        reference used in the preparation of this paper.
        
        
        2   FSU FACILITIES FOR TRACKING SPACE DEBRIS
        
             Western contacts with Russian space debris specialists have led 
        to the conclusion that the Russians do not have the same ability to 
        track small objects in orbit as has the United States.   Many of the 
        pieces of debris which result at the end of photoreconnaissance 
        satellite missions - for example - were simply not tracked and 
        catalogued by the Russians, although the debris is has been routinely 
        tracked in the West for some years.
        
             A recent paper has described the Russian space surveillance 
        system in terms of its ability to track space debris [2].
        
             The Russian space surveillance system was first suggested in 
        1961, with the first surveillance undertaken in 1962 using optical 
        facilities operated by the Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of 
        Defence.   In 1969 the Space Surveillance Centre was set up and the 
        following year it was monitoring 200-250 objects in orbit (about 10-
        15% of the number of object actually in orbit, according to the 1993 
        paper).   The facilities used for this tracking were both radar - the 
        Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) and the Anti-Ballistic 
        Missile Defence (ABMD) - and optical (Table 2).   By 1975 the number 
        of tracked objects had exceeded 1,000.   In more recent years the 
        Russian system has been improved.
        
             Unlike the surveillance system operated by the United States, the 
        Russian system has been based solely on the former Soviet Union's 
        territory: as a result of this, there are many interruptions in the 
        observations of objects, and there are some zones of "invisibility".
        
             Information from all of the sensors used in the Russian space 
        surveillance system is collated at the Space Surveillance Centre: the 
        measurements are equated with the known objects in orbit and the 
        results of new launches, and then used for up-dating the orbital 
        parameters in Russian satellite catalogues, re-discovering "lost" 
        objects, etc (Table 3).
        
             The description of the Russian space surveillance system comments 
        that the system was not designed to track small objects, and this is 
        considered to be a problem.   However, work is underway to overcome 
        the problem, the following investigations being carried out:-
        
                 lowering the radar's operational sensitivity threshold
        
                 creating special ground-based facilities for the 
                 detection of small objects
        
                 development of special methods of acquisition of a weak 
                 but useful signal, using a-priori information concerning 
                 satellite motions with the help of narrow-angle and 
                 narrow beam sensors
        
             Concerning the first of these three investigations, five 
        experiments with a VHF radar have been conducted, the duration of each 
        being an hour.   The measurement flux increased by a factor of 2.7 and 
        the number of 10 cm objects to be detected increased "several times".
        
             The second approach is being undertaken by research groups, the 
        example of Dr Tolkatchev from SRI of Radiophysics in Moscow being 
        cited.
        
        
        3   SATELLITES SUSCEPTIBLE TO BREAK-UPS
        
             While many satellites have the potential for destructive breakups 
        in orbit, even a cursory glance at Table 1 will show that certain 
        classes of satellite are more prone to breakup than others.   Of the 
        68 breakups sixteen have involved ELINT Ocean Reconnaissance 
        Satellites (EORSATS), sixteen photoreconnaissance satellites and 
        fifteen Molniya-orbit early warning satellites: these three classes 
        account for more than two-thirds of the satellite breakups.
        
             Even though some classes of satellites are more prone to breakup 
        than others, this cannot be taken as an indication that the 
        disintegrations are always planned as a way of destroying the 
        satellites.
        
             In the cases of photoreconnaissance satellites, the destruction 
        of the satellites is planned as a contingency in case there is a 
        payload failure or  retrofire fails to take place and therefore there 
        is a chance that the satellite might survive re-entry and allow its 
        payload to fall into non-Soviet/Russian hands.   Similarly, the 
        destruction of the anti-satellite weapons is clearly part of the 
        planned programme.
        
             On the other hand, the same cannot be said for Molniya-orbit 
        early warning satellites and EORSATs.   Neither of these satellite 
        classes carry a re-entry capsule and thus one would expect that the 
        mission planners would have no doubts that when natural decay from 
        orbit does take place the satellite will be completely destroyed.
        
             Having said this, it was normal practice for the EORSATs to be 
        boosted into higher storage orbits following their end of operations, 
        and it is possible that a partial destruction was planned to ensure 
        that any future foreign inspector satellites would see nothing useful.   
        Despite this rational, the EORSAT breakups have not taken place at any 
        specific time intervals after the boosts to the storage orbits which 
        is strange if the breakups were to be intentional.
        
             There have been random disintegrations of rocket stages in orbit, 
        but the largest single group of propulsion systems to have suffered 
        disintegrations have been the ullage rockets discarded just before the 
        final burns by Block DM fourth stages on Proton launches.
        
        
        4   BREAKUPS INVOLVING ANTI-SATELLITE MISSIONS
        
             The breakups to be considered here immediately fall into two 
        classes: the breakups which are a direct result of the anti-satellite 
        (ASAT) test and the later breakups of the target vehicles without any 
        (apparent) outside influence.
        
             When the testing of the Chelomei ASATs began in 1968 it was 
        normal practice for the weapon to approach the previously-launched 
        target, pull away and then disintegrate, with a cloud of shrapnel 
        debris being tracked from the weapon.   In the cases of the original 
        tests the debris cloud was in a long-lived orbit, with much debris 
        still being in orbit.   In a few later tests of the ASAT the weapon 
        was placed into a low or decay orbit after the fly-by of the target, 
        with the resulting debris re-entering the atmosphere shortly after the 
        test.
        
             Reference to Table 4 shows that there have been a few cases of 
        the ASAT target - which does not carry the explosive charge of the 
        weapon - disintegrating some time after the ASAT tests have been 
        conducted.   The causes of these breakups are unknown: some other 
        breakups of satellites (see section 8 below) have been attributed to 
        the failures of on-board NiH2 batteries, and it is possible that the 
        ASAT target breakups might have had a similar cause.
        
