By,By Klipper and welcome capsule.

[spacefire]

looks like our Italian friends they're so afraid of what happened to Columbia that they decided to jettison the rear portion of the Orbiter from re-entry.<br />Sounds about as smart as: <br />1)Building an airplane out of a floating house<br />2)Sending CR42 biplanes against Spitfires<br />3)Flying an airship above its intended altitude, while over the most unhospitable terrain on the planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[scottb50]

If it came down to a capsule concept I would be hardpressed to ignore Soyus. Works great. Now make it last a long time and you have a winner. I can't imagine the hardware is exhausted after one flight. Take out the avionics at least and re-use them, that can't be too hard to do. I would think the basic vehicle should be re-usable as it is and maybe it has been. <br /><br />If the ablative shield is dropped in the lower atmosphere the rest of the vehicle should be pretty much untouched.<br /><br />Maybe they have no more Soyuses than we have Shuttles, just a better track record. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[subzero788]

Even if this was all technically achievable, would the ESA ever get the required funding? I doubt it...

 

[qso1]

extropiandreams:<br />The article got a couple of things wrong....<br /><br />Me:<br />Hopefully the Russians will have success with Kliper but theres still plenty of time to follow the three step process our most advanced programs seem to follow so I guess will see. <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>

 

[nibb31]

<br />The Gemini B had a hatch, but nothing like a full docking system. Besides, what they describe as a re-entry module looks more like the Soyuz orbital module. <br /><br />It is spherical! I don't see how that can be a modern capsule. It would generate absolutely no lift and be a purely ballistic ncontrolled re-entry, more like Vostok than like Soyuz. Re-entering from moon velocities would be frightening !<br /><br />The reusable lander looks cool, but why on earth do they need a cone-chaped capsule on it? A cone shape may be ok when aerodynamics are involved, but it's a big waste of volume in this case. <br />And what's with the front-facing windows on top? If anything, the windows would have to face the ground to see where you are landing.<br /><br />There are so many design flaws that it looks like the Italians prefer designing cool-looking spaceships with Illustrator before even thinking about a mission profile.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">It is spherical! I don't see how that can be a modern capsule. It would generate absolutely no lift and be a purely ballistic ncontrolled re-entry, more like Vostok than like Soyuz. Re-entering from moon velocities would be frightening ! </font><br /><br />Lunar reentry would tear muscles, and even rip tendon from bone. Spherical capsules are a non-starter if you dont want to be in a wheelchair for life on return. <br /><br />They are however excellent to load on mass drivers during an uprising.

 

[carp]

Post deleted by carp

 

[gofer]

Yeah, right. The objective is to piss away as much government money as possible. American, European, Russian or Chinese. Until someone finds a point to this all, it's a pissing contest. With known results.

 

[elguapoguano]

Gofer, bet I could beat ya in distance. Just let me chug a few brewski's... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[egom]

And show the economic and politic blocks in the world:<br />1. USA 2. Europe/Russia 3. China <br /><br />EgoM

 

[j05h]

> Yeah, right. The objective is to piss away as much government money as possible. American, European, Russian or Chinese. Until someone finds a point to this all, it's a pissing contest. With known results.<br /><br />Which is why I advocate for private development and facilities. The profit motive is enough to make settlement possible. If Energia is smart they will develop Kliper regardless of ESA or other's support. The emerging market can surely cover their costs in the mid-term. Kliper would make a great LEO transport for the whole world - but only if it can be purchased like an airplane. It needs to be for sale if it is to become the DC-10 of spacecraft. This also means a lot of work reducing ground staff and hardware - it needs to be built to handle high flight rates and independent operations to succeed.<br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

It'll be a long, long, long time before anyone can simply sell a manned spacecraft and the people buying will have the ability to use the thing. All spacecraft require lots of experienced people to launch them safely, not to mention a huge amount of ground hardware.

