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

SpaceNut · 2004-09-16 11:12:45

While it has been only a little while since the leak (feb 25 and on June 30)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4355783/#040224a

http://www.projectconstellation.us/news … 4/02/index
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news … 4/06/index
of the Russian Klipper http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
reusable ship they have still been able to progress even with little to no funding.

Russia space agency considers options of shuttle launch:
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.htm … &PageNum=0

The Russian Federal Space Agency (FSA) considers three options of booster rockets for launching the new shuttle Kliper.

I believe there rocket of choice is the same one that is currently in build. Much less delay than our own cev which is like you noted a long ways off not only for first flight but being manned is a period of 6 yrs beyound first flight. Theirs could be up and in use if given a little more funding I think before our first flight of the cev.

Found another article on the klipper this one with a photo of ship being built not just 3D drawings some where. First launch may take place in five years.

Russia Prepares Launch of New Space Shuttle
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/16/kliper.shtml

Russian space agency page
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-16 12:00:46

Making a metal box that roughly follows the mold lines of a set of engineering drawings is not exactly that hard, i'm not sure I would call this "big progress." Given six months and a little money, i'm sure NASA can build a metal frame of a "Big Apollo" or somthing... The main reason that CEV will take a long time is mission and finances, that we have to decide what we want the thing(s) to do first... LEO only, Lunar orbit return, Lunar landing, orbital modules, service modules, crew size, cargo options, on-orbit life... Then figure out how to build the thing at the same time Shuttle is flying and sucking up billion upon billions of dollars.

I imagine with how much money the Russians have, that the Klipper will take about as long as CEV will to build, they just have a little head-start, since all they are building is a "Russian OSP."

SpaceNut · 2004-09-16 14:22:31

One compelling reason for speeding up developement is if Russia does not provide the US any more seats to the ISS once the agreements pass. As we have already started talking about under the ISS Russia hardball topic.

Commodore · 2004-09-16 21:41:09

It will be a horse race to see who can get funded first.

The Russians can sell a lot more tourist seats on these. Is there any idea how much the Kilper cost per unit?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 05:51:12

From last link page:
Estimated cost of development 10 billion rubles or aproximate $342,000 US dollars.
This figure includes the construction of the first flight version of the vehicle, but it does not include the development of the launch vehicle.

Current Exchange Rates
As of Sep 16, 2004, the exchange rates are:
29.230 Russia Rubles per United States Dollars
0.0342 United States Dollars per Russia Rubles

This is just a new capsule being developed for existing rockets. 6 seats, reusuable and low cost

I am not sure how much each of the current vendors just got but it should have been enough to design and even build the prototype unit for first flight of the CEV if we were Russian.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 07:36:33

Four Countries Create Space Corporation
The new corporation will include space enterprises in the four countries and will operate the Kliper manned shuttle spacecraft, according to Itar-Tass. Kliper was proposed in 2004 by the Russian Energia Corp. and was designed to replace the Soyuz.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04ze.html

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 07:59:51

Links are in Russian
kliper pics
http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=470
http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=477
http://membres.lycos.fr/kvant/vaisseaux … liper.html