        
        5   BREAK-UPS INVOLVING EARLY WARNING SATELLITES
        
             Cosmos satellites launched into Molniya-class orbits with 
        arguments of perigee close to 315-320 degrees are known to have been 
        the first generation of Oko missile early warning satellites, the 
        appearance of which has now been revealed.   Some Oko satellites were 
        launched into geosynchronous orbit to test the technology at that 
        altitude and to supplement the main satellite system [3].
        
             However, it is the Molniya-type orbit satellites which have been 
        subjected to partial disintegrations (geosynchronous Oko satellites 
        are far too high for any fragmentation events which might have 
        happened to be recorded, but these were launched after the debris 
        problem with the eccentric orbit satellites had been solved).   Oko 
        satellites launched during 1976 and 1983 were normally observed to 
        disintegrate in orbit.   The tracking of debris from the breakups was 
        extremely difficult since the orbits were so eccentric with apogees of 
        40,000 km in the northern hemisphere where western tracking sensors 
        are operating.   As a result, only a few pieces of debris were 
        trackable from each disintegration, although it is reasonable to 
        assume that far more debris of a smaller size actually resulted from 
        each debris event.
        
             The reason behind the breakups was ascertained during 
        conversations held between Nicholas L Johnson and Russian specialists 
        [4,5].   Each satellite carried an on-board explosive charge near the 
        focal plane of the primary optical sensor which was planned to destroy 
        the satellite in the case of a malfunction.   Unfortunately, control 
        of the explosive charge was itself unreliable and this led to the 
        charge rendering the satellite inoperative while it was still under 
        control.
        
             A change in the Oko design has eliminated the explosive charge 
        and Cosmos 1481 was the last satellite to be launched to suffer an 
        explosion.
        
        
        6   BREAK-UPS INVOLVING ELINT OCEAN RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES
        
             The ELINT Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites - EORSATs - have not 
        been depicted in any Russian illustration to mid-1994, but they are 
        possibly generally cylindrical in shape with one or two pairs of solar 
        panels for the generation of electricity.
        
             The EORSAT programme can be divided into three phases.   The 
        testing period 1974-1979, first operational phase 1980-1986 and second 
        operational phase 1986-date.   The first two phases are characterised 
        by the standard orbital altitude being approximately 430-445 km, while 
        the current phase uses lower 405-420 km orbits [6].
        
             During the first and second phases the satellites would usually 
        perform an end-of-operations manoeuvre which would increase the 
        orbital period above 93.3 minutes of the operational orbit.   During 
        the subsequent period of orbital decay the satellites would be 
        observed to fragment in the majority of cases.   During the third 
        phase the end-of-operations manoeuvre would significantly reduce the 
        perigee of the orbit and the satellite would decay from orbit without 
        fragmenting.   It is possible that the resulting relatively short 
        lifetime during the period of orbital decay simply does not allow the 
        conditions to develop on board the satellites which had previously led 
        to the fragmentations.
        
             Not all of the first and second phase EORSATs disintegrated in 
        orbit: Table 6 lists those which did, and those which did not were 
        Cosmos 868, 937, 1096, 1337 (which failed shortly after reaching its 
        operational orbit), 1507, 1567, 1625 (failed immediately after 
        launch).   The third phase programme started with the launch of Cosmos 
        1735 to the lower orbit, although after more than a year of operations 
        this satellite was manoeuvred to the higher orbital regime.   Cosmos 
        1769 was the last of the phase two satellites.
        
             There is no apparent reason for the fragmentations of the 
        EORSATs, although the events are generally judged to have been 
        deliberate.   Most of the satellites which disintegrated suffered only 
        a single event, although some had multiple events: Cosmos 1355 
        suffered three fragmentation events.   If the fragmentations have not 
        been deliberate then it is possible that they might result from the 
        mixing of residual propellants or the failure of on-board electrical 
        batteries.
        
        
        7   BREAK-UPS INVOLVING PHOTORECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES
        
             The disintegrations of the various classes of photoreconnaissance 
        satellites in orbit have usually been taken as an indication of an on-
        board failure of some sort, the satellite's destruction being the 
        ultimate way of ensuring that the intelligence which it has gathered 
        does not fall into the wrong hands.   Such a hypothesis is reasonable 
        for the first five generations of satellites, but a series of flights 
        which began in 1989 has always ended in an explosion and thus a 
        different explanation must be found for them.
        
             Western observers have classified the photoreconnaissance 
        satellites into five "generations", with the series which began in 
        1989 possibly being a sixth generation.   The first three generations 
        were based upon the original Vostok spacecraft design and the Russians 
        code-named them Zenit (not to be confused with the launch vehicle of 
        the same name).   The appearances of the fourth generation close look 
        satellites (two months lifetimes) and topographic/mapping satellites 
        (six weeks lifetimes), code-named Yantar and Cometa respectively, have 
        not been revealed: similarly neither the code-names nor appearances of 
        the fifth and sixth (?) generation satellites are unknown.
        
             Table 7 provides a list of the photoreconnaissance satellites 
        which have been destroyed by deliberate explosions, the missions being 
        initially classified by satellite type.
        
             The first photoreconnaissance satellite to explode was Cosmos 50, 
        disintegrating after eight days in orbit when the recovery of the 
        satellite was expected.   The satellite was destroyed either on ground 
        command or possibly due to the retrorocket exploding when the time 
        came for the satellite's de-orbit.   A possible piece of debris from 
        the satellite landed in Malawi [7].   Similarly the third generation 
        variants Cosmos 554, Cosmos 1813 and Cosmos 1906 were destroyed in 
        orbit when it became clear to their ground controllers that a 
        successful recovery could not be guaranteed.
        
             The fourth generation Yantar satellites have had more than their 
        fair share of disintegrations.  Cosmos 758, the first of the series to 
        fly at 67.1 degrees, was destroyed only a day after launch, indicating 
        an early malfunction of the new satellite type.   Similarly, Cosmos 
        844 suffered the same fate after only three days in orbit.   There 
        followed a break of nine years before a group of similar incidents.   
        By this time the typical lifetimes of these satellites had increased 
        to about 60 days.   Cosmos 1654 was destroyed at about the time that 
        recovery fell due.   However, the same cannot be said about the other 
        three satellites of this class which exploded: Cosmos 1866, Cosmos 
        1916 and Cosmos 2030.   These three satellites were only a few days 
        into their missions when they were destroyed, indicating an early in-
        orbit failure of the payload.
        
             A single fifth generation satellite is known to have been 
        destroyed in orbit, Cosmos 2243: although not identified as this class 
        of satellite at the time of launch, the subsequent flights of Cosmos 
        2267 (launched November 1993) and Cosmos 2280 (April 28 1994, almost 
        exactly a year after Cosmos 2243 was launched) have strongly suggested 
        that Cosmos 2243 was the first fifth generation launch to 70.4 
        degrees.
        
             Approximately ten minutes after the launch of Cosmos 2243 and at 
        the time that orbital injection and the satellite's separation from 
        the Soyuz launch vehicle's Block I third stage could be expected, an 
        explosion took place, with 172 pieces being tracked [8,9].   Even more 
        than a year after the event it is unclear whether the rocket stage 
        exploded, damaging the payload so that it could not function or the 
        satellite itself exploded.   The lifetime of the rocket stage was 
        normal for the orbit attained, suggesting that it was intact.   On the 
        other hand, the satellite showed no apparent signs of life and simply 
        decayed from orbit nine days after launch.   It is therefore deemed 
        more likely that the satellite exploded rather than its rocket stage, 
        and unlike the other photoreconnaissance satellites which have 
        exploded, the Cosmos 2243 event was accidental.
        
             The latest series of photoreconnaissance satellites began in 1989 
        with the launch of Cosmos 2031 into the rarely-used Tyuratam 
        inclination of 50.5 degrees [10].   After performing manoeuvred which 
        were dissimilar from those normally seen in the fourth and fifth 
        generation photoreconnaissance series, the satellite disintegrated 
        after 44 days, matching the typical Cometa lifetime.
        
             The satellite series continued at 65 degrees with Cosmos 2101, 
        Cosmos 2163 and Cosmos 2225 closely matching the standard Yantar 
        lifetime of 58-60 days.   The latest in the series (to mid-1994), 
        Cosmos 2262, operated for 102 days before disintegrating in orbit 
        [11].
        
             It is interesting to note that the explosions have come close to 
        the time when the satellites would be expected to be de-orbited for 
        recovery.   After five flights ending with five explosions, one might 
        wonder whether this is to be the normal mode of terminating the 
        missions of this class of satellite.
        
        
        8   REMAINING SATELLITE BREAK-UPS
        
             Table 8 summarises the FSU satellites which have disintegrated 
        and which belong to other programmes.
        
             The explosion aboard the Ekran 2 satellite nine months after 
        launch had not been suspected in the West, and it was only revealed by 
        the FSU in early 1992 [12,13].   The cause of the incident was the 
        failure of an NiH2 battery.
        
             The revelation of this previously-unknown event raises the 
        question of how many other objects (dead satellites or discarded 
        rocket bodies) might have partially or totally disintegrated in 
        geosynchronous orbit, thus causing an untrackable debris hazard.   It 
        is difficult enough to track the relatively large satellites and 
        rockets in geosynchronous orbit and any debris from fragmentation 
        events are impossible to track with our current facilities.
        
             The same kind of NiH2 problem which caused the disintegration of 
        Ekran 2 has also been blamed by the Russians for the fragmentations of 
        Cosmos 1691 and Cosmos 1823 [12].
        
             The loss of Cosmos 57, the Voskhod 2 precursor, was due to human 
        error.   Ground instructions were mis-interpreted by the satellite's 
        on-board command system and the satellite's self-destruct system was 
        thus activated about two hours after launch [14,15].
        
             The two unannounced launches of 1966 have recently been discussed 
        elsewhere [16], and since that discussion no additional information 
        has appeared.   These FOBS-related missions exploded soon after 
        orbital injection and the causes of the explosions are unknown.
        
             The loss of Cosmos 1275 has always been looked upon as the best 
        contender for a satellite being destroyed due to the impact of an 
        untracked piece of space debris [17]: this hypothesis has been given 
        support by a reported Russian statement [18].   However, the case has 
        yet to be proven.
        
             Cosmos 1275 was a military navigation satellite in the Parus 
        series which was launched into the regular 83 degrees, near-circular 
        1,000 km orbit on June 4 1981.   The satellite carried no propellant 
        for orbital changes or attitude control, the latter being provided 
        using a gravity gradient boom.   Therefore, there appeared to be 
        nothing internal to the satellite which could have caused the 
        destructive explosion which took place on July 24 1981 at 23.51 GMT 
        [19].   More than 300 pieces of debris were catalogued from the 
        breakup, the majority still being in orbit, with many more pieces of 
        debris being too small to track.
        
             Because of the lack of apparent internal causes for the 
        destruction of Cosmos 1275, it has been accepted that the loss of the 
        satellite is the best contender for a collision with a piece of 
        untracked space debris.   While this is still the most likely cause, 
        the revelation that some satellites have been damaged or lost due to 
        electrical batteries exploding (see above) means that it is possible 
        that the loss of Cosmos 1275 had a similar cause.
        
             The most recent breakup to be included in this section is that of 
        Cosmos 1484, ten years after launch [20].   This Resurs-O1 satellite 
        disintegrated on October 18 1993 at 12.04 GMT with no apparent cause.   
        It is possible that this is another victim of an electrical battery 
        explosion.
        
        
        9   BREAK-UPS OF ROCKET BODIES AND OTHER DISCARDED PROPULSION SYSTEMS
        
             Table 9 provides a summary of the various FSU upper stage rockets 
        and separated propulsion systems (not satellite propulsion systems) 
        which have suffered from disintegrations in orbit.
        
             In many cases the cause of the disintegration can be put down to 
        the mixing of hypergolic propellants after separating membranes or 
        bulkheads have failed.   The two failures of the Intermediate Cosmos 
        launch vehicle (SL-8) second stages probably fall into this category, 
        as possibly does the loss of a Tsyklon third stage.
        
             The first of the Molniya disintegrations came after the failure 
        to place a planned 1962 Mars into its heliocentric orbit.   It is 
        possible that the Molniya launch vehicle's Block I (orbital) and Block 
        L (escape) stages failed to separate.   The fully laden Block L 
        apparently exploded five days after launch.
        
             Two of the Molniya Block L stage disintegrations came when the 
        stage ignited to take the payloads out of low Earth orbit into planned 
        eccentric Molniya-class orbits (400-600 km perigee, 39,800 km apogee).   
        In the case of Cosmos 1305 the explosion came part way through the 
        Block L manoeuvre, while for Cosmos 1423 it came as the burn was 
        beginning.
        
             The disintegration of the Salyut 2 orbital stage is unrelated to 
        the later loss of the Almaz station itself, and came less than 14 
        hours after launch.   According to information discovered by Nicholas 
        Johnson in the spring of 1993, residual propellants aboard the Proton 
        launch vehicle's third stage caused an over-pressurisation of the 
        rocket body, causing the disintegration.   It is reported that after 
        this fragmentation event the third stage has always been vented to 
        prevent a repetition of the event [21].
        
             Similar preventative action has been taken concerning the 
        disintegration of some ullage rockets left in orbit during launches 
        involving four-stage Proton launches.   Normally these rockets decay 
        from orbit relatively quickly, but some of those which have been in 
        orbit longer than usual have suffered disintegrations due to the 
        mixing of residual propellants.   In 1993 it was stated that the 
        venting of unused propellant from Proton ullage rockets would become a 
        standard practice [22].
        
             The breakups of two Zenit orbital stages in 1992 and 1993 were 
        unexpected, since the launch vehicle had been in use since 1985 with 
        no previous breakups taking place.   The launch of Cosmos 2227 was the 
        second successful Zenit mission following a series of three launch 
        failures during 1990-1992: the second and third of these failures had 
        involved the second stage of the Zenit vehicle.
        
             Four separate disintegration events soon after launch for the 
        Cosmos 2227 rocket body were reported by NAVSPASUR [23].   The first 
        event came at 07.38 GMT on December 26 1992, followed by others at 
        22.49 GMT and 23.10 GMT the same day and 09.03 GMT on December 30.
        
             The next Zenit launch, that of Cosmos 2237 on March 26 1993, also 
        resulted in the orbital stage fragmenting: on this occasion there was 
        only one event, two days after launch at 07.16 GMT [24].
        
             The causes of the disintegrations are unknown, but they might be 
        propulsion-related.   One might speculate (perhaps rashly) that 
        modifications to the second stage propulsion system following the 1991 
        and 1992 launch failure introduced a problem which caused the 
        disintegrations, and the problem has now been overcome.
        
        
        10   ANOMALOUS BREAK-UP EVENTS
        
             In addition to the destructive fragmentations of satellites and 
        rocket bodies, there have been a series of debris-producing events 
        which have been classified within the space debris community as 
        "anomalous events".
        
             An anomalous event is one which does not appear to be destructive 
        since it usually involves only a few pieces of debris being tracked: 
        the cases of the FSU events only one piece of debris has appeared in 
        each case.
        
             Cosmos 1043 was a Worldwide ELINT satellite, and is the only 
        satellite of its class known to have suffered from an anomalous event.   
        The debris was first catalogued on February 28 1993 and decayed from 
        orbit eleven days later.   It is possible that other satellites of 
        this class have suffered anomalous events with the debris being 
        uncatalogued, knowing the NAVSPASUR cataloguing practices.
        
             Four FSU rocket stages have been observed to have undergone an 
        anomalous event, all being the orbital stages (Block E) of the Vostok 
        launch vehicle.   No hypotheses for the anomalous events have been 
        offered.
        
        
        11   CLOSING COMMENTS

             As the Russians have begun to discuss space debris events and 
        matters arising from them with western specialists, some new insights 
        into the causes have been revealed.   Most prominent have been the 
        explanation for the Oko early warning satellites fragmenting and the 
        revelation that some satellites have suffered a partial or total 
        disintegration due to electrical battery failures.   On the other 
        hand, no cause has been revealed for the EORSAT disintegrations which 
        have been observed.
        
             When possible the Russians have been willing to modify launch 
        procedures to prevent further space debris events.   Examples are the 
        residual propellant venting of Proton launch vehicle third stages 
        following the disintegration of the Salyut 2 rocket body and the 
        Proton ullage rockets after that problem had been realised.
        
             In addition, the Russians are making launch vehicles more 
        effective by minimising the amount of residual propellant remaining on 
        board discarded rocket stages after satellite deployments.   Where 
        possible, the Russians seem to be moving towards a routine burn-to-
        depletion for propellant during satellite deployment which not only 
        increases the launch vehicle's payload capability but also removed the 
        threat of later debris events.
        
