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

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 19:54:18

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.

No, for a variety of reasons...

The biggest of them is really very simple: you don't need extra legs to the trip if you take the capsule from the ground to Lunar orbit, and deleting extra mission complexity will decrease cost and increase reliability (aerobraking?). The environments? The environments that a LEO ferry would have to operate in and a Lunar orbital ferry are identical, there are no substantial efficency advantages by building a seperate Lunar ferry... The capsule just so happens to use "aerobraking" to deorbit instead of Earth orbit capture.

Getting to the Moon is NOT such a big deal as to justify a manned cycler! Its just three days! Hardly any longer then an ISS chase rendevous. Don't ferry the astronauts in a big luxury liner from LEO that doubles as a HAB, send them in a capsule that doubles as a reentry vehicle, they'll be spending most of the time on the surface, not in transit.

Next, is the launch issue: the largest part of your average Lunar sortie bill (until Lunar fuel is available anyway) will NOT be vehicle cost, it will be launch costs. As long as you must import every drop of fuel from Earth, then reuseability doesn't save you a dime on rockets. In such a case, the extra cost of building a robust reuseable system versus copies of expendable ones doesn't save you a dime.

Reuseability doesn't make any sense unless you have an RLV and/or Lunar LOX available in quantity. As no such vehicle exsists nor is planned, and the hardware to make lots of LOX would take multiple missions, then reuseability obviously isn't an option. T/Space and company, the ones that chant and "believe!" in Kistler coming to deliver them into an RLV nirvana... nonsense.

There is also a BIG safety issue here... the ability to push the "panic" button and return directly to Earth in the event of an emergency anywhere from the pad to Lunar orbit, which you simply would not have with a LEO/Lunar Ferry scheme. Its just not practical to make the ferry capable of reentry, so you won't have that option.

This all segways into my next trick, turning the expendable CEV capsule plan into a partially resueable one while preserving the safety advantages... Lunar LOX would be ferried to LEO with an unmanned Hydrogen rocket tug or else you launch it from Earth on some cheap launcher, then the CEV on an uprated Atlas-VB or Delta-IV Medium+ 56 with only a modest Hydrogen tank. The CEV would provide Hydrogen to the tug, and get pushed to Lunar orbit or direct landing using same. Refuel on the Moon, and back to Earth, the CEV being dropped off for reentry and the tug entering Earth orbit. This way, you get the bennefits of reuseable TLI/TEI stages, ISRU/AltSpace RLVs, and anytime-abort back to Earth all the way to Lunar breaking and directly back in the event of trouble.

I want to stress too, that starting with an expendable system that doesn't need to get itself back to Earth, you can increase your payload signifigantly: this is not trivial, if you are going to spend half a billion dollars for rockets to send one payload to the Moon, then who cares if you save a $50M lander if it cuts your payload in half?

Start expendable now until we have ISRU ability, then convert CEV to be partially reuseable later.

BWhite · 2005-05-23 20:42:10

I believe clark is assuming the viability of the bare-bones t/Space air launch rocket capsule for crew.

Launch your big CEV once, and re-use it. And yes this assumes lunar LOX comes on line close to the beginning of the program.

But NOT lifting your robust Cadillac CEV for every mission will save launch costs, even if CEV can re-enter Earth's atmosphere and land, in an emergency.

= = =

Any comments on the t/Space 2 stage pressure fed propane/LOX rocket? And the ultra light fabric seats designed by Jim Voss' students at Auburn University?

clark · 2005-05-24 05:34:19

Good point GCN!

Now that you have been validated, give it a rest.

I don't care if we go expendable now or later, reusable tommorrow or the day after. I don't care!

Neither should you! Or anyone for that matter.

The point is irrelavant.

More than one plane design will fly, and more than one concept will get us to the moon or beyond. Some have more risk, others less. Some cost more, others less.

While I'm all for CEV Death Star, I'm looking at a bigger picture. You can have the moon and Mars. I want space.

All of it.

CEV will not come any closer to giving me what I want- and it will only give you what you want by proxy.

A multibillion dollar CEV built by the guv'nment, for the guv'nment, will be used solely by the guvn'ment.

It took the dissolution of the Soviet Empire for people to buy a ride into space. I don't think America is going to dissolve anytime soon, and dammit, the yankee capitalist bastards that we are still can't buy a ride into space.

T/space model gives us the US version of Soyuz. That is profound in that it will at least allow some of the generally (albeit wealthy) population to take part in space directly.

Space will stop being a Hubble space-card and start being a real place. That's the wonder in the sub-orbital venture (save me your opinion on that, it is too well worn).

It's going to be a long long time before people, as in non-guvn'ment astronauts, get a chance to go to the Moon or Mars. But to space- hell, it's just waiting.

LockMart-Boeing is a sound design for what NASA wants to do. T/Space is exactly what anyone who is interested in space should be clamoring for.

