You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationsp … drcrd.html
Apparently it will take Europe to the Moon
Offline
That looks like Klipper on top of the Onega launch vehicle. 'Onega' is the upgraded version of the Soyuz launch vehicle developed for Klipper. In fact, the article talks about 'Clipper', an alternate spelling for Klipper.
Why the hell would you want to carry a winged or lifting body spaceplane all the way to the moon and back!? I argued for a dedicated spacecraft to travel from LEO directly to the lunar surface and back, with a separate shuttle from Earth's surface to LEO and back. That's for all reusable vehicles, an all expendable system would use a capsule with ablative heat shield. Either way, you don't have a winged vehicle go to the moon. Klipper (or 'Kliper') is a cone with stubby delta wing. The wing, verticle aerodynamic control surfaces, heat shield tiles and RCC nose cone, and Shuttle-style manoeuvring thrusters are completely inappropriate for the vacuum of space.
Visions of Lockheed-Martin's lunar spaceplane. (shudder!)
Offline
Anyone knows the current status on ESA involvement in the Kliper project?
"MOSCOW, December 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Federal Space Agency will hold a closed tender among Russian space industry companies for the construction of a new "Clipper" manned spacecraft, the head of the agency said Wednesday."
[...]
"Jean-Jacques Dordain, the director general of the European Space Agency (ESA) will arrive in Moscow for talks on December 9."
[...]
"The very fact that none of the participant countries have spoken against [the project] is significant," Perminov said."
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20051207/42365932.html
Edit: URL fix
Offline
Sorry guys but there are a few folders with regards to the Klipper:
They already contain much information and possibly the answers to your questions.
Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner
Possibly an admin will merge this thread with one of the others.
Offline
Offline
As far as I know the european involvement in the Klipper is offically nothing since the last vote of the ESA funding board to not provide a dime for the Klipper.
Offline
As far as I know the european involvement in the Klipper is offically nothing since the last vote of the ESA funding board to not provide a dime for the Klipper.
It’s too bad I think…it would be good to see another alternative to the CEV system. Then again perhaps the ideas presented for the clipper show an under powered craft. If the thing couldn’t survive reentry (which it can) the idea of catching the thing in space to deliver it to the ISS would seem scary.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
It makes sense for Europe not to buy into the scheme, because Klipper doesn't make sense:
Where can you fly it to? Low Earth orbit. There isn't anything there worth flying to. The ISS? Please...
Can it return from trans-Lunar velocities without braking burn? Probobly not, so it could only ferry crews to a Lunar cycler. Since you would need a capsule "escape pod" capable of direct return in any event, you might as well just use it for the crew vehicle and skip Klipper alltogether. Same problem with a Mars ship return vehicle.
[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 makes sense for Europe not to buy into the scheme, because Klipper doesn't make sense:
Where can you fly it to? Low Earth orbit. There isn't anything there worth flying to. The ISS? Please...
Can it return from trans-Lunar velocities without braking burn? Probobly not, so it could only ferry crews to a Lunar cycler. Since you would need a capsule "escape pod" capable of direct return in any event, you might as well just use it for the crew vehicle and skip Klipper alltogether. Same problem with a Mars ship return vehicle.
Yeah, I’m not too sure what the clipper brings to the table. Will it be much cheaper for delivering people to the ISS? Will it be safer? I’ve heard reports that it will provide a gentler ride to the ISS which is good for tourists.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Ah ha, so the Russians tried to get the Europeans to subsidize their space tourism business
[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
Ah ha, so the Russians tried to get the Europeans to subsidize their space tourism business
I'm sure the Russians don't think the Europeans and the Japanese are that stupid. If they did want to use it for tourism they would probably share it the profit. Besides i doubt it has anything to do with that. ESA with it's small budget would have jumped at a chance to get extra money.
"...all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
Offline
But even if they do not get the European community to buy in on the Klipper the Russian's are still doing what they can to hedge there bets for the future.
Energia corporation plans to double spacecraft production
The corporation currently produces two Soyuz manned spacecraft and four Progress cargo spacecraft per year, he said.
Energia plans to manufacture three Soyuz spacecraft in 2008, and four Soyuz and eight Progress spacecraft in 2009, 2010, and 2011,
Granted the US will be buying a few of these since the shuttle will be on a reduced scheduel or should I say no flights at all if they can no get there act together on the ET's foam problem...
Offline
The late 2005 launch manifest is most impressive. www.orbireport.com
Some new info on Parom is available at www.russianspaceweb.com
Offline
Offline
Pages: 1