             While these moves are admirable, the Russians are not being 
        totally benevolent in space debris matters.   Attention must be drawn 
        to the latest generation of photoreconnaissance satellites which has 
        had five flights starting in mid-1989 (though to mid-1994), all of 
        which have ended with the satellite's destruction in low Earth orbit.   
        As commented earlier in this paper, this record suggests that the 
        operational termination of this type of satellite's mission involves 
        the satellite's deliberate destruction.   To date the debris clouds 
        from these explosions have quickly decayed from orbit, but there is 
        the potential for debris to intersect the orbit of another spacecraft 
        in a low orbit, resulting in that spacecraft's own destruction or 
        damage.
        
             Additionally, the revelation of the Ekran 2 partial 
        disintegration in geosynchronous orbit shows that we are totally 
        ignorant of any partial or total disintegrations of satellites and 
        rocket bodies (the latter due to residual propellants) at the orbital 
        altitude.   As the traffic in geosynchronous orbit becomes busier the 
        chances of an expensive satellite being lost due to a collision with 
        an untracked piece of debris will increase.
        
             At present the insurance market has little interest in the slight 
        chance that a satellite will be lost due to a space debris event.   As 
        time goes on, satellite owners might start to seek such insurance as 
        the population of objects orbiting the Earth increases.
        
        
        
        
        
        REFERENCES
        
        [1]   David J Nauer, History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations (7th 
        edition), Teledyne Brown Engineering, July 1993.
      
        [2]   G Batyr et al, "The Current State of Russian Space Surveillance 
        System and Its Capability in Surveying Space Debris", paper published 
        in Proceedings of the First European Conference on Space Debris (ESA 
        SD-1, July 1993: conference held in Darmstadt, 5-7 April 1993), pp 43-
        47.
        
        [3]   Phillip S Clark, "Soviet Geosynchronous Orbit Satellite Activity 
        October 1991-May 1992", JBIS, October 1993: Table 2 presents a 
        location history for the three Oko satellites (although they were not 
        known as such when the paper was presented) in geosynchronous orbit, 
        Cosmos 1546, Cosmos 1629 and Cosmos 1894.
        
        [4]   Nicholas L Johnson, private communications.
        
        [5]   David J Nauer, first update to History of On-Orbit Satellite 
        Fragmentations, undated (1993), pp 2-3.
        
        [6]   Phillip S Clark, "Soviet ELINT Satellites for Monitoring Naval 
        Transmissions", Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, August 1990, pp 
        378-381.
        
        [7]   P H H Bishop & K F Rogers, The Examination of a Sample of Space 
        Debris, RAE Technical Report 65165, August 1965.
        
        [8]   Phillip S Clark, Worldwide Satellite Launches, 10 June 1993, 
        updates page 20.
        
        [9]   Phillip S Clark, Worldwide Satellite Launches 1993, Molniya 
        Space Consultancy (1994), p 32.
        
        [10]   Phillip S Clark, "The Soviet Photoreconnaissance Satellite 
        Programme, 1982-1990", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 
        November 1991, pp 544-545.
        
        [11]   Phillip S Clark, Worldwide Satellite Launches 1993, p 58.
        
        [12]   Dr K M Suitnshev, discussions during an early 1992 space debris 
        conference.
        
        [13]   Aviation Week & Space Technology, 9 March 1992, pp 18-19.
        
        [14]   "To Save Man: a Conversation with the General Designer of Life-
        Support and Rescue Systems, Hero of Socialist Labour G I Severin", 
        Pravda, 26 June 1989, p 4.
        
        [15]   "Pages from a Diary: He Soared Freely Above the Earth", 
        Sovetskaya Rossiya, 17 March 1990, p 6.
        
        [16]   Phillip S Clark, "Obscure Unmanned Soviet Satellite Missions", 
        Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, October 1993, p 375.
        
        [17]   D S McKnight, "Determining the Cause of a Satellite Breakup: a 
        Case Study of the Kosmos 1275 Breakup", paper presented at the 1987 
        IAF Congress, IAA-87-573.
        
        [18]   Aviation Week & Space Technology, 9 March 1992, p 19.
        
        [19]   Details are from David J Nauer, History of On-Orbit Satellite 
        Fragmentations, p 154.
        
        [20]   Phillip S Clark, Worldwide Satellite Launches 1993, p 108.
        
        [21]   Details are from David J Nauer, History of On-Orbit Satellite 
        Fragmentations, p 78.
        
        [22]   B V Cherniatiev et al, "Identification and Resolution of a 
        Orbital Debris Problem with the Proton Launch Vehicle" paper published 
        in Proceedings of the First European Conference on Space Debris (ESA 
        SD-1, July 1993: conference held in Darmstadt, 5-7 April 1993), pp 
        575-580.
        
        [23]   Details are from David J Nauer, History of On-Orbit Satellite 
        Fragmentations, pp 250-251.
        
        [24]   Details are from David J Nauer, History of On-Orbit Satellite 
        Fragmentations, p 252.
                
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        This paper was presented at the British Interplanetary Society's 
        Soviet Astronautics meeting, 4th June 1994.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE 1   SUMMARY TABLE OF SATELLITES AND ROCKET BODIES INVOLVED IN SPACE DEBRIS EVENTS
        
        
        Class                                       Satellite(s) Involved *
        
        Anti-satellite target                       Cosmos 248, 839, 880, 1375
        
        Anti-satellite weapon                       Cosmos 249, 252, 374, 375, 397, 462, 886, 970, 1174
        
        Communications satellite                    Ekran 2, Cosmos 1691
        
        Early warning satellite                     Cosmos 862, 903, 917, 931, 1030, 1109, 1124, 1191, 1247, 1261,
                                                    1278, 1285, 1317, 1456, 1481
        
        ELINT satellite                             Cosmos 1043 (A)
        
        EORSAT                                      Cosmos 699, 777, 838, 1094, 1167, 1220, 1260, 1286, 1306, 1355,
                                                    1405, 1461, 1588, 1646, 1682, 1769
        