But hey, I've been wrong before, just usually not about this kind of stuff.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-24 07:55:32

The only trouble with a modular design is that you must work each equation for the given stages from the top of the rocket to the bottom. Meaning that the final destination of splash down, to re-entry, to burn for orbit, to burn to leave lunar orbit and that all depends on a seperate Lunar lander.

Also anything developed in this manner for the moon would not be usuable for mars and would need redesigning for mars durations, consumable mass and so much more...

Reasons for not doing a redu of saturn V and Lem
First stage booster kerosene / lox disposed of in the ocean
Second stage much the same fate not sure what that stage was powered with but will google later if needed.
third stage jetisoned towards the sun
CM stage much the same upon return from moon
lem stage one left on the moons surface
lem stage two jetisoned to the sun i think or it crashed into the moon I am not sure which

The point I am making is that everything was discarded like trash along the way at huge cost per rocket.

Lets say we can get a stripped down CEV to orbit for crew transfer, then lets only lift one or two LEO to moon cyclers which only would waste stage one and two of a saturn size lifter, then all that gets wasted if you design a single stage lander that gets refueled by lunar processing of regolith is just the stages needed to lift the cyclers and refuleing transports to refuel them for each trip and the light duty CEV

I hope I am not confusing

BWhite · 2005-05-24 08:09:39

The t/Space plan simply is paradigm shattering.

Classic rocket science with a 2 stage propane/LOX rocket that is feasible because its launched at 25,000 feet to assist the self-pressurizing system. Very few moving parts = cheap to build.

Classic capsule design with old fashioned ablative heat shield supplemented with transpirational water cooling.

The work Jim Voss did with students from Auburn to design seating at - - IIRC - - 10% of the weight of shuttle seats is an excellent example of their approach.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-24 10:08:22

Another way to go is to use pieces that are already built from salvage of what comes back down as indicated in this thread from Russian launches.
Living Off Space Junk

Seems that the first stages come down almost intact.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-14 08:16:50

Astronotes:

June 13

Kliper on Display: Russia’s Crew Exploration Vehicle

Russia will be displaying a full-scale mockup of its multi-use Kliper spaceship at the Paris Air Show, held June 13-19 in the suburb of Le Bourget.
Work on the Kliper concept is being led by Energia Rocket and Space Corporation. The mockup in Paris will include the spacecraft’s cabin module and accessory/utility compartment.
Russia is showcasing the six-person spacecraft as a replacement for the Soyuz spacecraft. Target destinations for the craft are the International Space Station, the Moon, as well as Mars.
Anatoly Perminov, head of Russia’s Roskosmos -- that nation’s Federal Space Agency – will be meeting with space officials from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, as well as the United States. Last week, Perminov met with the Director General of the European Space Agency (ESA), Jean-Jacques Dordain.
According to RIA Novosti, a Russian news agency, ESA and Roskosmos are discussing the prospect of working together, leading to a first piloted flight of the Kliper in 2011. Novosti also quoted Perminov as saying that the Kliper could be launched from European as well as Russian spaceports

Anyone out there able to see this up close?
What is your impression of it?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-14 11:05:18

"full-scale mockup"

thats nice

Euler · 2005-06-14 21:03:08

ESA pledges to support Kliper. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … .html]link

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 05:54:19

Russia's new spaceship to save crew in possible LV accident

The Kliper's basic characteristics are - launch mass 13 tones, crew up to six, payload mass 500 kilograms. It can stay up to 15 days in self-contained flight and up to 360 days as part of an orbital station, such as the International Space Station.
"We are 99% sure that it will be a spaceship with upturned little wings, enabling the Kliper to land on any class-one military airfield with a runway from three to three and a half kilometers in length
At least two test unmanned flights are to be held. The Kliper's first unmanned test flight is scheduled for 2011
A manned flight will take place in 2012

Sounds like a race for CEV spiral 1 to LEO IMO.

Russia, Europe to build new space shuttle

Kliper weighs 14.5 tons, but the Soyuz carrier rocket can only launch spacecraft weighing less than 8.5 tons.

Fledi · 2005-06-15 06:56:22

I wonder what they will use as a launcher, it wasn't even mentioned yet. Would require something like the Proton or the new heavy version of Ariane 5, but either of those would have to be man rated first.
We'll see if this project will have more luck than the Hermes, at least it's more difficult for local governments to scrap a project that is backed by international agreements.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 07:09:31

Other launchers have been mentioned in previous posts within this thread of possibly a zenit.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-15 07:21:49

The other option spoken of, the one with no Ukrainian parts, would be to take the current R-7 Soyuz rocket and swap out its old kerosene upper stage for a liquid hydrogen engine.

Fledi · 2005-06-15 08:13:12

Hmm upgrading the Soyuz might be the way they will go then, the Zenit isn't man rated either as far as I know.

