You are not logged in.
There has been much talk on the web about this spacecraft, I have gotten some quick info of other postings and space forums
QUOTE
It could be very good, it is a space craft with a 6 manned crew (2 pilots, 4 passengers) and a Launch mass of 14.5 tons. The craft might be a very nice and cost effective reusable re-entry vehicle something the shuttle always wanted to be but never actually was. This could become Russia's number one space ship and like the Soyuz, it has a rocket to pull the spaceship away from the launch vehicle in an emergency. What many whated to see was some agency develop a new space plane or a space craft with the wings that are retractable or a cheap craft that could go on a mission to the planets.
http://www2.arnes.si/~ssdszaj1/vesolje/ … ...per.jpg
Energia, the developer of the Soyuz spacecraft, has been working on a brand-new vehicle for some months and it looks like they have been doing a very good job. The giant Russian Energia rockets were great and today the Russian president has been putting more money into Russian Nuclear technology and its likely to put more cash into space before 2007 so Russia can celebrate the SputnikI launch of 57.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/P_ … rkk_15.jpg
This craft might be a great help to Russia's space flights and has an Internal available volume 20 cubic meters. Russia had already NASA to take part in the Klipper project but did not receive an official answer, now it has built the craft on its own however the European Space Agency showed interest in the offer and might buy into it if Europe desires manned flights. The Russian craft kliper can be used for inplanetary flights, but maybe the Russians really only mean to the moon?
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/k … iper04.jpg
The Russian spacecraft is a great design and consisted of three major modules. Klipper will be capable of flights to the ISS and interplanetary missions. Maybe the entry vehicle (CEV) would be used for LEO flights and as a entry vehicle for the Moon or Russian Mars crews when they get back. Scientists expect that the Kliper would be launched by the Russian Angara booster, an existing pad at Baikonur would be modified initially but it is not really known where the launch site will be. A Russian Kliper may launch from a pad at Plesetsk, or the new Soyuz pad at Kourou at a French facility in South America it could be modified eventually to accommodate the Onega.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/p_ … rkk_18.jpg
The Russians seem to be one of the top players in making headway on developing the next-generation spacecraft. At the current rate of development, the United States will not have an alternative to the shuttle for another 10 to 15 years, if then. The Russians have had many good space plans Russians have what appears to be a sound, practical design for a vehicle . Now the Russians have been slogging away, in spite of being broke, building upon success after success. The craft has a maximum diameter of 3.06 meters and a Landing mass of 9.5 to 10.0 tonnes.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/P_ … rkk_19.jpg
If the Europeans buy into this craft the Russians will no longer be broke and full of cash for their space programme, and having a European manned access to the station is really the only thing missing from European capabilities at the moment. An interplanetary CEV would be a fantastic thing, and this Russian design might be great. The Kliper will land with the help of a three main uncontrolled parachutes and several solid-propellant engines, which would be fired shortly before the touchdown. Space writers have noted that while in orbit, the Kliper would be capable of delivering crew and cargo to the space station or carrying two pilots and four passengers, including tourists, on an autonomous flight.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/k … ipercu.jpg
This Russian design has been quiet smart and Investment in the future is the key to choosing what the future of Space will be.
NASA plans on having the shuttle back soon. People are saying that the shuttle might again become a major problem for NASA. There have also been remarks that NASA will lose valuable learning experiences allowing other nations to catch up and possibly surpass them all the while the private sector will continue to embarass NASA by doing it cheaper, faster, better. Some people say shuttle really needs to be retired - but as NASA have missed the opportunity to develop something else in the two years the shuttle has been grounded (and of course pumped a huge amount of their budget into it rather than a 'replacement)Now it has been reported that nearly two years after Columbia shattered in the sky, NASA still has no way of repairing the kind of holes that could doom another shuttle, space agency officials acknowledged Monday in their latest status report on the return-to-flight effort.The development of patches for the shuttle wings and other vulnerable locations is proving far more difficult than imagined just months ago and, along with devising a way for astronauts to inspect their spaceship in orbit, represents "one of the most challenging and extensive return-to-flight tasks," the 268-page report said. The Space shuttle was originally supposed to push us out further into Space, it was to be cost effective, do wonderful groundbreaking science and fly every two weeks. It already had serious safety questions, it began costing over $450 million per launch, not enough science was done and it only went up about four or five times a year.