 

[j05h]

If the spaceflight revolution is to really take place, ground control and support requirements must be severely reduced. Everybody agrees on this, Standing Armies of 10s of thousands of workers to fly a few people into space is ridiculous. Space vehicles need to become more like ships and aircraft, with maximum internal control and minimal outside. <br /><br />SpaceX Falcon is a great example. Their control room is a couple of laptops and comm equipment. The rocket itself uses CAT5 Ethernet for internal communication, instead of the traditional one-wire-per- function controls. Pad ops are handled by a dozen or so people instead of hundreds. This is the way to make spaceflight cheaper, more reliable and more frequent. <br /><br />If Energia is smart, they'll sell Kliper craft in a bundle with the payload adapter of your choice and a complete ground-control station. If Kliper requires an entire TSUP in Moscow to run, it will have a limited usability. The only other way to make it successful would be for Energia to run an entire "spaceline" that will fly you to your needed orbit. Again, they would be limiting their potential doing this.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Why sell just the kliper when you can sell the klipper/launcher/launch bundle? Russia has the cheapest rockets in the world anyway, so why complain about that?<br /><br />Ideally we'd like to see many separate companies developing the rockets and the manned spacecraft that are the payloads, all competing to put together the best quality product for the money. But with a single entity having a vertical monopoly one can't expect them to not bundle everything together.

 

[j05h]

> Why sell just the kliper when you can sell the klipper/launcher/launch bundle? Russia has the cheapest rockets in the world anyway, so why complain about that? <br /><br />That's why I also suggested an Energia "spaceline". It doesn't solve the back-room costs of current spaceflight. The main issue, though, is that a vertical bundle that equals purchasing a ticket doesn't help if you need the entire craft and need to fly it with other hardware on a larger rocket. I'm thinking of a Kliper, MPLM and small node on Ariane. <br /><br />Being locked to a single launcher is problematic. Soyuz 2 (or whatever it flies on) will undoubtedly be a fine rocket, but doesn't necessarily cover all mission profiles. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If the spaceflight revolution is to really take place, ground control and support requirements must be severely reduced. <b>Everybody agrees on this</b>, Standing Armies of 10s of thousands of workers to fly a few people into space is ridiculous.</font>/i><br /><br />The people who make up that standing army might disagree with you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[j05h]

> The people who make up that standing army might disagree with you. <br /><br />Indeed. They usually have caniptions when I suggest things could be any other way. It's funny how Russia is capitalist and we in the USA are socialist now. <br /><br />My point stands, regardless of what overspecialized tech workers might think. If mission control and backend needs aren't reduced and simplified, NASA won't be able to afford a sustained Lunar program and forget Mars. If the same holds true, no large-scale commercial development will be possible. imagine what shipping would be like with NASA's mission control practices: it'd take 10,000 people on shore to manage a supertanker crossing the Atlantic. "Bzzzt. Mission Control, Super Tanker 3. Permission to turn 3 degrees starboard?" It's only funny because it's true. A ship at sea is soveriegn. A spaceship in the space-sea should be likewise.<br /><br />I understand the technology enough to know that total autonomy is not completely ideal. There are tasks that relate to the vehicle that don't need to be performed onboard. Having remote control of a craft from Earth/base has emergency and security purposes (and failure modes). As pilotted spacecraft move out of cis-lunar space, I think the "Mission Control" will become more like the "Home Office" of a ship than the play-by-play of Johnson or tSUP. This triply true of commercial enterprises, where operational autonomy will be the norm. <br /><br />If you built a space system right now (starting now), you might use Russian FGB and Progress/Soyuz, Bigelow hab and Italian MPLM and Node (plus specialized hardware). Once you have the vehicle assembled and ready to become the Apophis Mining Cooperative, Unlimited, you are not going to want permission from Star City every time you perform a TCM or fart. I know the Russians are more lax than NASA on this (Mir cosmos had much autonomy), but light-delays and modern engineering should largely do away with Mission Control needs. This is most <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I was glad to see the Russian cost structure mentioned above.<br /> /> Branson could fund this project on his own. This is about the same cost as Rutan's CXV. And that only goes to LEO.<br /><br />That is my point. While expensive, it is not impossible to purchase what you need for an "expedition". In the coming years, yes, I can see Sir Richard start funding the first Mars flight or similiar. The same goes for other super-rich individuals. <br /><br />With Russian tech, a basic station can be outfitted for LEO ops for $250+ million, with a minimum of perhaps $50m/Soyuz or Progress. That buys you an FGB in a high inclination orbit and one Soyuz flight/year. Add Progress for extra living space and supplies. Add Alenia node, Bigelow hab and other features afterward. As it is a station of said configuration (with loose numbers above) does not pay for itself at the current rate of 1 Tito per customer ($20mil). A commercial facitility could exist now, but needs a bigger market (or more passengers/flight) than can be provided in such a minimal configuration. MirCorp had an interesting configuration several years ago: an extended Progress that Soyuz would dock to. It would hibernate when no one was aboard, deorbit when used up, launch a new one. <br /><br />Bringing this back to Kliper: such a craft, carrying 5+ paying passengers, docked to the more fleshed-out station (w/ Bigelow hab,etc) could provide an all around money-making system, just based on tourism. We'll see how much it costs, and I hope Energia builds it whether their partners back out or not. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[daniko]