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 08:13:49

Translated last link
The Kliper vessel The project of spaceship Kliper was made public at the time d'une conference press of Rosaviakosmos on February 17, 2004. With current l'heure it n'est absolutely not financed by the Russian government, and the studies which were already carried out l'ont be on the own capital stocks of the R.K.K. Energuia. They began in l'an 2000 on order from Rosaviakosmos. The Russian authorities will propose soon Kliper with l'inscription with the space budget federal 2006-2015. If the financing is accepted (approximately 10 billion Roubles is necessary), the first flight could take place since 2010. Kliper has the form d'un bearing body (face lift body) of 14,5 T and has l'énorme favours d'être reusable. It is able d'emporter six members d'équipages (including two pilots) and 700 kg of loading. With l'atterrissage, it still weighs between 9,5 and 10 T. As the Soyuz-TMA qu'il has to replace, it is composed of three modules: A tower of rescue. A reusable module of re-entry 25 times. L'équipage penetrates there by l'arrière; five or six seats are installed. The mass of the module is 9 800 kg. L'atterrissage is carried out with l'aide d'un parachute; a system of automated guidance allows a precision of l'ordre kilometer. The module is able d'opérer a side offset of 500 km thanks to four control surfaces placed at l'arrière. Between two flights, the only parts which require d'être changed are the parachute, the frontal heat shield and the system d'atterrissage carefully. A module of service, made up roughly speaking d'un orbital module of Soyuz embedded in a cylindrical compartment. The orbital module thus used provides an additional livable volume to l'équipage as well as the equipment necessary to a mooring with a complex such as the International Space Station (M.K.S.). The cylindrical compartment containing the orbital module shelters the propellant tanks, d'eau and d oxygene like l'ensemble of the electric components. It is the support of several solar panels. The mass of the module of service reaches 4 700 T This part of the vessel n'est not reusable. Kliper has an endurance in 10 days orbit, but as Soyuz it can remain to moor at a space station for one length of time much larger. Total livable volume reaches 20 cubic meters. Kliper has a maximum diameter of 3,06 m and a 10 m length. It is placed on orbit by the Onega launcher, derived from the Soyuz, whose l'existence was also revealed at the time of the press conference of February 2004. L'annonce of l'existence of the Kliper project was made little of time after the American President George W BUSH does not launch his "initiative spatiale" whose l'objectif d'un able vessel d'atteindre is construction the Moon and Mars. At the time of the conference of February 17, 2004, Youri KOPTIEV stressed well that Kliper had "déjà reached the stage of serious project whereas the Americans make for l'instant only to discuss in connection with their vaisseau". It thus seems that Kliper represents a direct response to the ambitious projects of the United States. On the other hand, it n'est intended to evolve/move qu'en terrestrial orbit you not beyond. Its vocation is indeed d'assurer the connections between the Earth and the International Space Station after the withdrawal of the American shuttles, planned for 2010. It could also be used for independent missions with scientific or tourist vocation. Kliper could be launched since Baïkonour, Plesetsk or even since the Space Center Guyanais. In June and July 2004, space agencies European (E.S.A.) and American (N.A.S.A.) were respectively invited to join to the project. To the month d'août 2004, a survey carried out by company R.B.K. near 6 005 people gave the following results: 49% think qu'il is necessary to carry out Kliper with exclusively Russian means. 22% think qu'il is necessary to carry out Kliper in co-operation with China. 15% think qu'il is necessary to carry out Kliper in co-operation with the United States. Bibliography: Encyclopedia Astronautica, Mark LAGGING, http://www.astronautix.com Russia to build new spacecraft, dispatch AP, February 17, 2004 Rassiïa priedlagaïet evropeïckamou kosmitcheskamou aguientsvou vmiestie sozdavat novii pilotirouemii karabl, Itar-Tass dispatch, June 29, 2004 Air&Cosmos n°1938, May 28, 2004 Rassiïa priedlagila S.Ch.A. obiedinit oucilia v sosdanii kosmitcheskovo korablia, Itar-Tass dispatch, July 27, 2004 Rassiïa dolzhna razrabativat Kliper samostoïatielno, article d'Aleksandr ZHELEZNIAKOV published on the site of Novosti Kosmonavtiki. Last update: August 10, 2004 PHOTOGRAPHS ASSOCIEES RETURN TO THE MENU "VAISSEAUX" RETURN A The PRINCIPAL PAGE

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 09:10:08

It is truely amazing what the Russians can do with little or no money. These people work for food and pride while their american couterparts are making a fortune selling 50 year old rocket technology. Honestly, how can one look at both programs and their respective funding levels and not see how NASA is choking on overpriced contracts from entrenched aerospace giants.

Pass laws that require NASA to use anyone else besides Boeing and LockMartin and watch our dollars stretch.

Yes, yes, I know, safty yada yada limited market yada yada. Swallow these excuses if you want, but anyone with half a brain can see our space program is being milked by corporate greed.

Take this scenario:
Two twenty million dollar contracts are awarded, one by Nasa, the other by Paul Allen. While Paul Allen gets a working spaceship for him money, NASA only gets some research from Boeing.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 09:24:03

Take this scenario:
Two twenty million dollar contracts are awarded, one by Nasa, the other by Paul Allen. While Paul Allen gets a working spaceship for him money, NASA only gets some research from Boeing.

That's a misleading example. The "spaceship" Paul Allen's money paid for is essentially a toy, not even remotely comparable to what NASA pays for.