        FOBS series                                 1966-088A, 1966-101A
        
        Geodetic satellite                          Cosmos 1823
        
        Man-related spacecraft                      Cosmos 57
        
        Navigation satellite                        Cosmos 1275
        
        Photoreconnaissance satellite               Cosmos 50, 554, 758, 844, 1654, 1813, 1866, 1906, 1916, 2030,
                                                    2031, 2101, 2163, 2225, 2243 **, 2262
        
        Remote sensing satellite                    Cosmos 1484
        
        Rocket stage disintegrations
                 Intermediate Cosmos 2nd stage      Cosmos 61-63
                 Molniya Block L                    Mars probe (1992-Beta-Iota 1), Cosmos 1305, Cosmos 1423
                 Proton 3rd stage                   Salyut 2
                 Proton ullage rocket               Astron, Cosmos 1519-1521, Cosmos 1603, Cosmos 1656, 
                                                    Cosmos 1710-1712, Gorizont 17, Gorizont 18, Cosmos 2054, 
                                                    Cosmos 2125-2132, 

                 Tsyklon 3rd stage                  Cosmos 1045
                 Vostok Block E                     Cosmos 44 (A), Cosmos 206 (A), Meteor-1 1, Meteor-1 7 (A), 
                                                    Meteor-1 12 (A)
                 Zenit 2nd stage                    Cosmos 2227, Cosmos 2237
        
        
        NOTES   Within each group of satellites Cosmos payloads are generally identified by their serial numbers: for 
        rocket bodies the full names of the satellites are given.   * In the cases of rocket stage disintegrations the 
        payloads placed in orbit are normally identified.   ** It is presently unclear whether the satellite or the 
        rocket body disintegrated in this case.   "Anomalous events" are indicated by "(A)".


        TABLE 2   DETAILS OF RUSSIAN SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM SENSORS USED FOR TRACKING DEBRIS
        
        
        Location                          Latitude   Longitude    Azimuth Coverage     Observing Band
        
        
        (1)  Radar Sensors
        
        Mingechaur, Azerbijan             41 deg N    48 deg E      105 - 215 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        
        Balkhash, Kazakhstan              45 deg N    74 deg E       30 - 330 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        
        Riga, Latvia                      57 deg N    22 deg E      220 - 310 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        
        Irkutsk, Russia                   53 deg N   103 deg E       30 - 300 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        Moscow, Russia                    55 deg N    37 deg E      255 - 305 deg      UHF (ABMD)
                                                                     65 - 120 deg
        Murmansk, Russia                  68 deg N    40 deg E      295 - 335 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        Petchora, Russia                  65 deg N    57 deg E    300 - 0 - 55 deg     VHF (BMEWS)
        
        Sevastopol, Ukraine               44 deg N    33 deg E      140 - 260 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        Uzhgorod, Ukraine                 48 deg N    23 deg E      165 - 285 deg      VHF (BMEWS)
        
        
        (2)  Optical Sensors
        
        Burokan, Armenia                  40 deg N    44 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Electro-optical
        
        Abastumani, Georgia               42 deg N *  43 deg E *      0 - 360 deg       Electro-optical
        
        Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan              43 deg N    77 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        
        Irkutsk, Russia                   52 deg N   100 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Electro-optical
        Kourovka, Russia                  57 deg N    60 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        Uzhno-Sakhalinsky, Russia         47 deg N   143 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        Zvenigorod, Russia                56 deg N    37 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        
        Dushanbe, Tadjikistan             39 deg N    69 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        
        Ashgabad, Turkmenia               38 deg N    58 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Electro-optical
        
        Kiev, Ukraine                     50 deg N    30 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        Simeiz, Ukraine                   44 deg N    34 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Electro-optical
        Uzhgorod, Ukraine                 49 deg N    22 deg E        0 - 360 deg       Optical
        
        
        
        NOTES   This Table is compiled using material from Tables 1 and 2 from reference 2.   * The latitude and 
        longitude of Abastumani are incorrectly given in Table 2 of reference 2.

        TABLE 3   CHARACTERISTICS OF SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM IN MARCH 1993
        
        
        Total number of objects tracked                       7,500
        
        Number of breakup fragments                           2,450
        
        Number of payloads                                    2,000
        
        Daily number of measurements                         40,000
        
        Percentage of identified measurements                  99%
        
        Number of orbit updates per day                      10,000
        
        Daily number of new orbits                            7-10
        
        Position determination mean square error
            at the time of the latest measurement:
                   along the track                            4.5 km
                   radial component                           1.5 km
                   binormal component                         0.8 km
        
        Decay time determination error when time
            to decay is less than:    1 day                   <  4.5%
                                      2 days                  <  8%
                                      30 days                 < 10%
        
        
        
        NOTE   These data are taken directly from Table 3 in reference 2.



        TABLE 4   BREAKUPS OF ANTI-SATELLITE PROGRAMME PAYLOADS
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                            deg        km         km      Tracked   Remaining
        
        
        ASAT Targets
        Cosmos  248         19 Oct 68       1 Nov 68       62.2        475        545        13        8
        Cosmos  839          8 Jul 76      29 Sep 77       65.9        980      2,100        70       67
        Cosmos  880          9 Dec 76      27 Nov 78       65.8        550        620        49        2
        Cosmos 1375          6 Jun 82      21 Oct 85       65.8        990      1,000        58       57
        
        ASAT Weapons
        Cosmos  249         20 Oct 68      20 Oct 68       62.3        490      2,165       109       55
        Cosmos  252          1 Nov 68       1 Nov 68       62.3        535      2,140       140       53
        Cosmos  374         23 Oct 70      23 Oct 70       62.9        530      2,130       102       36
        Cosmos  375         30 Oct 70      30 Oct 70       62.8        525      2,100        47       27
        Cosmos  397         25 Feb 71      25 Feb 71       65.8        575      2,200       116       59
        Cosmos  462          3 Dec 71       3 Dec 71       65.7        230      1,800        25        0
        Cosmos  886         27 Dec 76      27 Dec 76       65.8        595      2,295        76       63
        Cosmos  970         21 Dec 77      21 Dec 77       65.8        945      1,140        70       67
        Cosmos 1174         18 Apr 80      18 Apr 80       66.1        380      1,660        46       11
        
        
        NOTES   In this and the similar tables which follow the orbital data refer to the time of the satellite 
        disintegration.


