Matej said:
Its funny, I never realized that, but also many eastern sources mention it as MTKVA, despite it stands for "Mnogorazovoj Transportnyj Korabl Vertikalnoj Posadki" or reusable transport space ship that lands vertically.
What other contradictory information you have?
May I borrow the transliteration of the name you supplied? I was having a hard time finding the Russian words in Latin letters, and my own ability to change from Cyrillic to Latin is...imperfect, so I didn't wish to risk it on my own.
Contradictions I have found:
1) Launcher. As near as I can tell the orbiter was to have been placed on top of a rocket intermediate in size between Glushko's proposed RLA-130 and RLA-150. The designation for it I have seen is RLA-130V, however it is also called a derivative of Vulkan, which name applies more commonly to the RLA-150. The design of the launcher I have seen appears more similar to the RLA-150 as well, with a central core and six strap-on boosters (the RLA-130 was planned with four and the RLA-150 with eight).
I think some of this confusion comes from the reported payload to LEO, approximately 120 tonnes. This is comparable to the reported payload of the RLA-130, but is (I think) merely coincidence. Rather, the RLA-150 was planned to lift 250 tonnes, but in the MTKVP configuration the stage above the central core of the RLA-150 would also have been replaced with the vehicle. This greatly reduces the payload, but still it appears that the so-called RLA-130V was a variation of the RLA-150 Vulkan.
Another part of the confusion comes from contradictions in the names and capabilities of Glushko's proposed rockets. I have seen them named the RLA-120, RLA-135, and RLA-150, the RLA-135 being a different designation for the RLA-130. I have also seen a third arrangement, the RLA-120 and RLA-130, with those designations corresponding to the 100t and 250t rockets.
2) Mass of vehicle. Most sources agree that the vehicle was approximately 80 tonnes, with two figures appearing: exactly 80 tonnes or 88 tonnes. I suppose this may simply represent uncertainty in the original design, however 8t seems to me a bit large to be a simple discrepancy. Encyclopedia Astronautica says the vehicle would have been 200 tonnes! I cannot believe this, and it is my impression that they have derived this weight through confusing the proposed payload of the full Vulkan and the cut-down version that was to launch the MTKVP. However, they list several Russian magazine articles to which I do not have access, and so it is entirely possible they have found a source which says this.
2a) Mass of payload. The sources that say the MTKVP would mass 80 tonnes agree on a payload of approximately 30 tonnes. The Astronautica article says the payload was 80 tonnes. It is my belief that the latter figure is a confusion between the mass of the entire vehicle, and the mass of its payload.
3) Length of vehicle. Two values appear most often, 30m and 37m. I believe that the latter figure includes the mating adapter to the top of the rocket, however this is a guess. I have no evidence. Again, Astronautica says 25m, which is most surprising considering the mass they suggested!
4) Date of cancellation. Most sources agree that the work stopped with Glushko's signing off on the OK-92 proposal that led to Buran. This is January 1976. However, one source says that a re-design to a more triangular fuselage for greater cross-range capability was made in May 1976. I would discount this, but I have other sources say that the triangular re-design did take place and none of them supply a date. So it is a question of where this date after January 1976 is coming from, and if it is correct.
I would give a great deal of money for a summary report from NPO Energiya dating around the middle of 1976 named approximately "On the Research into the MKTVP Proposal, Summarized Now that the Project has Been Cancelled". Perhaps Santa Claus will give it to me for Christmas this year.
Edit to add: Also, I did find two other names used for the vehicle, though only once each: MTC-VP and MTK-AM. Once I realized this I also googled every other combination of Latin letters that might have been used and all of the Cyrillic combinations directly and came up with no more. But I make no promises that I have not missed some and that there are *five* or more names for it!