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 09:39:56

Morning Cobra

I really liked the other picture you had better. The image of Cobra Commander stretching his arms around the globe struck fear in my little liberal heart

WhiteKnight and SPaceShip 1 a toy? Wow, don't let Mr Allen hear you say that, rumor has it he has a control room in his office and can launch the deadliest of virus into your computer with a touch of the button!!

My point was, hate it or love it, that Nasa gets useless R&D for go nowhere projects while the private industry gets results. I mean come on! Two vehicles, both experimental, designed and built for 20-25 million!! Just imagine what Rutan could do with a cool Billion!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 10:08:59

Morning Cobra
I really liked the other picture you had better. The image of Cobra Commander stretching his arms around the globe struck fear in my little liberal heart

:laugh:
It'll be back in the rotation as my mood changes, I'm sure.

My point was, hate it or love it, that Nasa gets useless R&D for go nowhere projects while the private industry gets results. I mean come on! Two vehicles, both experimental, designed and built for 20-25 million!! Just imagine what Rutan could do with a cool Billion!

And you're right, some of the absurd expense of NASA research is due to insane appropriations practices. But only some. It's just much more complex, much more expensive and much harder to build an orbital craft than a sub-orbital plane. The problem isn't with Boeing or Lockheed-Martin so much as with the US government itself.

Rxke · 2004-09-17 10:13:48

Toy oe no toy discussion aside, I think what Allen/Rutan built is in the first place a kickass, dirt cheap, experiments platform for development of zero-g etc stuff... For the price of a sounder rocket launch, you can now send up a live scientist with your experiments!

Think about it, this is potentially a very big market.

OK, you've got the vomet comet and other parabola flying planes, but SS1 gives you the chance to test your equipment *really* hard: high g-loads, radiation and-pressure changes, micro-gravity...

And if you don't like SS1, there's still the White Knight.

hired by NASA. No need to say more, i guess...

(sorry, rambling)

3-400k to build Kliper? If that is true, then... Whoa, someone go and fund those guys ASAP and make BIG profits!

Virgin Aerospace?
Launch it from French Guyana and everyone is a happy chappy...

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 10:32:16

What are the problems with America's Space programs?
Using the same old big boy's in the game, unions, civil servants and more are these the real issue or is there something else.

Can just changing the mission scope to one of Exploration for Nasa be enough to drive space cost down?

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-17 11:04:29

It is truely amazing what the Russians can do with little or no money. These people work for food and pride while their american couterparts are making a fortune selling 50 year old rocket technology. Honestly, how can one look at both programs and their respective funding levels and not see how NASA is choking on overpriced contracts from entrenched aerospace giants.
Pass laws that require NASA to use anyone else besides Boeing and LockMartin and watch our dollars stretch.
Yes, yes, I know, safty yada yada limited market yada yada. Swallow these excuses if you want, but anyone with half a brain can see our space program is being milked by corporate greed.
Take this scenario:
Two twenty million dollar contracts are awarded, one by Nasa, the other by Paul Allen. While Paul Allen gets a working spaceship for him money, NASA only gets some research from Boeing.

Yeah yeah yeah "truely amazing" that the Russians have produced a maginificent, graceful, breath-stealing-beautiful ALUMINUM BOX!! WOOOW! ...Please, Klipper doesn't even have a prayer of flying without real money, even then not for some years, and even if it is built it will still use many antique overweight and undersized Soyuz componets - heck, it even uses the old Soyuz orbital module. Oh, and like the axed US OSP, Klipper will NOT be able to return from transfer orbital velocities.

SpaceShipOne is not a space ship
SpaceShipOne is not a space ship
SpaceShipOne is not a space ship because it cannot fly into orbit. Heck, an old Mach-3 Russian Mig-25 is as much a "space ship" as SS1... SS1 would have to be at least 300 times more powerful to place a reasonable vehicle on orbit.

For those of us that are mathematicly challenged, that is Three Hundred Times... "Anyone with half a brain can see" that SS1 is A TOY. Period.

