By,By Klipper and welcome capsule.

[carp]

Are not good times for Spaceplanes . http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/13/Navigation/200/207228/Kliper+dropped+for+lunar+capsule.html

 

[nacnud]

Thats for the luna mission, and why bother with the columbus bit? ATV + return capsule would do, ATV + Columbus + Capsule is a fair sized space station.

 

[nibb31]

This is getting ridiculous. How many more paper studies is ESA going to fund and cancel before we actually start a european manned space program?<br /><br />And now this? a "moonship" built by docking an ATV to Columbus module and a soyuz capsule? What for? There isn't even a lander or an EDS to get out of LEO.<br /><br />When did any European official decide that the goal of Europe's manned space program is a lunar flyby ?<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

"ATV + Columbus + Capsule is a fair sized space station."<br /><br />Yes, if you don't need any environmental systems, solar arrays, attitude control, communication equipment...basically a space station.

 

[spacefire]

why does ESA want to go to the Moon so bad?<br />A new space race?Europe against the US?<br />sounds silly. Kliper could've brought Russia some serious cash be it only from private flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I wouldn't rule out klipper just yet, but it's propably not so good for luna missions.<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Yes, if you don't need any environmental systems, solar arrays, attitude control, communication equipment...<br /><br /><font color="white">Well the ATV has all of those, especialy if you used this version.</font></font>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Are not good times for Spaceplanes."<br /><br />An interesting article, thanx for the link.<br /><br />I wouldn't celebrate yet though if I were you. I'm waiting for additional sources to confirm the story because there are elements of the story which are odd.<br /><br />Since the price of oil skyrocketed, Russia isn't hurting that much for money anymore. So I can't see the ESA tail wagging the FSA dog when it comes to the Kliper. Should the ESA back out of support I'm sure the Russians will proceed all by themselves if neccessary and select whatever form of vehicle that suits them. And up untill this odd article said otherwise, the Russians were all about the Kliper and the Kliper's advantages of expanded passenger selection due to reduced g loads upon reentry.<br /><br />It appears that this ESA 'moonship' is the equivalent of a 20 tonne Soyuz! Since the Soyuz masses less than 8 tonnes and has a crew of three, I think the article is underselling the abilities of this new "four man" concept. The ESA Columbus lab has a volume of 75 cubic meters, compare that to the Soyuz orbital module volume of only 5 cubic meters. Yikes.

 

[nibb31]

It really looks like they decided to randomly put "ATV", "Columbus", and "Moon" into the same article just for the heck of it. <br /><br />- Columbus needs to be launched on the Shuttle. To be launched by any other means really requires a new module.<br />- There is no lander. This makes the whole contraption either a lunar flyby mission or a lunar orbital outpost. Neither of which makes much sense, except for space tourism maybe, which should not be a priority for ESA.<br />- There is no EDS. The ATV is designed for orbital manoeuvres, not for sending 20 tons to the moon. A moon mission like this still needs a heavy launcher to send up some kind on rocket stage for TLI.<br />- ATV is redundant with the Soyuz service module. If you're going to use a soyuz descent module, you might as well just use its service module too.<br />- A mission like this would require no less than 4 launches, and 3 orbital assemblies.<br /><br />It just doesn't make sense.

 

[syndroma]

I think this article is just a faint echo of real fierce fighting between different parties in Russia. A deathmatch between Roskosmos, Energia, Khrunichev and Molniya continues. Nobody really understands the situation. The rumors are absolutely surreal - Energia is making Kliper on its own, Roskosmos is supporting Khrunichev's TKS reincarnation, but Molniya found an investor. It seems there will be no winner.

 

[egom]

"I think this article is just a faint echo of real fierce fighting between different parties in Russia. A deathmatch between Roskosmos, Energia, Khrunichev and Molniya continues. Nobody really understands the situation. The rumors are absolutely surreal - Energia is making Kliper on its own, Roskosmos is supporting Khrunichev's TKS reincarnation, but Molniya found an investor. It seems there will be no winner."<br /><br />Now this is funny <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. I really hope that this is not true...<br /><br />EgoM

 

[j05h]

Energia building Kliper on it's own would be great! A 6+ person spacecraft with no strings attached! It'd be ideal for servicing Bigelow vessels. Maybe Energia sees the commercial market as stronger than the government one?<br /><br />A TKS revival would be cool. What's the problem with a little shake-up in passenger spaceflight? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

No suprise to me. The steps to a grand aerospace project (And Kliper wasn't even that grand) are:<br /><br />1.....Propose the Cadillac.<br /><br />2.....Find reasons to water it down to a Chevy.<br /><br />3.....Build a V.W or cancel the project altogether.<br /><br />This happens in Russia just as it does here. <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>

 

[extropiandreams]

<br />The article got a couple of things wrong. It is refering to a design study by esa. It has nothing to do with klipper. I couldn't find any other source about this, so i would say it's wrong. klipper is already in the russian space program till 2015, and there are government projects for the sojus-2-3 and sojus-3. so in reality things aren't looking bad. They need to get more funding for sure, but klipper isn't a paper project anymore. and things are becoming better in russia anyway.<br /><br />the sojus2-3 and sojus-3 will use existing nk-33 engines(there are 70 left), and resume production of the engines with money from commercial launches. The government also wants a launcher in this class.<br /><br />They plan klipper to be used by space tourists from the beginning, so they are really trying to make manned spaceflight less expensive(at least for the government).<br /><br />So in reality tight funding can be good to avoid a multi billion cev monster.

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[nacnud]

Why are there two orbital modules? An esa one and a russian one?

 

[nibb31]

Wow! The Eagle lander looks just like the one in Space 1999!<br /><br />Erm... the drawing says the middle module is supposed to be the re-entry capsule. The way it looks, I don't understand how it could re-enter with what looks like a hatch at each end...<br /><br />But then why does the Eagle have what looks like a CEV capsule at the front if it's not re-entering ? <br /><br />That whole assembly must be at least 50 tons! What do they plan to use as an EDS stage? <br /><br />It makes no sense at all!

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[spacefire]

By the time this sucker and the CEV get to the Moon, there'll be McDonald's waiting for them. So solly, astlonuts! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Then the pictures are very missleading, the Soyuz bit used in the pics is the Orbital module, and the lander has what looks like an Apollo/ARD decent module clone stuck on the end for no good reason. These at least should be the other way around.<br /><br />The mission would make sense if it was in the form of EOR for the capsule (Decent Module, Orbital Module, Service Module) and the EDS. And then LOR for this stack with a pre positioned Luna Lander. This could be a good alternative to developing a CaLV class vehicle. <br /><br />Thanks for the info, are there any more links?<br /><br />

 

[jammers]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Erm... the drawing says the middle module is supposed to be the re-entry capsule. The way it looks, I don't understand how it could re-enter with what looks like a hatch at each end...<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Having a hatch through the heatshield isn't necessarily a problem. The Gemini-B had a hatch in its heatshield, and it did OK on a test flight.

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp