Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

Rxke · 2004-10-30 07:05:24

Read that too... Lots of interesting combinations all of a sudden.

Though the numbers on SoyuzII are confusing, to say the least, almost like that typo was there intentionally to make things complicated...
"the cargo capacity of Russian spacecraft launched from Kourou will triple from 1.5 metric tons to 4 metric tons." ???

And reading between the lines, there could be a Kliper before 2012.

Now looking for the heatshield tech they used on Buran... Anyone an idea where to find that? They are going to use the same stuff on Kliper.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-30 08:59:31

There are plenty of papers about Buran (including its heat shield) on http://www.buran.ru]www.buran.ru.

I challenge the wisdom of using the Buran TPS on Kliper. Buran's tiles and leading edges probably aren't very different from those on the shuttle, and if that's our precedent, the new ship will have a hard-to-maintain, failure-prone TPS.

John Creighton · 2004-10-30 12:29:48

I challenge the wisdom of using the Buran TPS on Kliper. Buran's tiles and leading edges probably aren't very different from those on the shuttle, and if that's our precedent, the new ship will have a hard-to-maintain, failure-prone TPS.

Yeah but isn't the Kliper much cheaper to replace when it gets old. I think they plan to replace it after 25 flights.

Anyway for better or for worse I think the space race may be on again. See also the http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 61]Galileo discussion.

Grypd · 2004-10-31 07:16:08

Klipper will need a lot of hard cash to create and in this Russia has still other priorities than its space program. But with the rises in the price of Oil and its economic growth Russia is not in as a bad a position as it once was and may have some money to spare on development. Saying that it was hoping for the EU to come on board and it seems this will not be the case. But this does not mean ESA may not purchase completed Klippers for use.

Certainly Klippers will be able to fly from ESA's launch facilities in Guyana. It is in Russia's interest to make the Klipper able to do so. It gives them a potential export that ESA would purchase .

Ad Astra · 2004-10-31 12:41:49

Certainly Klippers will be able to fly from ESA's launch facilities in Guyana. It is in Russia's interest to make the Klipper able to do so. It gives them a potential export that ESA would purchase .

The Russians will then have to finance upgrades to the Soyuz pads to support the Kliper booster, Onega. Unlike Soyuz, this booster will require tanks and plumbing to pump liquid oxygen into the upper stage. I also doubt that the Korou Soyuz pads have crew gantry towers for accessing the capsule atop the vehicle (this is also a problem with using EELV's for launching the CEV.) Korou's pads were designed for commercial Soyuz launches, and I don't know how well they could be adapted for manned launches.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-30 22:08:13

Klipper mockup photo page number 24 and 25 give the most details into the design, others are just pretty.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-30 23:39:27

The drawings show a lot of future growth potential. Looks like the launch abort tower will be replaced with a skirt of abort rockets that are positioned behind the capsule. Also, pic 24 shows an alternate aeroshell with wings on it.

You can also see a Buran in the background. I wonder whether it's a mockup, the jet-powered aerodynamic test model, or an unfinished orbiter.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-01 06:53:45

Early morning update:

Next-generation Russian spaceship unveiled Getting the money to build it may not be so easy This nothing that we have not all speculated on for the funding of such a vehicle.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-12 16:35:01

I got a native Russian speaker to translate the Kliper schematics.

Ad Astra · 2005-04-21 22:54:53

Even if the Russians get the money to build Kliper, the issue of a launch vehicle has yet to be resolved. The Zenit is currently the preferred launcher, but Onega (upgraded Soyuz) is also a candidate.

As the Russians try to move away from the Ukranian-built Zenit, one has to wonder how firmly they are committed to Zenit as a Kliper booster. Of course, delays with Angara will delay or perhaps cancel any decision to phase out Zenit.

My guess is that the Russians are putting all of their efforts into bringing Soyuz to Kourou. Once that's done, they'll ask the Europeans for the money to build Onega. After Onega is built, they'll ask for money to build Kliper.

Grypd · 2005-05-22 15:00:52

Well the Russians now appear to have the money to create the Klipper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article … l]Guardian Article

If Europe is willing to spend £1 Billion to finance the Klipper and if the likes of Japan is also willing to come on board it could be flying a lot sooner than in 10 years time. Not to mention Europe will get itself knowledge of the Russian launch systems and gain itself a manned program more or less on the cheap. As well as a lot of good politics.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-23 07:25:56

Looks like we are about to have a Klipper versus CEV race a foot for the old cold war rivals. ???