"My point... that Nasa gets useless R&D for go nowhere projects..." Is incorrect. NASA does quite a bit of R&D, it simply doesn't all have an immediate tangible commertial application, but that is not NASA's mission. Part of NASA's mission is to develop basic technologies for aeronautical applications, which it has done pretty well. Modern air traffic control systems, aerodynamic/fluid dynamics science, high performance materials, safety & medical systems spinoffs, advanced jet engine concepts, and loads of other things... and Velcro. It isn't NASA's job to make all its research turn magicly into a vehilcle componet or product.

There is also a concept that apears to be totally, completly, utterly lost on you Deagle... that for a vehicle or any system in aerospace, the cost for that system will increase nonlinearly with its size and performance relative to what is easy to do technologicly. That is, a vehicle that is double the size of a smaller one will cost more than double the price, or one that is twice as fast will cost more than twice as much... SpaceShipOne hits about Mach-3 with its puny engine and costs about $30M to build, but I assure you, that a rocket plane that is eight times faster and eight times bigger will most likly cost more than two billion dollars. Maybe alot more... new engines, new materials, new heat shield, new power systems, new LSS, new navigation system, new-new-new... there are lots and LOTS of things that SS1 does not have but needs to be a practical orbital spacecraft.

Today, the truth of the matter is, that there are not many companies that have the nessesarry skills, reasources, and ability to build a large spacecraft able to deliver payload bigger than small satelites. That is the way that is... SpaceX can't even seem to get their dinky 1500lbs Falcon-I up, a rocket an order of magnetude too small for any multi-seat manned vehicle.

Rxke · 2004-09-17 11:33:55

*Rxke scrambles for his tranquilizer-gun* :;):

No-one in his right mind says SS1 is a spaceship...

And Kliper... I guess those money-starved russians are playing it very smart... Any spare Rouble they use to buy some sheet-Alu... Then they shangaied an alu-welder... Cobbled this thing together for real small-change.

But now they have a BIG hull standing there, quite impressive, more impressive then a PowerPoint presentation, if you ask me. Seems to work. Getting lots of press. And more.

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 13:20:30

Wow, like a fine jar of canned fart, you just get nastier with age dontcha GCNRevenger?

Please allow me to inform you that the scientific community has defined the edge of space as being a few miles lower than what SS1 achieved in its last test flight. If you follow the logic of an airplane being called such because it flys through the air, then SpaceShipOne is a spaceship because it flys through space. Have I lost you yet?

And about the Mig-25, I fail to see the comparison. The Mig-25 reaches an altitude of about 82,000 feet which is a far cry from the 320,000 feet altitude of SS1. And how much did it take to develop the Mig-25? 20 Million dollars? No, sir, it did not.

Also, by your own estimates it is '300 times harder!' to reach orbit than it is to reach sub-orbit. Hmmm, let me use my 'mathmatically challenged brain' to come up with a number.....ah yes, there it is, 6 Billion. So if we were to give Scaled Composites 6 billion dollars then they should be able to do what NASA has spent over 100 billion trying to do, build a totally reusable spaceship. Thanks for helping me prove my point GCN.

What's that I hear? 'It isn't NASA's job to make all its research turn magicly into a vehilcle componet or product.'? Wow, and here I thought you were supposed to get something for your money, silly me, it takes magic, what was I thinking?

You have to get past that tunnel vision of your GCN. All I see from you are posts about how this and that can't be done. You get so worked up trying to disprove people that you often miss the point entirely (for the record, my point was that NASA wastes money on those big aerospace giants you are so fond of, not that SS1 can or will reach orbit).

I really enjoy debating with you. So let's keep it nice okay? You keep posting your 'never gonna happen' comments and I will keep tearing them down.

Mark S · 2004-09-17 18:02:45

I think that Kliper is the right thing for the Russians to build, as an evolutionary step forward from Soyuz, and it can probably be adapted to meet the CEV requirements. Yet I remain skeptical that the Russians can actually build it. Their once-mighty space program has fallen over the past decade. The Energia-Buran system died from lack of funding (although the Buran orbiter was never practical--just look at the shuttle and ask yourself if Buran could have done much better.) Russia is relying on foreign subsidies and even space tourists just to keep up its commitment to ISS.

Is Kliper impossible? Hardly. Yet it is also a lot harder because of the dire economic situation in Russia. Foreign help may speed the process up, but it's important to remember that the Europeans as a whole have not been very willing to spend a lot of money on space either.