This is something form yesterday that I still don't find on this forum and I think is important. It's an anouncement made by Roscossmos on 19.July.2006 that I'll try to translate:<br /><br /><b>"On a conference from 18.July of the russian delegation on the «Farnborough International Airshow-2006» a lot of questions were asked to the head of Roscossmos - A.N.Perminov concerning Perspective Transportation Piloted Systems. In that context Roscossmos announces:<br /><br />In the contest documentations on the contest set by Roscossmos (started 23.nov.2005) contenders: RKK Energia, GKNPC W.M.Hrunichev, NPO Molnia presented their contest documentations, which expressed their vision of future development of space technologies.<br /><br />Unfortunately contestors did'n make account for the contest requirements: exclusive usage of national launch systems (NPO Molnia used ukrainean carier-plane"); proposals of RKK Energia nad GKNPC M.V.Hrunichev require serious modernisation or development of new LV which prevent realisation of projects in predetermined terms; presented by contenders dynamic of expenses seriously differs from the fundings planned in the Federel space programme of Russia for 2006-2015 y., which demands substantial change in that program.<br /><br />Taking into account the above statement and with regards to the presented contest documentation, it's been taken into attention the offered by RKK Energia for 2-3 staged plan.<br /><br />On the first stage are proposed refinements and modernisations of the space ship "Soyuz", which has proven itself for 40-years of exploatation with high grade of reliability and relatively low cost of delivery of a member of the crew to the orbital station.<br /><br />From our point of view the modernisation works should be such, that the advanced "Soyuz" could accomplish not only orbital flights, but flights to the Moon, which will allow testing and development of new technological patterns and testing of flight systems that could be a part in</b>

 

[space_dreamer]

So, this time it's really "By, By, Klipper . – I disagree. <br /><br />I think there will be two Russian manned space craft; The advanced Soyuz for going to the moon and Klipper for space station human transport.<br /><br />I went to the Farnborough Air show on Tuesday and saw the klipper stand. I spoke to the people there, they said that “or though the Klipper was not frozen, it will definitely have wings.” <br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">I think there will be two Russian manned space craft; The advanced Soyuz for going to the moon and Klipper for space station human transport. </font><br /><br />Unless it's on the ESA's coin I have strong doubts that a Russian anything is going to the moon any time soon.

 

[alpha_centauri]

The advanced Soyuz is planned to be a Russo-European venture anyway. Such a scheme is currently more acceptable to the ESA member states.<br /><br />It appears Energia is continuing with it's work on Kliper however, not sure what's that about.

 

[tomnackid]

Indeed. They usually have caniptions when I suggest things could be any other way. It's funny how Russia is capitalist and we in the USA are socialist now. <br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Those Russian rockets are so cheap because of the billions upon billions of dollars the USSR poured into its defense and space programs over its 80 year reign. A full accounting of the real costs will never be known and many debts have never and will never be paid off. The current "capitalist" Russian space companies are crows feeding off the carcass of an elephant. <br /><br />I don't mean this as an insult to the Russian space workers, but the original capital to create their space program came from the Soviet state--and it was a huge amount. The current owners are like caretakers appointed by a court to take over control of a bankrupt company. We will truly see what they are capable of and how cheaply they can deliver it when they start cranking out truly post Soviet rockets and spacecraft designs.

 

[daniko]

To <b>space_dreamer</b>:<br /><br />You might just missed the last sentence:<br /><br /><b>" ... the space ship of the next generation, if such would be required."</b><br /><br />I don't like how it sounds compared to the optimistic announcements of the head of Roscossmos from 2005.