Advanced Crew Transportation System - new information

[themanwithoutapast]

http://planetary.org/news/2006/0628_Europe_and_Russia_Join_Forces_to_Study.html<br /><br />This article contains a lot of new information with regard to ACTS, the study ESA and Roskosmos have agreed to fund during the next 2 years with a decision to be made in 2008 on whether to go forward with the construction of the system.<br /><br />The interesting part here is - as far as I see it - the mission scenario:<br /><br />a. 2 launches of existing (or only slightly modified launch vehicles) - meaning in the range of Angara, Ariane and Proton which gives a LEO max weight of the system of 45 to 50 tons.<br /><br />b. the 3 module approach, descent module based on Soyuz, orbital module and propulsion/service module<br /><br />While this is only a study and only limited funds are provided for it, it looks promising - at least not outright unrealistically.

 

[lbiderman]

Wouldn't this timetable put the first launch of the vehicle, given it's approval, in the second part of the next decade? I mean, while the CEV will be flying to the moon, this new ship will be taking it's first steps! Although I might be wrong about the time it will take from study to construction.

 

[avmich]

Actually, it's believed to be the other way around. The ACTS is less chalenging technically and economically, than propositions made during preparations to the tender for Kliper design.<br /><br />Being easier to do, ACTS can be completed faster. Though this time there is no particular hurry - 2 years are reserved only for initial planning. Nevertheless, the main modules or their protorypes are all in place. It means, basically, that technical side will not be a significant obstacle in the ACTS.

 

[egom]

This just comes to confirm me a theory dear to me that EU wants to become a 'major playa' in the space exploration area. They are sitting on piles of money and they want to invest them in the future of the human exploration. Moving to the russians was the next logical step - as they have the technology and the people but they lack big money. Do not get deceived, they have some money, but not enough money to support a CEV like program.<br />As I see the situation in the future they will keep and improve the Soyuz system and it will become a commercial system (if not 'de jure' then 'de facto') and some of the most talented people from there will move to the 'new' system which from what I have there will be Soyuz 2 (which is a good thing).<br /><br />This whole political thing deserves a better and more profound analysis but I do not have the time and patience.<br /><br />EgoM

 

[gofer]

Great, another "possibility to consider a 2 year possibility of a possible study of a possible project with... some left over pocket change" So 2 years of "studying" the Klipper are gone wasted. Can't ESA just commit to a large Lunar plan... with landers and bases and ISRU and stuff. They've got the money and the tech.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

They can't commit themself to a full blown program because memberstates have to approve such a program. They need to come up with a detailed plan so nobody objects and do a lot of lobbying with the important European countries for space exploration (Germany, France, Italy) so that those countries contribute enough money to actually developing this new spacecraft in 2008.<br /><br />If they would ask for approval of a €100 billion program with a lunar spacecraft, a lander, a moon base, the memberstates would probably ask for ESA's management to be pschyological examined because they obviously have gone mad.<br /><br />Kliper is (or was) a Russian program. ESA was not involved in it. And while you could say that NASA committed itself to go to the moon before they actually had a detailed plan (ESAS), it still took until this year that funds are released to start the actual development phase for the CEV, the CLV etc. That comes close to a 2 year preliminary definition and design stage for the Exploration program as well - just like this ACTS-study.<br /><br />To sum up, the good thing about ACTS actually is that it might get approval, because it is not a large full-blown exploration program, but just focuses on a vehicle (derived completely from existing hardware launched on top of a existing launcher) that does not need a lot of money to develop. Once the program is on its way ESA has the chance to ask for more money for the development of an LM etc..

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">They can't commit themself to a full blown program because memberstates have to approve such a program.</font>/i><br /><br />The politics in ESA sound worse than the politics in NASA.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">it is not a large full-blown exploration program, but just focuses on a vehicle</font>/i><br /><br />I did find this interesting. The program to this point sounds like it could provide Apollo 8 class missions -- go out and orbit the Moon a few times and come back. I think that effort would lose public support after 2-3 missions.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">This article contains a lot of new information with regard to ACTS</font>/i><br /><br />I found the following quotes interesting:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>During the last 6 months, the collaboration led to a change in design from the Clipper, a spacecraft designed for jaunts to the ISS, to a more Moon-friendly capsule type spacecraft. "Clipper is a nice concept, but it is more suitable for missions to low Earth orbit, like the ISS," says Valls. "Being a winged vehicle and coming in for reentry from low Earth orbit it [would do] what the shuttle does. But if you think of missions beyond low Earth orbit, to the Moon and beyond, you need to solve the issue of direct reentry from those long distances. Therefore, we agreed to explore with the Russians a vehicle concept able to safely conduct missions to the Moon and beyond, and reenter dynamically to Earth. We reached the conclusion that we should focus on a capsule type vehicle as opposed to a winged vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle architecture of the ACTS vehicle is different from the Clipper."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This follows a lot of the debates on these boards over the last 1-2 years: capsule versus winged vehicle. This decision appears again to validate a capsule for beyond-LEO missions.<br /><br />The second point is that ESA is seriously thinking about the Moon too. Three years ago no one was thinking seriously about manned missions to the Moon. Today, virtually everyone is thinking about the Moon. This is a remarkable change.<br /><br />The third point is that (from this admittedly limited quote), ESA may be psychologically putting the ISS behind it. ESA has dismissed the Kliper, a cheaper, more capable spacecraft to service ISS. It should prove interesting to see where ESA invests its dollars for manned missions in the next several years.</i>

 

[qso1]

The whole thing boils down to dollars. Capsules are apparently cheaper to do than winged. Fact is, no small wing craft has ever become operational so we really don't know for certain if that type craft would have major advantages over a capsule cost wise but reusabilty would be one major cost savings.<br /><br />Considering CEV is being designed for reuse up to 10 times. Its a step in the right direction for capsules assuming they do make it reusable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mrcolumbus]

Any news on that study. Wikipedia says it will start in September?

 

[josh_simonson]

But considering that re-using the capsule is only projected to save about 10%, there isn't much room for cost growth for re-use to be a losing gambit.<br /><br />It's also very likely that this 10% savings was calculated at 6 flights for year, like everything else in ESAS.