Development cost of Russian Kliper = less than $1/2 Billion

[askold]

We're spending $4.5 Billion on the shuttle every year.<br /><br />And $4 Billion on "exploration systems" (CEV) per year in the coming years.<br /><br />Looks like the Russkies are doing something right.

 

[mikejz]

Or paying people less......

 

[ronatu]

<b>10 to 20 times exactly...</b> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[askold]

Well, at least we're getting our money's worth - like $2.5 billion to fix falling foam ...

 

[wvbraun]

$0.5 billion for development of Kliper? Wrong again: The latest estimate is $3 billion. Hardly surprising given that russian aerospace engineers earn less that a cab driver...

 

[ronatu]

3,000,000,000 with Europeans help...<br />300,000,000 without. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[askold]

$30,000,000,000 with NASA's help.<br /><br />I know, I know - it was a cheap shot. But it was just lying there ...

 

[wvbraun]

"300,000,000 without."<br /><br />Let's face it. The russians are broke, they can't build Kliper without european financial support.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Let's face it. The russians are broke</font>/i><br /><br />The Russian economy has improved quite a bit over the last several years, and the high oil and gas prices are helping them as well.</i>

 

[no_way]

I would add to that, that the stories about russian engineers earning less than cab drivers arent exactly true either.<br />Did you know for example, that Intel has huge research labs in Russia ? They are paying people very well , i know first-hand, i had a job offered there a while ago. ( No im not russian, and dont live there either ) <br />There's a lot of "brains" to be employed over there, and several high-tech companies have realized that. Yes, they get paid somewhat less than maybe in Ireland or US but the primary reason why companies are interested is that huge untapped talent pool.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

You also have to take into account that the cost of living is a lot lower in Russia, so that you need a lot lower income to provide a given standard of living.<br /><br />On a similar note, I talk to quite a few middle-class Indians who are in the UK for business. They said they'd thought about working in the UK as the wages are much higher, but decided they didn't want to live in the much smaller houses and give up their servants!

 

[no_way]

Exactly. People who earn perhaps half of the salary in dollar value in Russia as compared to a person in US has probably better standard of living there.<br />So one-liners like "russians dont pay their people!!" are pretty stupid. A competent engineer in russia is as highly valued person as in other parts of the world, the exact converted dollar figures they earn dont tell the whole story.

 

[tomnackid]

Kliper, which is still in the design and planning phase, can't do a tenth of what the shuttle has been doing for 20 years. You are comparing apples to oranges. Kliper will be an updated DynaSoar. I'm not saying it won't be useful for a whole lot of things, but you can't compare it directly to a vehicle that can put 7 people an 50,000 pounds of cargo into orbit in one shot. Plus can bring back 23,000 pounds to a runway landing. Even if we degraded the shuttle performance by coating the ET with a metal or carbon fiber skin to prevent foam shedding it would still way outperform Kliper--even the Russians admit that.<br /><br />A Piper Cub and and a 747 are both excellent aircraft, but I wouldn't try flying passengers across the Atlantic in a Piper Cub! Nor would I try landing a 747 at Danbury Municipal airport!

 

[no_way]

<b>I</b> didnt compare STS to Kliper, i believe you are responding to the first post.<br /><br />But, BTW, yes, its an obvious apples to oranges comparision from the start because one figure is an established yearly operational cost ( which buys you from zero to five launches a year ) , and other is quoted development cost.<br /><br />The catch was, that Russians claim that they are capable of developing a manned orbital system for less money than it takes NASA to operate one.<br /><br />So whats <b>your</b> point again ?

 

[tomnackid]

Sorry, as you said I was responding to the initial post. Just hit the wrong button.

 

[ronatu]

FROM press: <br /><br />ESA is hoping to secure about €50 million ($61 million) from its governing ministers in December to develop a preliminary design, as well as financial and legal agreements for the project over the next two years. <br /><br />Estimates put the cost for Russia to build and fly the first Kliper at about <b>$1 billion</b> – Thirkettle hopes ESA will participate at a level of 20% to 30% in the project. <br /><br />Its design is still being worked out, but it may have "stubby" wings to allow it to steer and land on a runway, like the shuttle. But unlike the shuttle, which can loft heavy cargo into space, the Kliper would mainly act as a "people carrier", says Thirkettle.