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 08:17:49

But a race to where?

Klipper - Earth orbit only
CEV - Lunar return

BWhite · 2005-05-23 08:26:13

But a race to where?
Klipper - Earth orbit only
CEV - Lunar return

CEV? Which CEV?

Martian Republic · 2005-05-23 08:36:13

Looks like we are about to have a Klipper versus CEV race a foot for the old cold war rivals. ???

Oh, I love races!

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-05-23 11:05:50

But a race to where?
Klipper - Earth orbit only
CEV - Lunar return

Spiral 1 makes them both LEO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 11:08:05

But a race to where?
Klipper - Earth orbit only
CEV - Lunar return
CEV? Which CEV?

Either one of the REAL ones, either Lockheeds' "gumdrop" capsule or Boeing's Apollo/Soyuz hybrid, not Lockheeds' fake Popular Mechanics "sled."

There is no way that Klipper could realisticly survive translunar reentry velocities without active cooling or a massive amount of ablative coating or something impractical.

BWhite · 2005-05-23 11:25:34

But a race to where?
Klipper - Earth orbit only
CEV - Lunar return
CEV? Which CEV?
Either one of the REAL ones, either Lockheeds' "gumdrop" capsule or Boeing's Apollo/Soyuz hybrid, not Lockheeds' fake Popular Mechanics "sled."
There is no way that Klipper could realisticly survive translunar reentry velocities without active cooling or a massive amount of ablative coating or something impractical.

Put Kliper on a super-cheap Zenit and dock with a CEV that remains always on-orbit, or beyond. Aerocapture without landing followed by crew transfer would be efficient even if the CEV had the capability to land on Earth, if necessary in an emergency.

Start re-useability where it is easiest, outside the atmosphere, not where it is hardest, Earth to LEO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 13:39:52

CEV? Which CEV?
Either one of the REAL ones, either Lockheeds' "gumdrop" capsule or Boeing's Apollo/Soyuz hybrid, not Lockheeds' fake Popular Mechanics "sled."
There is no way that Klipper could realisticly survive translunar reentry velocities without active cooling or a massive amount of ablative coating or something impractical.
Put Kliper on a super-cheap Zenit and dock with a CEV that remains always on-orbit, or beyond. Aerocapture without landing followed by crew transfer would be efficient even if the CEV had the capability to land on Earth, if necessary in an emergency.
Start re-useability where it is easiest, outside the atmosphere, not where it is hardest, Earth to LEO.

-More ships needed, increases mass
-Aerobraking is still "iffy," may not be practical at all, do we bet the farm on it working now?
-No easy abort to Earth
-No good reason due to low flight rate, save money for reuseability for when we have Shuttle-II, and not right now

We ought NOT start out with reuseability, its too much trouble, and there aren't many bennefits between expendable capsules and fully reuseable shuttles/ferries.

clark · 2005-05-23 13:57:32

We can design equipment that can last a while in space. We have trouble designing equipment that can survive the trip from Earth to space, or vice versa, on a long term basis.

The environment between Earth, LEO, and beyond all have different requirements.

Breaking up the overall journey into legs makes the most practical and rational sense.

Find the most efficient means to get into space from Earth. Find the most efficient means to get from LEO to the Moon. Find the most efficient means to land on the Moon from LMO. Etc.

Taking the machine from Earth to back means we sacrifice efficiency at various points in-between- we need the wings here, but not there. We need this fuel here, but not there.

Plus, from a long term standpoint- our needs for going “beyond” will be radically divergent and dependant on the final destination- thus requiring a redesign and refit of existing CEV architecture for each destination.

Getting to LEO is going to be the same no matter what, right? Right.

If we go with a one-size fits all vehicle, we end up limiting our future options because we are limited by design parameters for one environment or another. Avoid that issue all together and go with basic and quick launch to a waiting space platform.

So we have an additional launch- we save in the end because we have more flexibility in development and deployment. It also follows along the basic premise that human cargo and regular cargo should be separated to the maximum amount possible.