As the shuttle begins its return to Space there are people who have questions about the current space programe. NASA still has to get its management right, get the budget books in order and answer those questions of saftey. Some people like myself hoped that the Shuttle would be gone and NASA would have come up with a new and fantastic functional space craft.The shuttle will be kept very busy after its return to flight, there is much science to catch up on and experiments to do. There is also the current problem with Hubble and the possibility that shuttle will be used to do this work. The shuttle will also need many other trips and will be required for the ISS, estimates are that about 25 ( minimum ) shuttle flights will be needed for NASA to finish its work and the shuttle can then bow out of service by 2010. Some think that 25 flights and pushing the shuttle until 2010 could be quiet dangerous and risk lives. Some top scientists and astronauts have wrote ideas and talked on how the ISS station could have provided safe haven for the Columbia crew while everybody scrambled to launch a second orbiter to bring them all home safely. Some think that this plan of an ISS safe haven cold be very important for the shuttle return. The astronaut Buzz Aldrin who has been helping commercialisation, privatization of space-flight, push space-tourism, written much material and made very important comments on NASA has also had some good views on the current situation. Buzz has had many fantastic insights into the future of Space, the Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin has been calling for rejuvenated space efforts, steeped in market economics. Aldrin had said how the shuttle was expected to be a lot more robust but Buzz Aldrin told the reality of the shuttle in flight is that it is "not robust" on launch and "hazardous". Buzz, the second man on the Moon also explained what NASA will have to do saying we may need to have some risky shuttle flights for a limited period of time, or we are going to stand down and fly Soyuz spacecraft. Buzz has already explained how future shuttle flights should be required to be lofted into an orbit that is compatible with that of the space station, so if problems came up or inspections/repairs were needed, shuttle crews would find safe-haven at the station.
I hope everything works out fine and everything goes ahead safely, this shuttle business has a lot of people looking at NASA.
Why haven't the American public backed a new space craft designs, is it that it doesn't even really care about Space exploration anymore ??
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Politely.. where have you been All the talk of the CEV or constellation has been about new space ships nearly all the thread discuss such new ships. I even put forth the question as to why if the time line for the cev and klipper are compared then why can we not achieve our goal of a new ship sooner . But yes much ado for mock ups of what might or might not be a great ship or even cost effective to use only time will tell.
Offline
First off, two things:
So far all Russia has is a cramped metal box. I don't see any spacecraft here. Russia is just hoodwinking foreign powers into sending money their way to build all of it. The Russian rocket techs need a new cash cow now that NASA is going to stop sending them ISS bribes.
Second, private space companies have done nothing. Nothing. Even the only AltSpace company with a prayer of becomming more, SpaceX, is having issues getting its dinky Pegasus-class rocket to fly.
You are also under the mistaken impression that Klipper could be used for missions beyond LEO. Well guess what Yang, it can't. No practical heat shield material can enable a small lift body craft to survive the extreme heating from transit orbit velocities. Even if Klipper is built, it isn't going anywhere but orbit.
Russia doesn't have a future strategy, and Russia hasn't been making "smart investments" or whatever... You are just steeped in Russia-worship Yang.
"Why haven't the American public backed a new space craft designs, is it that it doesn't even really care about Space exploration anymore ??"
NASA shouldn't build a Shuttle-II at all, because there isn't any need for it to begin with. Trying to berate NASA for not making one is senseless.
And what design should we make? We're just now thrown away our plans for the next twenty years or so just this year, and are just now starting to do what we should have done long ago, and honestly reflect and study what we want and can do... The vehicles will follow. If you want pretty pictures, Boeing has quite a few on their website.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
It's not really my writing, it's a quote taken from other space site forums and a quote from writing on the klipper systems and somethings else Aldrin mentioned on manned space flights
So I don't know all the story or know the exact numbers, or if there are plans to send a craft like this beyond Earth orbit
However I do agree that NASA should have been working on a real replacement for shuttle and putting all major efforts into getting a new type of craft. When shuttle launches again it will be maxed-out and pushed hard, it is also a craft that has cost the American taxpayer much at 450 million to go up, and there are still questions of safety to be answered. The points Buzz Aldrin makes are good, and the next while will be very improtant. Having the shuttle launch 25 times for flights, taking the rising costs into consideration and pushing the shuttle until 2010 has some concerned and people have said it could be quiet dangerous.
A number of people here have been calling for alternative designs and different craft that's why I thought maybe this Russian craft might be an ok plan. There are also posters here who say NASA should have built upon the success of Apollo/Saturn V. Russia have been coming up with a new plan, the US shuttle was supposed to provide cheap, reliable, safe, quick-turnaround access to space and it was not. A number of scientists and American news writers have said that shuttle may have done more to damage NASA's credibility than any other program. NASA has done fantastic stuff in the past by putting men in Space, with the Voyager mission and having people on the Moon. It is very important that manned exploration continues however many are asking why we don't have a replacement for the shuttle
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Yup quite possibly after the first few maidon flights where the tiles came off and the refurbishing costs could be analysed it probably should have been shelved then (asthe Russian did there Buran) but that would have left the US with no launch capability other than to resurect the apollo program back then. Which was an even more costly program IMO.
To control space flight costs we must start using what ever will work that has the lowest cost to begin with that will do the job. Where this is an External tank made in china or a solid booster rocket made in Russia if either example existed.
Do not sink huge amounts of money into what should be a steady state concept of making a standard chemical rocket propulsion system or in exotic shapes, advanced materials unless there costs are lower once the R&D is done. Gubber things together that will function to meet the goals if we must but keep the cost as low as possible.
Offline
Russia doesn't have a future strategy, and Russia hasn't been making "smart investments" or whatever...
Just because Kliper only goes to LEO does not make it worthless. It will have double the capacity of Soyuz and has the potential to make human access to space cheaper and safer. That could be useful for a wide variety of projects, and it would improve utilization of the ISS.
Kliper is not a panacea, but that is also the reason why it is likely to work. It will provide a modest improvement in Russia's spaceflight capabilities, which is about as much as Russia can hope to do considering their budgetary restrictions. I think that building Kliper is a good investment for Russia.
Offline
[url=http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/02/09/cliper.shtml]
Russia to Present New Kliper Space Shuttle at Le Bourget Air Show[/url]
The 46th air show in Le Bourget will take place on June 13-19.
A full-scale model will be flown to France for the show.
Manned multi-entry spaceship ready for Le Bourget Air Show
web site Update:
Update:
Russia reveals possible Soyuz replacement
Published: 2004 Feb. 25
For many years, Russian engineers pondered over possible configurations of a new spacecraft, which could replace venerable but small Soyuz. In the course of its history, RKK Energia, the Soyuz developer, attempted to tackle the issue several times, however financial problems of the Russian space program kept preventing the fruition of these efforts.
During the press-conference at the ITAR TASS news agency on February 17, 2004, Yuri Koptev revealed that RKK Energia, the developer of the Soyuz, was working on the brand-new vehicle called Kliper since 2000. In the following days, a flurry of reports in the Russian press provided first details on the project.
other newmars thread on klipper Russian Klipper or US CEV, why can we not get it done sooner
Offline
All Russia will be illustrating is a metal box that vaugely resembles what Klipper might look like... for a vehicle that isn't reuseable (orbital module and emergency speration motors dumped) and won't have a destination to fly to for long when its done... the ISS isn't going to survive that many more years of operation.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Sour grapes, in spades, GCNR.
Offline
Telling like it is... Klipper will not be cheap, it will not be really reuseable (launcher, rocket adapter, escape rockets, airlock/docking module all thrown away, vehicle only good for 25 flights), and its price cannot be justified versus simply doubling Soyuz launches for the few remaining years of the ISS's life by the time Klipper would be ready.
Hence, Klipper is at best a poor investment and at worse a ploy to steal money for Russian rocket engineers for a vehicle they don't need.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
CGNR: How do you define "stealing" with respect to the Kliper?--the logical, progressive, do-able, next step into space for all of us disappointed Apollo supporters. Have a heart, you'll get your turn!
Offline
No, its not logical or a good next step. Too expensive to fly tourists, the ISS won't be around long enough for Klipper to realize any savings versus Soyuz, and it cannot survive reentry from Lunar transfer velocity.
Klipper doesn't make sense.
Since Klipper doesn't make sense, and the Russians aren't stupid, thus they must have some other motive to build it besides being a Soyuz replacement. Since Russia is all but running media ads for Klipper to European nations with how much they've been showing off the metal box mockup, and the past Russian tactic of half-finishing something and demanding more money from rich nations (see ISS), therefore I think it likly that the whole Klipper project is a trick to squeeze money out of gullible Europe or private investors... For a vehicle they don't need, hence "stealing."
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
The Russians either expect the ISS to last longer than you believe that it will or they believe that they will still be sending people into LEO after ISS is gone. Probably both.
Offline
If your infrastructure involves cyclers etc, then you either need an SSTO or a decent expendable, these only need to get into orbit and back.
If they build Kliper, they will still have Soyuz giving them options based on cargo. What they really need is a larger automated supply/resupply craft.
Come on to the Future
Offline
CGNR: The more you rationalize, the more it sounds like "not invented here" to me: Like some "bible-thumper" looking forward to Armageddon, you appear to (salivate?) over the imminent (if not sooner) demise of the "Hubble-hugger" operational space telescope; the "Russia-worshiper" operational space transport/supply/lifeboat service for the ISS; even the ISS itself, in favour of what? I mean, within the time-frame of those of us who confidently expected to be witnessing, and enthusiastically supporting with our tax dollars at least, an operational Mars Expedition by now, if you have something in mind. . . .
Offline
What do I want to see done instead, that I keep railing against everything (which makes me seem a bit like a troll), but for nothing?
The short answer is simple: anything else. What we are doing now, spending MORE money on the ISS, and hence Shuttle, and hence future ISS operations... (almost?) spending big money to fix an old telescope when a replacement is cheaper... etcetera are the WRONG things we should be doing, because they aren't worthwhile. So many years wasted going in circles...
What I want to see happen goes something like this...
NASA gets its budget and contracting practices focused on manned expansion and under solid control:
-The abolishment of Shuttle, the Shuttle Army, and all ISS involvement
-Most of the NASA budget devided up into two pieces, operations and development, part dedicated to designing new things, and part dedicated to building & flying them.
-A basic manned Lunar exploration program, with the option for continuous manned presence based from Earth with todays' technology at a practical price.
Then what next becomes a question if we want to develop the Moon or Mars.
As far as Klipper goes, I think that it is a valid question if the Russians are pondering it bascially as a ploy to get money from wealthy countries, since it doesn't seem to make much sense, unless the ISS is going to last alot longer then it probobly will.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
How much of the Nasa shuttle army is not under the united space alliance and why is that not a part of that organization?
The dividing of the pie of funds would in the current model of use leave nothing for developement funding and that is why we can not move forward today with the CEV. How does one correct that issue as we move forward even if we had the CEV today?
Offline