 

[askold]

Wait a minute - I wasn't comparing the shuttle to Kliper either. And I wasn't confusing development costs with operational costs - I was clear that the Kliper numbers were for developing the vehicle.<br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

OK, OK, lets just say I wanted to remind people that the STS and Kliper are 2 very different beasties. Wasn't trying to criticize anyone.

 

[peterweg]

>Kliper, which is still in the design and planning phase, can't do a tenth of what the shuttle has been doing for 20 years. You are comparing apples to oranges. Kliper will be an updated DynaSoar. I'm not saying it won't be useful for a whole lot of things, but you can't compare it directly to a vehicle that can put 7 people an 50,000 pounds of cargo into orbit in one shot. Plus can bring back 23,000 pounds to a runway landing.<br /> /><br /><br />So the shuttle is good at doing something that nobody needs?

 

[no_way]

Well, who exactly needs ISS?

 

[drwayne]

How do you mean "nobody needs?"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[discovery_fan]

As I understand it, the ISS is very valuable. It is not that spectacular to the public as a manned planetary or moon mission is, but it has its points. I know that a lot of good scientific work was done on MIR, and the ISS is for sure better then mir ever was. <br />Of course the money spent on ISS, shuttle, klipper and the like is a huge ammount, but it comes back. It does not pay back like a bank investment, but it pays back in other values. If we (as mankind) can achieve just one single breakthrough (e.g. in the devellopment of medication or other things related to chrystal grow in zergo-G) with the work on ISS it was worth it. All experiments done on the ISS or the shuttle (or before on MIR) have been just the tip of a spearhead of a spear of thousends of scientists in labs arround the world. Its a shame that our industrialized countries do not spend much more in that field. Think about Russia and how much they do in space science with the little budget they have as a country. Russia has an economic power like Spain I think. Its a huge country, but it is a much smaller economy then e.g. Germany. But they do what they can, and it will sooner or later pay off. With more and better educated people, with a better overall state of air and space industry. <br />I remember very well how deeply dissapointed the science comunity in my homecountry was, when the austroMIR project was cut in half. They planned two MIR missions, but scrubbed the austroMIR2 due to budget restrictions. It really was a shame. And all the scientists that worked on the program said that we lost a real bargain with that.<br />I think the ISS is well worth the effort, and it needs the unique capabilities the shuttle has. And when its completed, the klipper will be a superb contribution to it.

 

[askold]

When the ISS was first envisioned, it had a lot of goals. But now, it's just doing long duration space exposure experiments to support long duration trips to other planets.<br /><br />Once in a while, somebody points a camera out the window and takes a picture of tsunami damage (or something like that) and claims another ISS success story.<br /><br />But, the earth science planned for ISS is done by satellites.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Well, who exactly needs ISS?</font>/i><br /><br />Unfortunately, this could be said about much of space. Who needs the MERs? Who needs to space probes to Jupiter, Saturn, or Pluto?<br /><br />What NASA (or someone) needs to do is provide a clear and concise argument about the value of ISS that holds water. For example, the Mars program has a clear "follow the water" mantra, with the position that life needs water. Then each mission to Mars has a clear set of goals that are in line with that mantra, a set of instruments to achieve those goals, and a set of experiments and operations to try to achieve those goals.<br /><br />ISS lacks that clear articulation of purpose and direction that can stand up to scrutiny.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">When the ISS was first envisioned, it had a lot of goals. But now, it's just doing long duration space exposure experiments to support long duration trips to other planets. </font>/i><br /><br />Part of the irony in this is that the time astronauts/cosmonauts are spending on ISS already meet the time spent to reach Mars.<br /><br />And the radiation threat on ISS is not nearly as great as it will be on interplanetary travel, so that research is only moderately helpful.</i>