It would appear that the metal frame in the ITAR-TASS picture is for the Kliper mockup. A mockup is not too encouraging. After all, the American HL-20 and Russian MAKS both made it to mockup stage but no further. Even the doomed X-38 at least made it past the mockups and into the flight-test stage before it was killed.

I would like to see Kliper succeed but I would not place bets on it.

Grypd · 2004-09-18 08:35:34

About a month ago I had posted in another thread that the Russians had proposed an alliance with ESA and that part of it was to develop the Kliper to provide the Manned part of the base aurorae programmes. The money that ESA could provide to the Russian space effort could easily pay for development of the Kliper and it would give the ESA a manned craft that may well be capable o being launched by Arianne or by a generation of Russian boosters from the ESA facility in french guyanna.

Mark S · 2004-09-18 12:15:24

If ISS is to survive past the shuttle retirement in 2010, it will need Kliper, CEV, or something like that to take down all of the experiments and hardware from the station. The European ATV can haul it up, but the down-mass issue is a problem without a real solution right now.

Grypd · 2004-09-18 13:26:48

Ah but why do we need to take the ISS back down and it certainly is not doing any science at the moment as the crew are spending more and more time just trying to stay alive. The science modules have still to be launched and it is uncertain if there will be an ISS there for them to arrive at.
Most of the experiments will be able to report there findings to the Research facilities down on earth by use of radio and imaging techniques. If there is something to come down to earth it will go in the Shuttle which hopefully will be working as it is necassary to have it to put up the Science modules in the first place.

Mark S · 2004-09-18 21:45:07

First, I must clarify that I do not want to bring down ISS, just the completed experiments.

That being said, there are good reasons for bringing down ISS experiments. For one thing, ISS hardware is too expensive to simply get thrown overboard. Discarding it also creates more debris in the orbital plane of ISS, the severity of which is determined by the mass of the experiments.

More importantly, it is naive to think that all of the scientific observation can be accomplished in space. The scientists on the ground will be better able to anaylze ISS experiments using their sophisticated lab equipment which is better than whatever can be brought into the confines of the space station. This becomes especially important when growing new drugs and crystalline structures in space. There are probably a whole host of other experiments I could think of, but the fact remains that many experiments need to come back to earth for completion.

comstar03 · 2004-09-19 01:13:26

NASA and American Government better get moving on a co-ordinated space launch and expansion strategy, because I think the former Soviet Union is !!!, and If the Eurpoeans get involved then they will have everything they need and not NASA

What it, we might have to go alone with little or not budget to expand in space, that requires the large expense.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-09 19:54:26

Here is another scope from the weekend on the Klipper.

Quote:
The new-generation Clipper reusable spacecraft may start flying after 2012, Anatoly Perminov, director of the Russian Space Agency, told an international space congress in Vancouver.

NEW REUSABLE SPACECRAFT TO LIFT OFF AFTER 2012

http://en.rian.ru/rian....alert=0

SpaceNut · 2004-10-30 05:33:32

Lots of details on the new soyuz 2 rocket.

NEW SPACESHIP AND LAUNCH VEHICLE THE FOUNDATION OF RUSSIAN SPACE PROGRAM

http://en.rian.ru/rian....alert=0

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-16 11:12:45

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

#2 2004-09-16 12:00:46

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

#3 2004-09-16 14:22:31

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

#4 2004-09-16 21:41:09

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

#5 2004-09-17 05:51:12

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

#6 2004-09-17 07:36:33

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

#7 2004-09-17 07:59:51

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

#8 2004-09-17 08:13:49

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

#9 2004-09-17 09:10:08

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

#10 2004-09-17 09:24:03

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

#11 2004-09-17 09:39:56

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

#12 2004-09-17 10:08:59

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

#13 2004-09-17 10:13:48

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

#14 2004-09-17 10:32:16

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

#15 2004-09-17 11:04:29

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

#16 2004-09-17 11:33:55

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

#17 2004-09-17 13:20:30

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

#18 2004-09-17 18:02:45

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

#19 2004-09-18 08:35:34

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

#20 2004-09-18 12:15:24

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

#21 2004-09-18 13:26:48

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

#22 2004-09-18 21:45:07

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

#23 2004-09-19 01:13:26

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

#24 2004-10-09 19:54:26

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

#25 2004-10-30 05:33:32

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

Board footer