ESA says 'No' to Clipper

[radarredux]

Apparently, for now, Europe has decided against supporting of the Russian Kliper.<br /><br />Europeans Unlikely to Back Russia's Manned Space Vehicle<br />http://www.space.com/news/051205_clipper.html<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>European governments tentatively have declined to take a role in Russia’s Clipper manned space vehicle project, saying Europe would not have control over the program and would be limited to being a small industrial contributor, according to European government officials.<br />...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[vt_hokie]

Crap. Ah well, another good idea bites the dust. I was hoping to have something more to look forward to than a 21st century Apollo capsule...

 

[dobbins]

Like looking forward to a 21st century improved Soyuz!<br /><br />I'd like to see what kind of capsule the Russians will come up with if they can't find someone to bankroll Klipper for them.<br /><br />

 

[tohaki]

That is a real shame, but it opens the possibility of a slow evolution of the ATV. You have to look at the silver lining.

 

[peterweg]

Maybe the Russians will have to propose something more along that of a joint venture. The problem with Kiliper was to much, 'give us the money and we will give you the result'

 

[alpha_centauri]

In some ways I'm quite glad about this decision. While I would like ESA to get involved in developing Clipper or something similar, the deal as I understood it really was not worth it for what Europe was expected to have to contribute.<br /><br />It was a bad deal and I think the ministers saved us from that one.<br /><br />So there is no confusion I should point out that the ministers have not said “No” to Clipper, a decision “could not be reached at this time” as Jean-Jacques Dordain (ESA Director General) put it. The decision to “go” or “not go” on Clipper has been deferred. This is an important point. From the curiously pro-independent remarks attributed to the ministers, different from the normal complaints about new projects such as the eternal “It costs too much”, it seems that they are not against the programme just that they think at the moment Russia is taking the piss as far as European involvement is concerned. <br /><br />After the meeting Jean-Jacques Dordain, in the webcast press conference, indicated that later this week (?) that he will be meeting Perminov, Roscosmos' head to see what can be done (i.e. if a better deal can be struck).<br /><br />I think this is a stalling tactic, shocking and pressuring the Russians into creating a true joint venture. As JAXA pointed out, it is unlikely they will be involved if ESA isn’t so ESA has quite a lot of bargaining power. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Maybe the Russians will have to propose something more along that of a joint venture. The problem with Kliper was to much, 'give us the money and we will give you the result' </font><br /><br />Exactly what I was thinking.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

Great news. More money for Darwin, and other useful science programs <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[carp]

We euros are good only to talk! United Europe is a ghost.

 

[centsworth_II]

It looks like in addition to being smarter than NASA, you are smarter than the ESA as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[subzero788]

I wouldn't say the ESA has completely turned its back on the Clipper. In fact I think its quite possible the Europe will get involved in the project, they just probably didn't want to commit to it so early on. <br /><br />ESA's head of manned spaceflight said "We would like an independent way of getting access to the International Space Station...the availability of more than one transportation system offers a robustness that has great advantage over reliance on a single system". The ESA clearly doesn't want to be reliant on NASA's CEV to get to the ISS, and I don't see them designing their own manned craft anytime soon. If this is the case then ESA's only real choice is to get onboard with the Russians and I'm willing to bet they will, sooner or later.

 

[yurkin]

I wouldn’t say the clipper is dead. This is defiantly a set back but Russia should be able to finish it, and sell rides on it.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Even if ESA says no to Kliper, I think the Russians are going to push forward with the project anyway. The increase in world oil prices has increased the money available to Russia.In fact, maybe the reason the ESA wasn't offered a very good deal on Kliper is because the Russians aren't as desperate as they used to be to keep Kliper afloat.

 

[alpha_centauri]

The UK has a ban on the use of it's funds going towards manned spaceflight. Even if ESA developed an independant manned spacecraft (note ESA does have a manned space programme, which the UK is not a part of) your "tax pounds" would not go towards it. <br /><br />Personally, I would rather ESA aquired 40 years worth of flight experience from the Russians beforehand, as long as ESA is not just a junior partner. It would be nice to see a completely independant system but I doubt it will happen.

 

[alpha_centauri]

on another note, this is from RIA Novosti ;<br /><br />MOSCOW, December 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Federal Space Agency will hold a closed tender among Russian space industry companies for the construction of a new "Clipper" manned spacecraft, the head of the agency said Wednesday. Anatoly Perminov said, "We are now preparing to hold a closed tender among Russian companies." Other than Energia rocket and space corporation, he did not specify which companies would take part in the tender. <br /><br /><font color="orange"> "We are also ready for and open to cooperation with foreign countries on Clipper," Perminov said. Jean-Jacques Dordain, the director general of the European Space Agency (ESA) will arrive in Moscow for talks on December 9. Perminov said Dordain would make public the decision, reached by the 14 countries involved in the International Space Station project, on Europe's participation in the Clipper project. "The very fact that none of the participant countries have spoken against [the project] is significant," Perminov said. <br /></font><br />He said if Europe declined to participate, this would prolong the timeframe of the project. <br />

 

[avmich]

The plans were that ESA participates technically in the Klipper by building the crew cabin. Other systems - fuselage, orbital module, propulsion - was to be built in Russia.<br /><br />Now, if the deal was "give us the money, and we will give the result", then how it could be structured differently? The crew cabin looks like a good part of the whole thing.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Looking long term, ESA wants to develop the capability to produce its own manned craft. So it wants a joint programme of developing a single design so that both 'countries' can manufacture their own craft to go on their own rockets.<br /><br />Wanting is not the same as getting of course.