A stripped down basic CEV that is designed just to get people to space just might find it easier and cheaper than a do-it-all CEV+.

Just sayin.

BWhite · 2005-05-23 14:27:18

clark, so does http://64.78.33.215/index.cfm?fuseactio … 97]t/Space:

t/Space envisions a two-level architecture: diverse vehicles that carry people and cargo between the Earth's surface and low Earth orbit (LEO), and LEO-based vehicles that make the transit to the lunar surface and back to LEO. This split fosters early competition in the Earth to LEO segment, where many companies and nations already have the capacity to put payloads into orbit. Any space-faring entity thus can participate in the Exploration Vision right away. NASA should not build a CEV system that perpetuates the problem of government-owned vehicles dominating a segment where there is no technical or economic reason for them.

Build an all-out bells & whistles CEV that is not designed to land on Earth, except in a BIG emergency. Park it in LEO when its not in use.

If the CEV need not routinely land, it can be BIG!

= = =

The t/Space capsule could also be used for one-way trips to Mars, for settlers. Dock the CVX to an inflatable Mars vessel that aerobrakes into Mars orbit. Drop the colonists via CVX and return the Mars vessel to LEO.

= = =

Taking the Lo road:

Two types of lunar trajectories
Prof. Ed Belbruno of Princeton University and Innovative Orbital Dynamics has developed the trajectories to be used in the t/Space approach. The CEVs will travel in a standard Hohmann transfer from LEO to a highly elliptical lunar orbit, a journey that takes about four days. The tankers will depart on a Weak Stability Boundary transfer that takes about three months. The longer transit time is balanced by lower fuel requirements; in a WSB transfer, the vehicle slips into lunar orbit without burning any significant fuel to decelerate, as the CEVs must. The greater efficiency allows the tankers to deliver more of their fuel to the CEVs, before the tankers take a return WSB transfer back to LEO.

Edited By BWhite on 1116880252

BWhite · 2005-05-23 14:28:57

PS - - I predict Rutan & Gump will "BIG FOOT" many alt-spacers out of existence. Who will buy Kistler if Rutan is flying his new crew capsule?

clark · 2005-05-23 14:46:36

psst- t/space dosen't need NASA.

400 million they asked for. bah!

If they can do ti for 400 million, they can do it on their own.

I know a few buyers, and Bigelow can make a great offer...

BWhite · 2005-05-23 14:52:33

psst- t/space dosen't need NASA.
400 million they asked for. bah!
If they can do ti for 400 million, they can do it on their own.
I know a few buyers, and Bigelow can make a great offer...

Exactly.

Yet they do need NASA because of four nasty little letters:

ITAR

Grypd · 2005-05-23 18:03:23

psst- t/space dosen't need NASA.
400 million they asked for. bah!
If they can do ti for 400 million, they can do it on their own.
I know a few buyers, and Bigelow can make a great offer...
Exactly.
Yet they do need NASA because of four nasty little letters:
ITAR

What you have a concern over the Russian press

ITAR-TASS

Still it would not make sense ever politically or financially for the US to suddenly allow other launch systems to be used by bigelow until the capabilities for the USA companies to do it where already in place.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-30 07:05:24

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#27 2004-10-30 08:59:31

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#28 2004-10-30 12:29:48

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#29 2004-10-31 07:16:08

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#30 2004-10-31 12:41:49

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#31 2004-11-30 22:08:13

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#32 2004-11-30 23:39:27

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#33 2004-12-01 06:53:45

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#34 2005-03-12 16:35:01

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#35 2005-04-21 22:54:53

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#36 2005-05-22 15:00:52

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#37 2005-05-23 07:25:56

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#38 2005-05-23 08:17:49

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#39 2005-05-23 08:26:13

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#40 2005-05-23 08:36:13

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#41 2005-05-23 11:05:50

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#42 2005-05-23 11:08:05

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#43 2005-05-23 11:25:34

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#44 2005-05-23 13:39:52

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#45 2005-05-23 13:57:32

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#46 2005-05-23 14:27:18

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#47 2005-05-23 14:28:57

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#48 2005-05-23 14:46:36

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#49 2005-05-23 14:52:33

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

#50 2005-05-23 18:03:23

Re: Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

Board footer