BWhite · 2005-06-15 09:50:16

The other option spoken of, the one with no Ukrainian parts, would be to take the current R-7 Soyuz rocket and swap out its old kerosene upper stage for a liquid hydrogen engine.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html]Onega?

From this link:

According to the original plans, the Kliper would be launched on top of a yet-to-be developed Onega booster -- a heavily modified Soyuz rocket -- with no payload fairing but with the emergency escape rocket attached to the nose section of the reentry capsule. The emergency escape system, resembling that of the Soyuz spacecraft, would be capable of pulling the crew capsule away from the launch vehicle at every stage of the launch and orbit insertion.
A successful development of the Onega booster and its launch infrastructure would be one of the most challenging and expensive aspects of the project. Also, the decision to base the project on the expendable booster would limit economic viability of the reusable spacecraft. The Onega booster, could be launched from upgraded Soyuz facilities in Baikonur, Plesetsk and, potentially, French Guiana.
Given virtually nonexistent chances of obtaining funding for the Onega, RKK Energia considered the Zenit booster with similar capabilities. The most advanced vehicle in the Soviet rocket fleet, the Zenit was essentially banished from the Russian space program, when the collapse of the USSR left its prime manufacturer in the newly independent republic of Ukraine. Yet, in the case of Kliper, technical pragmatism outweighed political considerations. By August 2004, the company essentially committed to "re-tailor" the Kliper for the Zenit. The spacecraft had to shed around 1.5 tons from its total mass and around one ton from the mass of its reentry capsule. In addition, the emergency escape system was moved from the top of the spacecraft to the launch vehicle adapter. This way, during a nominal flight, emergency escape engines would be used for final orbital insertion maneuver, providing extra weight savings.

BWhite · 2005-06-15 09:52:44

This is interesting. . .

In addition, the emergency escape system was moved from the top of the spacecraft to the launch vehicle adapter. This way, during a nominal flight, emergency escape engines would be used for final orbital insertion maneuver, providing extra weight savings.

Fledi · 2005-06-15 13:42:49

Looks like they're taking some risks. I wonder they decided to use the Zenit, though. One of the reasons that Progress crashed into Mir was the Ukrainians refused to sell the primary tracking device for docking the progress to a price the Russians could afford back in the '90s. So they had to use the emergency backup system for dockings.

Rxke · 2005-06-15 13:48:43

Ukraine might be the key here. New democratic government, that is pro-Western, but firmly commited to be friends with Russia, too...
Pragmatic leader.

Would be lots of jobs, and an ideal go-between for Russian-European problems etc.

Fledi · 2005-06-15 13:58:25

Yep, maybe it's more about politics after all. Well I don't care as long as we have new vehicles built and launched successfully in the end.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-16 08:54:12

Russia's Kliper Spacecraft Showcased in Paris

Kliper’s launch vehicle would be a Russian Onega rocket—a modified version of the Soyuz carrier rocket.

Rxke · 2005-06-16 11:23:54

the payload msses they cite, from which latitude? If hey were to launch from Kourou they're much closer to the equator...

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-10 06:26:36

http://www.photocenter.ru/myphoto/films … ml]Klipper mockup photo page number 24 and 25 give the most details into the design, others are just pretty.

that link is gone

there is another photo & description at the bottom of this French webpage
http://e4sweblog.canalblog.com/]http:// … lblog.com/

SpaceNut · 2005-07-11 05:17:31

Yup some links just do not stay live forever and some only stay for a little while longer than others.

dicktice · 2005-07-11 09:15:59

Funny--I wonder why that is?

SpaceNut · 2005-07-11 10:38:18

Really not all that odd or funny.
Lack of server space, person holding account did not pay
the list goes on and on as to why links go away...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-05-23 19:54:18

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

#52 2005-05-23 20:42:10

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

#53 2005-05-24 05:34:19

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

#54 2005-05-24 07:55:32

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

#55 2005-05-24 08:09:39

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

#56 2005-05-24 10:08:22

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

#57 2005-06-14 08:16:50

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

#58 2005-06-14 11:05:18

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

#59 2005-06-14 21:03:08

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

#60 2005-06-15 05:54:19

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

#61 2005-06-15 06:56:22

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

#62 2005-06-15 07:09:31

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

#63 2005-06-15 07:21:49

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

#64 2005-06-15 08:13:12

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

#65 2005-06-15 09:50:16

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

#66 2005-06-15 09:52:44

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

#67 2005-06-15 13:42:49

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

#68 2005-06-15 13:48:43

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

#69 2005-06-15 13:58:25

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

#70 2005-06-16 08:54:12

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

#71 2005-06-16 11:23:54

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

#72 2005-07-10 06:26:36

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

#73 2005-07-11 05:17:31

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

#74 2005-07-11 09:15:59

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

#75 2005-07-11 10:38:18

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

Board footer