ESA may cooperate with Russia on manned spacecraft

[wvbraun]

Yes! Finally our space agency is showing some common sense with regard to manned spaceflight. If this goes forward, I might actually become interested in the european space program again.<br /><br /><i>The European Space Agency (ESA) is considering a proposal to cooperate with Russia on the development of a new manned spacecraft that could give ESA for the first time its own independent means of launching humans into space. The British newspaper The Observer reported Sunday that the ESA Council will take up a proposal in the next week to support the development of Kliper (or Clipper), a new manned spacecraft that Russian company Energia has been designing as a potential successor to the Soyuz spacecraft. ESA would contribute £1 billion (US$1.8 billion) over a ten-year period to help fund development of Kliper; the report indicates that Russia is also seeking funding from Japan, India, and Canada. A final decision on ESA participation will be made at an ESA ministerial meeting in December.</i> <br /><br />Europe to hitch space ride on Russia's rocket

 

[wvbraun]

A huge collection of Kliper pictures: http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_032/index.html

 

[chebby]

I like how the guy says in that article “…The alternative will be to sit back and watch countries like China get to the Moon while we do nothing”. Fear of Chinese catching up might be what will give ESA and NASA an incentive to progress. <br /><br />Weird that the Brits are not big fans of the manned program, I guess they think robots is the way to go?<br />

 

[chebby]

The only thing that worries me about that project is that it's supposed to "glide" on reentry, aka space shuttle. Why not just stick to capsules and parachutes, a proven and reliable design?

 

[gofer]

My reading of this situation is that Energia has prepared 2 variants: one wingless capsule like (the press iron shaped) for Roskosmos (the mean and lean variant) which I favor from the two, and the second "luxury" version together with Sukhoi with little stubby wings specifically for Europe because they want it to land on a runway or a nice meadow somewhere in Switzerland (not too many steppes in Europe <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). Pehaps the "looks" are important for the ESA funding to go ahead. Could be just a rumor but it kind of makes sense... for their cross range requirements... also for South Koreans and the Japanese whom they also been talking to, I guess. Anyway, the customer is always right...

 

[grooble]

If you tried to start a manned space program in britain, people would say :<br /><br />"But what about Africa?"<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Yep but we spend our money on science missions, and currently we get more science for the £ from unmanned missions.

 

[flynn]

Britains membership with ESA is rather like a Pick and Mix, I'd love to see them offer up a bit more and become more involved.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Yes! Finally our space agency is showing some common sense with regard to manned spaceflight. If this goes forward, I might actually become interested in the european space program again."<br /><br /> I have been anticipating this decision for some time since it's such a natural fit for the needs of ESA and Russia.<br /><br />The ESA's big Ariane V rocket was sized to meet the lift needs of the Hermes space plane. Ariane V is still here but not the Hermes. So ESA has a nifty rocket and launch site but no manned vehicle to lift.<br /><br />Russia's Kliper re-usable manned lifting body is starved for development funds. And even worse for Kliper, Russia no longer has a booster big enough to launch the Kliper. After the break up of the Soviet Union, Ukraine ended up with the rocket the Kliper was originally intended for.<br /><br />So ESA has a 14 tonne payload rocket with no manned vehicle, and Russia is trying to develop a 14 ton manned vehicle with no rocket to launch it. It's a natural marriage for the two sides to join forces since they both have so much to gain.<br /><br />By the way, the latest information I have seen on the Kliper indicates a shaving of liftoff mass from 14.5 tonnes to 13 tonnes, and replacing the nose mounted launch escape tower with a tail mounted launch escape skirt.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">The only thing that worries me about that project is that it's supposed to "glide" on reentry, aka space shuttle. Why not just stick to capsules and parachutes, a proven and reliable design? </font><br /><br />why not stick to horses and carriages, a proven design? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">If you tried to start a manned space program in britain, people would say : <br /><br />"But what about Africa?" </font><br /><br />hey that's an idea. you could send 3 ethoipians in space for the cost of an American. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[chebby]

Actually, after taking a look at the diagram (second image from wvbrawn's second link), one can see that Klipper is a very different design from the shuttle. For starters, it does use a parachute for the final stage of descent as opposed to having wings for flying.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Russia has Soyuz-2 booster which was developed special for Clipper. Futhermore, the mentioned ukranian Zenit is not man rated yet. "<br /><br />Good info on the Kliper is here...<br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html<br /><br />Here is some info on the Soyuz 2...<br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2.html<br /><br />Note that the Kliper has a mass of 13 tonnes while the Soyuz 2 can lift at best 9 tonnes to LEO. The canceled Onega version of the Soyuz booster was the original plan for the launch vehicle for the Kliper. Since Onega fell through the plan has been to use the Zenit. <br /><br />"Man rating" is really a chimerical issue today (mostly employed by those trying to market a product) as made clear by rocket scientist and current NASA administrator Michael Griffin in this testimony to Congress on May 2003...<br /><br />"What challenges may NASA face in using an Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) as the boost vehicle for the OSP? Does the use of an ELV for human spaceflight pose an unacceptable risk?<br /><br /><br /><br />In the 1950s and 1960s, the term "man rating" was coined to describe the process of converting the military Redstone, Atlas, and Titan II vehicles to the requirements of manned spaceflight. This involved a number of factors such as pogo suppression, structural stiffening, and other details not particularly germane to today's expendable vehicles. The concept of "man rating" in this sense is, I believe, no longer very relevant."<br /><br />here is the link to the testimony<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewsr.html?pid=9138<br /><br /><br />

 

[holmec]

Hope it goes well with them. ESA and Russia. The world starts to gell. Cooperation is great, and having a better means to space is great. <br /><br />Lets see.... we got NASA, Russian Soyuz, China's Shenzou, and now a new one with coop between ESA and Russia. Not to mention the civilian orbiters on the drawing board (I personnally just know of one, SpaceShip.... ).<br /><br />Its nice to see cooperation from all to work together on emergency procedures, rescue operations, and help each other out. <br /><br />Just need a Galatica and a bunch of Cylons, then well have a convoy, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Acctually, with or without wings it makes use of aerodynamics which is a big breakthrough in capsules. Traditional capsules had little aerodynamics and were not reusable. There is probably a relationship there.<br /><br />Nice simple design. Seats tilt back giving a nice area in the ship, I guess for orbit operations. Rear docking, nice feature. Makes for only one door to the ships main cabin.<br /><br />Can I get one?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Capsules need to use aerodynamics, why do you think they are the shape they are in the first place, though using a flat iron shape would be novel.<br /><br />I think the seats tip back for re-entry as well as for more room on orbit, but the t/space seat is more efficient again. The Kliper also has two doors as well, a large side entry door for use on the ground and a small door into the orbital module on the back.<br /><br />Can I have one as well?<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Seats tilt back giving a nice area in the ship, I guess for orbit operations."<br /><br />That could be true, but I suspect the true reason for the reclining seats is to help the crew during re-entry and touchdown. The axis of force the crew will experience during reentry, unlike a conventional capsule such as Soyuz, will rotate 90% or so off the line of liftoff forces. The Kliper takes off nose first but reenters bellyfirst.<br /><br />It's for similar reasons the t/Space manned capsule has seats which rotate 180%. Since the t/Space capsule launches nose first but also reenters nose first, the liftoff and reentry acceleration forces on the crew are reversed.