        TABLE 5   BREAKUPS OF EARLY WARNING SATELLITES
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                            deg        km         km      Tracked   Remaining
        
        
        Cosmos  862         22 Oct 76      15 May 77       63.2        765     39,645       11       11
        Cosmos  903         11 Apr 77       8 Jun 78       63.2      1,325     39,035        2        2
        Cosmos  917         16 Jun 77      30 Mar 79       62.9      1,645     38,725        1        1
        Cosmos  931         20 Jul 77      24 Oct 77       62.9        680     39,665        6        5
        Cosmos 1030          6 Sep 78      10 Oct 78       62.8        685     39,760        4        4
        Cosmos 1109         27 Jun 79     Mid-Feb 80       63.3        960     39,425        6        6
        Cosmos 1124         28 Aug 79       9 Sep 79       63.0        570     39,795        5        5
        Cosmos 1191          2 Jul 80      14 May 81       62.8      1,110     39,255        2        2
        Cosmos 1247         19 Feb 81      20 Oct 81       63.0        970     39,390        4        4
        Cosmos 1261         31 Mar 81     Apr/May 81       63.0        610     39,765        4        4
        Cosmos 1278         19 Jun 81   Early-Dec 86       67.1      2,665     37,690        2        2
        Cosmos 1285          4 Aug 81      21 Nov 81       63.1        720     40,100        3        3
        Cosmos 1317         31 oct 81    Late-Jan 84       62.8      1,315     39,055        4        4
        Cosmos 1456         25 Apr 83      13 Aug 83       63.3        730     39,630        4        4
        Cosmos 1481          8 Jul 83       9 Jul 83       62.9        625     39,225        3        3






        TABLE 6   BREAKUPS OF ELINT OCEAN RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date   EOL Date   Breakup Date(s)   Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                                       deg        km         km      Tracked Remaining
        
        
        Cosmos  699         24 Dec 74    15 Mar 75    17 Apr 75       65.0        425        445       31        0
                                                       2 Aug 75       65.0        415        440       19
        Cosmos  777         29 Oct 75                 25 Jan 76       65.0        430        440       62        0
        Cosmos  838          2 Jul 76    13 Nov 76    17 May 77       65.1        415        445       40        0
        Cosmos 1094         18 Apr 79    19 May 79    17 Sep 79       65.0        380        405        1        0
        Cosmos 1167         12 Mar 80    11 Apr 81    15 Jul 81       65.0        355        450       12        0
        Cosmos 1220          4 Nov 80     2 Apr 81    20 Jun 82       65.0        570        885       47        1
                                                      25 Aug 82       65.0        565        885       31
        Cosmos 1260         20 Mar 81    13 Sep 81     8 May 82       65.0        450        750       40        1
                                                      10 Aug 82       65.0        445        750       28
        Cosmos 1286          4 Aug 81    16 Mar 82    29 Sep 82       65.0        300        325        2        0
        Cosmos 1306         14 Sep 81     1 Feb 82    12 Jul 82       64.9        380        405        5        0
                                                      18 Sep 82       64.9        370        370 ?      3
        Cosmos 1355         29 Apr 82     5 Feb 83     8 Aug 83       65.1        360        395       21        0
                                                       1 Feb 84       65.0        305        320        7        0
                                                      20 Feb 84       65.0        270        290        1        0
        Cosmos 1405          4 Sep 82    25 Nov 82    20 Dec 83       65.0        310        340       32        0
        Cosmos 1461          7 May 83    30 Jan 84    11 Mar 85       65.0        570        890        6        3
                                                      13 May 85       65.0        570        885      152
        Cosmos 1588          7 Aug 84    14 Jul 85    23 Feb 86       65.0        410        440       45        0
        Cosmos 1646         18 Apr 85    11 Apr 86    20 Nov 87       65.0        385        410       24        0
        Cosmos 1682         19 Sep 85     6 Oct 86    18 Dec 86       65.0        385        475       23        0
        Cosmos 1769          4 Aug 86    17 Sep 87    21 Sep 82       65.0        310        445        4        0
        
        
        NOTE   "EOL Date" is the date of the end-of-life manoeuvre for the satellite.   A few EORSATs did not perform 
        such a manoeuvre.

        TABLE 7   BREAKUPS OF PHOTORECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                            deg        km         km      Tracked   Remaining
        
        
        First Generation Series
        Cosmos   50         28 Oct 64       5 Nov 64       51.2        175        220       96        0
        
        Third Generation, Two-Tone Close Look Series
        Cosmos  554         19 Apr 73       6 May 73       72.9        170        350      195        0
        
        Third Generation, Two-Tone Medium Resolution Series
        Cosmos 1813         15 Jan 87      29 Jan 87       72.8        360        415      194        0
        
        Third Generation, Resurs-F2 Remote Sensing Series
        Cosmos 1906         26 Dec 87      31 Jan 88       82.6        245        265       37        0
        