 

[alpha_centauri]

<font color="yellow"> "Looking long term, ESA wants to develop the capability to produce its own manned craft. So it wants a joint programme of developing a single design so that both 'countries' can manufacture their own craft to go on their own rockets." </font><br />I wouldn’t go as far as that, I’m pretty sure that it would be a joint production. It just is simply pointless for ESA in terms of developing its capabilities if it only manages to get firms small component contracts on just one system of the entire space vehicle. Ever since the cancelled X-38/CRV, it has been ESA policy not to engage in such deals, the X-38 work was done on this basis and did little for European capabilities. It’s most likely what ESA wants is some complete system work instead of just parts and also joint control of the project. For the amount that has been said they would need to pay for entering the project, which is the majority of the development costs, I’m not surprised.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "The plans were that ESA participates technically in the Klipper by building the crew cabin. Other systems - fuselage, orbital module, propulsion - was to be built in Russia." </font><br />Actually the Russians have already considered opening up contractor work for outfitting parts of the Crew Cabin to foreign companies IIRC.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "Now, if the deal was "give us the money, and we will give the result", then how it could be structured differently? The crew cabin looks like a good part of the whole thing." </font><br />Considering that the majority of the development costs have previously been cited as falling on ESA then what exactly would they get out of the programme as it stands? ATM the deal essentially IS a “give us the money, and we will give the result” however even without the result as all ESA would get is some free seats, not even “co-operation” of the Clipper.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "So, they still 'want' in</font>

 

[holmec]

No decision is made yet. They are still deliberating. But it probably won't be supported as being a partner. They may just want to be customers, then the Russians can go to the Japanese for partnerships. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[viper101]

I wonder how germany feels about not having a manned space program - if any country gave birth to manned spaceflight, it was them.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Great news??! If europeans do not want manned space program, I see nothing 'great'... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If you ever want to see Kliper fly, keep the Europeans out of it. Look how long it has taken them to develop the ATV and how much it is costing them. Imagine if they were responsible for a significant portion of the Kliper.<br /><br />If Kliper is going to be built, I'd like to see it be cheap, practical and done quickly. The Russians have a quasi-dictatorship power structure that results in a can do approach to major projects. The Europeans have committees that suck up funds and force compromises.

 

[holmec]

Absolutely, but other European countries are interested in a manned program, Italy, Spain and I imagine France. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

Obviously to be a partner in building a spaceship <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. However, my opinion of VLPs (Very Large Projects) in the EU is that they require massive overhead in the form of VECs (Very Expensive Committees). In Russia this is not the case. So, while the ESA may be able to help with Kliper financing, the involvement will probably increase the cost of the project and result in severe delays.<br /><br />Russia should focus on getting Kliper built, not spend time pandering to Eurocrats. I have full confidence that Kliper is going to get built, and that it will be an extraordinary space craft, as long as it is not designed by a VEC. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[gofer]

Not much lost really. They declined to support a 58mil (!)*study* of whether it'd be a good idea for Europe to support the Klipper. It wasn't about participating in the Klipper as such. Just a pontificating paper plane project for some pencil pushers in Paris. A certain kiss of death for the project in other words. Now at least it may limp along to the actual hardware coming online before 2020.<br /><br />Personally, I think that's great. Maybe now the Energia engineers can relax, drop those silly wings&wheels, put the SM back on, and go back to the original plan (+ the original Parom if there's cash left). And Russia *can* afford to do it on its own in some form, it's 'just' a matter of convincing some politicians, the money *is* there, and I hope that's what happens. Whoring out sensible engineering out for cash is a bad idea. ESA could still buy rides later on if they want to.

 

[tohaki]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, my opinion of VLPs (Very Large Projects) in the EU is that they require massive overhead in the form of VECs (Very Expensive Committees). In Russia this is not the case. So, while the ESA may be able to help with Kliper financing, the involvement will probably increase the cost of the project and result in severe delays.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>When did ESA become an EU institution? I always find it amusing that the EU is being criticised for bureaucracy. According to this BBC webpage the EU employed about 34,250 officials in 2005:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/html/administration.stm<br /><br />By comparison the City of Chicago (not Chigacoland) employs 38,000:<br /><br />http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507240364jul24,1,2768569.story<br /><br />Leave the Europhobia at the door and let us discuss space instead.

 

[gofer]

Interesting. Chicago is quite a populous town. Not that I don't admit that there is a large bunch of subsidized "God knows what they've been hired for" employees in American cities, but... How many officials does the city of Paris employ nowdays, anybody know? (Munich, AAmsterdam, London, etc...) Last I bothered to check (1999) it was a 10% of the Paris pop. , about a quarter of a million. Never mind the EU, the EU administration is just a cherry on top of that pie.