New Russian Spacecraft

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:12:08

More from Mark Wade:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dsealpha.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manlunar.htm

Ad Astra · 2005-09-07 18:13:09

The proposed Soyuz-3 sounds very interesting. At this stage I can't tell if the NK-33 will go back into production (I think Kistler plans on using it for their vaporware launch vehicle.) Even still, a new engine may produce more thrust, but without additional propellant it won't produce the right burnout velocity to put the spacecraft in orbit.

The uprated engine is probably necessary to launch a heavier rocket with an added upper atege. Could Soyuz-3 be the same as "Onega," the Soyuz with the hydrogen upper stage?

publiusr · 2005-09-08 15:40:04

They might not use NK-33 for this--just the stock R-7 with the LH2 upper stage. The launch vehicle is done. They just need the Kliper and a good Centaur rip-off.

That still puts the augmented R-7 Soyuz just even with the Shenzhou Long March and ahead of the old Ariane 4.

Thas right folks. The Long March lofts more than R-7--even with Zenit. Only the UR-500 Proton (also with hypergolics) can launch more.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-09-13 06:42:13

Kliper is also being designed to operate completely autonomously, without the need for pilot control. "It's got to be capable of automatic flight," Thirkettle says.

Some on the team hope Kliper would be able to travel to the Moon, "but I think there's a little bit of science fiction in that", he says. The faster speed and higher heat experienced during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere from the Moon require an aerodynamically and thermodynamically different design than those currently on the table, he explains.

"It could well be that Kliper is a truck that goes backwards and forwards to low-Earth orbit and a different system takes you to the Moon," he says.

Kliper may be launched on an upgraded Soyuz rocket from Kazakhstan's Baikonur Cosmodrome or ESA's South American spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7901

publiusr · 2005-09-14 12:53:36

OT
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … ts=5#M4778
Kliper:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM613908BE_index_0.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7901

Nice product!
http://www.hlj.com/product/TAK23666
I wonder if they will do kliper?

BWhite · 2005-09-14 17:32:03

Make no doubt about it that Russia has a realitic plan to go to the moon. However, the ship of choice will be the venerable Soyuz (docked to a new rocket stage,) and it will transport American "capitalist pigs."
Soyuz was Korolev's moon ship; the Zond variant would have flown around the moon (it succeeded in this feat in unmanned flights,) and the LOK version would have docked with the LK lander on the admittedly-dangerous Soviet moon mission.
With Space Adventures offering Russia cold, hard cash, the Soyuz translunar mission is back on the table, as long as Americans are willing to fork over some serious money. If the initial flights should succeed, perhaps the Russians would try to resurrect the LK. A different launcher will be needed, though--N1 was hopelessly complex. Perhaps an earth-orbit rendezvous mission using multiple Soyuz or Onega rockets would do the job.

Uh oh!

I have a novel "Platinum Moon" 95% finished that is very, very close to this idea.

Complete with capitalist pigs!

Details to come no later than the Space Frontier Foundation conference in October.

publiusr · 2005-09-16 13:16:19

Kliper for LEO/ISS flights, and this for the moon:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dsealpha.htm

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … highlight=

publiusr · 2005-09-23 15:34:34

Look here:
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/
And click on Model Gallery

Good Kliper model

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 15:50:04

Just remember ladies and gentlemen, that the Russian Soyuz-to-the-Moon is but a stunt...

...The big rocket stage does not carry enough fuel to place Soyuz into Lunar orbit and get Soyuz back to Earth again. So, it can only slingshot around the Moon and back, thats all.

And furthermore, there is no provision for landing whatsoever.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-09-28 10:05:52

the Russian spacecraft at Europe's South America space port
maybe the Europeans are getting serious about manned missions now

Palomar · 2005-10-06 05:08:10

Launch of Kliper from Kuru SC in French Guiana?

*I suppose this has been posted elsewhere; Search with "Kliper" brings up 6 different threads. But it's a new article.

Anyway...(yeah, probably shouldn't say it): It really is a cute vessel.

He also said construction work was in full swing on the new launch pad for the Russian Soyuz-2 rocket at the Guiana space center, located on South America's Caribbean coast.
"The contractors are to build the new launch pad and make it operational within 36 months, beginning in April 2005," he said.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-12-08 09:00:53

While the ESA has desided to not go in with funds at this time it does not mean that all will stop for the klipper. In fact one of the points was the possiblity of using it for manned space flight from the new space port in the French Guiana.
With the opening of the

Arianespace Set To Commercialise Soyuz in 2008. One would assume it would be capable of also launching a progress also from this same setup.

This brings up the arguement of being on the equator for the original design of the ISS and what might be a chance to get the Russians to put up that spare Zayra ISS module to create a new station. Rather than finishing the current ISS one might redirect the remainging modules to this new location.

With more places to go there will be more work to be done. This means a gradual lowering to reach orbit prices one would hope.

Some will say no to a second station but I look at it as an oportunity...

Rxke · 2005-12-08 09:38:06

A whole new game indeed, Soyuz @ Guyiana...

ESA's 'no-go' re: Kliper funding is preliminary, something to do with politics, and not the end of talks...

Kliper @ Guyiana, now *that* would be something...

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 09:52:31

A second space station in equitorial orbit! Say it ain't so! The very very last thing we need is TWO ISS's.

John Creighton · 2005-12-08 10:30:52

A second space station in equitorial orbit! Say it ain't so! The very very last thing we need is TWO ISS's.

Maybe they could dump the first one then.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 10:36:14

I don't think that would happen, we have spent too much money on the original one to give it up if we aren't going to get out of the station business. Anyway, many parts would need to be copied from the current ISS to make a second one viable. This is a bad bad thing.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is not enough worthwhile science to be done in orbit to justify the expense and risk of a continuously manned space station. There really isn't. Even if we came up with a drug that cured cancer but needed to be made in zero-G, we would build an automated factory for it.

At the very most, a station that is intermitantly manned (lets say, a few months out of the year) is the most that could be justified. Much more probable is that no perminant space station is justified, and launching experiments on a retrieveable vehicle like the USAF's X-34 SMV or an uprated version of the Russian Vostok would suit our needs.

John Creighton · 2005-12-08 11:09:35

At the very most, a station that is intermitantly manned (lets say, a few months out of the year) is the most that could be justified. Much more probable is that no perminant space station is justified, and launching experiments on a retrieveable vehicle like the USAF's X-34 SMV or an uprated version of the Russian Vostok would suit our needs.

Perhaps an equatorial station could serve these purposes. Also since it is in an equatorial orbit it could serve as a stopping point if so desired.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 11:36:49

Considering the trouble of scraping together even a little science to do on the ISS, even that type of space station just isn't justifiable. Considering NASA's tight budget, no space station is presently justifiable even if it cost much less then the ISS will over the next ten years. Politically speaking, its never going to happen.

You don't need a space station to "stop over" in orbit either, just dock your capsule or RLV with the thing.

John Creighton · 2005-12-08 12:33:31

Considering the trouble of scraping together even a little science to do on the ISS, even that type of space station just isn't justifiable. Considering NASA's tight budget, no space station is presently justifiable even if it cost much less then the ISS will over the next ten years. Politically speaking, its never going to happen.
You don't need a space station to "stop over" in orbit either, just dock your capsule or RLV with the thing.

Yeah, but if the russians pay for it then why not.

publiusr · 2005-12-08 16:12:39

Look at their work:
Scroll down

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 1&posts=19

None of Rutans powered gliders and such. Heavy industry and big rockets.
Thats a winning combination.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 12:03:59

In an about face [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10395639/]Europe to help finance new Russian spaceship
Space Agency chief confident he can win support for reusable craft[/url]

ESA would like to plow an initial $59 million into the project over the next two years, before deciding how much to be involved further down the line.

Rxke · 2005-12-09 14:14:19

Talk about a misleading title.

it's still in the air.

ESA, that is, the agency, wants to go for it, but they have to get the go-ahead from politicians, it's like NASA wanting things, but waiting for congress to say yes....

MikkelR · 2005-12-09 16:19:04

The Danish minister of technology and science said in a national interview that the ministers wanted to join in, but on a more favorable deal. I truly hope that Kliper will be a multinational project, lowering the cost for every nation involved and speeding up the development process, enabling us to go further than LEO sooner

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 17:05:05

More than likly, its that the ESA was afraid of getting robbed by the Russians like NASA was.

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-14 03:50:12

ESA have tried to get their own Shuttle, Hermes spaceplane began as a purely French project. As development costs increased, France managed to obtain other European funding, the Hermes spaceplane would have provided independent European manned access to space. Hopper was another and at the time it was studied, it was anticipated that the production craft would enter use between 2015 and 2020. Hopper was to be launched on a futuristic 4 km magnetic track which would have accelerated it to launch speed, providing far cheaper access to space than the current launchers. Hopper followed the same fate as the cancelled European Space Shuttle Hermes. Phoenix is the prototype of Hopper-version,
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen … Phoeni.htm
http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=33
http://www.neat.se/projects/phoenix.shtml
the Phoenix was a proposed unmanned European reusable launch vehicle, the EADS Phoenix prototype was dropped from 2.4 kilometers (8,000 ft) by a helicopter and landed precisely and without incident after a GPS-guided 90 second glide. Hermes never got off the ground, Phase 1 did not get completed until the end of 1991 and by then the political climate surrounding Hermes had changed considerably, Europe's Iron Curtain had been lifted and the Cold War was ending, when both Russia and ESA joined up with NASA to build the International Space Station, the immediate need for a European crew transport system disappeared as both Russia and the USA had existing capabilities that did not need expansion

but the project is not dead - Future Launchers (FLPP)
http://www.space.eads.net/families/acce … -launchers

But Europe still is keen on the Russian shuttle, the head of the European Space Agency said that he was confident he could win enough support from member states to help develop Russia’s next-generation spaceship.
http://www.sptimes.ru/story/16356
Dordain hoped a decision would be made by June next year.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-08-31 15:12:08

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#52 2005-09-07 18:13:09

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#53 2005-09-08 15:40:04

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#54 2005-09-13 06:42:13

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#55 2005-09-14 12:53:36

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#56 2005-09-14 17:32:03

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#57 2005-09-16 13:16:19

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#58 2005-09-23 15:34:34

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#59 2005-09-23 15:50:04

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#60 2005-09-28 10:05:52

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#61 2005-10-06 05:08:10

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#62 2005-12-08 09:00:53

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#63 2005-12-08 09:38:06

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#64 2005-12-08 09:52:31

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#65 2005-12-08 10:30:52

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#66 2005-12-08 10:36:14

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#67 2005-12-08 11:09:35

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#68 2005-12-08 11:36:49

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#69 2005-12-08 12:33:31

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#70 2005-12-08 16:12:39

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#71 2005-12-09 12:03:59

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#72 2005-12-09 14:14:19

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#73 2005-12-09 16:19:04

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#74 2005-12-09 17:05:05

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

#75 2006-01-14 03:50:12

Re: New Russian Spacecraft

Board footer