        Fourth Generation, Close Look Series
        Cosmos  758          5 Sep 75       6 Sep 75       67.1        175        325       76        0
        Cosmos  844         22 Jul 76      25 Jul 76       67.1        170        355      248        0
        Cosmos 1654         23 May 85      21 Jun 85       64.9        185        300       18        0
        Cosmos 1866          9 Jul 87      26 Jul 87       67.1        155        255        9        0
        Cosmos 1916          3 Feb 88      27 Feb 88       64.8        150        230        1        0
        Cosmos 2030         12 Jul 89      28 Jul 89       67.1        150        215        1        0
        
        Fifth Generation Series
        Cosmos 2243         27 Apr 93      27 Apr 93       70.4        181        225      172        0
        
        Presumed Sixth Generation Series
        Cosmos 2031         18 Jul 89      31 Aug 89       50.5        240        365        9        0
        Cosmos 2101          1 Oct 90      30 Nov 90       64.8        195        280        4        0
        Cosmos 2163          9 Oct 91       6 Dec 91       64.8        185        260        1        0
        Cosmos 2225         22 Dec 92      18 Feb 93       64.9        227        279        6        0
        Cosmos 2262          7 Sep 93      18 Dec 93       64.9        185        265        1        0

        TABLE 8   REMAINING SATELLITE BREAKUPS
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                            deg        km         km      Tracked   Remaining
        
        
        Communications Satellites
        Ekran 2             20 Sep 77      25 Jun 78        0.1     35,785     35,800        1         1
        Cosmos 1691          9 Oct 85      22 Nov 85       82.6      1,410      1,415       14        11
        
        FOBS Series
        1966-088A *         17 Sep 66      17 Sep 66       49.6        140        855       53         0
        1966-101A *          2 Nov 66       2 Nov 66       49.6        145        885       41         0
        
        Geodetic Satellite
        Cosmos 1823         20 Feb 87      17 Dec 87       73.6      1,480      1,525      110        46
        
        Man-Related Spacecraft
        Cosmos   57         22 Feb 65      22 Feb 65       64.8        165        425      167         0
        
        Navigation Satellite
        Cosmos 1275          4 Jun 81      24 Jul 81       83.0        960      1,015      306       275
        
        Remote Sensing Satellite
        Cosmos 1484         24 Jul 83      18 Oct 93       97.5        545        590       36        29
        
        
        NOTES   * These two launches were not announced by the Soviet Union and therefore no national names were 
        assigned.   They are identified here by the international designations of the largest piece from each launch.

        TABLE 9   BREAKUPS OF ROCKET BODIES AND OTHER DISCARDED PROPULSION SYSTEMS
        
        
        Satellite(s)       Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
          Launched                                          deg        km         km      Tracked   Remaining
        
        
        Intermediate Cosmos Second Stage
        Cosmos 61-63        15 Mar 65      15 Mar 65       56.1        260      1,825      147       22
        Cosmos 2125-2132    12 Feb 91       5 Mar 91       74.0      1,460      1,725       73       23
        
        Molniya Block L
        1962-Beta-Iota 1 *  24 Oct 62      29 Oct 62       65.1        200        260       24        0
        Cosmos 1305         11 Sep 81      11 Sep 81       62.8        605     13,795        3        3
        Cosmos 1423          8 Dec 82       8 Dec 82       62.9        235        427       29        0
        
        Proton Third Stage
        Salyut 2             3 Apr 73       3 Apr 73       51.5        195        245       25        0
        
        Proton Ullage Rockets
        Astron/B            23 Mar 83       3 Sep 84       51.5        220      1,230        1        0
        Cosmos 1519-1521/H  29 Dec 83       4 Feb 91       51.9        340     18,805        5        4
        Cosmos 1603/F       28 Sep 84       5 Sep 92       66.6        836        845       22        1
        Cosmos 1656/E       30 May 85       5 Jan 88       66.6        810        860        6        6
        Cosmos 1710-1712/L  24 Dec 85      29 Dec 91       65.3        665     18,865        2        2
        Gorizont 17         26 Jan 89      18 Dec 92       46.7        197     17,577        1        1
        Gorizont 18          5 Jul 89      12 Jan 93       46.8        258     30,747        1        1
        Cosmos 2054         27 Dec 89         Jul 92       47.1        344     27,651        2        2
        
        Tsyklon Third Stage
        Cosmos 1045         26 Oct 78       9 May 88       82.6      1,685      1,705       45       42
        
        Vostok Block E
        Meteor-1 1          26 Mar 69      29 Mar 69       81.2        460        850       37        0
        
        Zenit Second Stage
        Cosmos 2227         25 Dec 92      26 Dec 92 (3)   71.0        847        855      212        1
                                           30 Dec 92       71.0        847        855        3        0
        Cosmos 2237         26 Mar 93      28 Mar 93       71.0        841        850       27       27
        
        NOTES   * This launch attempt of a Mars probe was not announced by the Soviet Union and therefore no national 
        name was assigned.   It is identified here by the international designator of the largest piece tracked in 
        orbit.   The particular Proton ullage rocket which disintegrated is indicated by the upper case letter 
        following the payload name (two ullage rockets are carried on each flight of the four-stage Proton vehicle).   
        It is believed that there were three separate breakup events of the Cosmos 2227 rocket body on the day 
        following launch.

        TABLE 10   ANOMALOUS BREAKUP EVENTS
        
        
        Satellite          Launch Date    Breakup Date     Incl     Perigee     Apogee    Debris    Debris
                                                            deg        km         km      Tracked   Decayed
        
        
        ELINT Satellite
        Cosmos 1043         10 Oct 78         Feb 93       81.2        435        437        1        0
        
        Vostok Block E Rocket Stage
        Cosmos   44         28 Aug 64        Late 90       65.1        655        775        1        1         
        Cosmos  206         14 Mar 68        Late 90       81.2        450        515        1        1
        Meteor-1  7         20 Jan 71         Jun 87       81.2        535        665        1        1
        Meteor-1 12         30 Jun 72         Sep 89       81.2        860        935        1        1