Klipper update thread (part 1)

[john_316]

I hope and wish the best for the Klipper program. <br /><br />I however hope and wish the best and more for my CEV program.<br /><br />Whether the CEV is lifting body or capsule makes no difference to me but I have this feeling a 30-35 ton mini-shuttle is on its way...<br /><br />Just a hunch... Never know I may be wrong. I have been on several accounts...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Apart from finned and non-finned versions, Kliper is not really modular. the obribtal module is not an option, but a key part of every launch, just as it is on Soyuz.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[ronatu]

Sorry Jon, but I strongly disagree.<br />Kliper is going to be Modular in respect of assembly/disassembly. As Soyuz.

 

[ronatu]

What is YOUR CEV program???<br />Can you elaborate...<br />I have CRV <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dreada5]

Exciting times here in Europe! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM613908BE_index_0.html

 

[JonClarke]

We should differentiate between modules and modular. Modules I suggest means that a spacecraft contains several major elements (or blocks, since are talking about Kliper). Apollo had the service, command, lunar (itself of two sub modules), and airlock modules. Modular means that these modules are interchangeable, at least to agree. As different combinations could be flown with or without the lunar and airlock modules it can be called modular. Soyuz also has several modules, the reentry, orbital and instrument blocks. The modularity was much less than Apollo as, with the exception of the LK1 it was never flown without all three blocks. However, the orbital block has been adapted to many different fuctions - with and without docking facilities, two different male/female dockings systems, and androgyous docking system, and a range of internal fitouts including EVA, earth observation, astronomical, and biological.<br /><br />As far as I have seen Kliper is designed to always launch with the reentry and orbital blocks. The orbital module is the attachment point for the LES and is also the means by which it is to dock with the station. The Kiper reentry block only flies by itself duering the entry and landing phase. So Kliper is composed of modules but is not modular. There is a proposed finned version, but unless the fins can be exchanged between versions I suggest that it is not truly modular either.<br /><br />Your digaram shows the configuration quite well. The orbital module with the ring of sloid rockets for launch escape on the adaptor shroud, and the reentry module. Launching thethe reentry module alone during launch escape would require a completely different LES, probably some sort of tower.<br /><br />One caveat, however. The recent press conference with Yang Le Yei did mention the possibility of a lunar Kliper. If this is correct (and I would place very little credence on an off the cuff comment in a press conference). It is possible that a Kliper sent <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[ronatu]

*We should differentiate between modules and modular...*<br /><br /><br />Sorry I cannot.<br />I am thinking in technical terms: part of something, which could be replaced, separated etc is a module.<br />Design that represents collection of modules for me is modular. This is how I understand.<br /><br />Soyuz, Apollo, Gemini, Vostok all had being built in blocks, modules. In addition, these blocks (modules) suppose to be separate, replaced to adjust properties of Spaceship to new tasks...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*Launching the reentry module alone during launch escape would require a completely different LES, probably some sort of tower.* ????<br /><br />No, no. As Soyuz it probably will launch with rockets assembled and then separate to capsule level (which by the way carried a chute).<br /><br />However, what was discussed here it is ability of hypothetical spaceship Clipper to separate into modules during a catastrophic escape event - failure of launch.<br /><br />In addition, I suggested that it is reasonable to minimize a mass of safe capsule to eliminate all unnecessary elements as orbital block and reentry fins.<br /><br />Please make note that I am not talking here about reentry. Escape only.<br />

 

[ronatu]

Small comments - Cliper exists mostly on paper. Desing is far far away from be final. This still is more proposal then working program. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Does anybody know or guess what heat resisting material they will be using on the Kliper?<br /><br />I must say that Im afraid they will make the vehicle overly complicated by giving it wings. I liked the lifting body/parachute design for its simplicity.<br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Each to their own with respect to terminology, but I do think the distinction between a spacecraft that can perform many different missions because of interchangeable modules and a spacecraft that is composed of different modules but peforms essentially one role is important. I think in this regard Kliper is more like Gemini that it is like Soyuz or Apollo.<br /><br />Your photo shows very clearlly that the rockets of the LES are attached to the base of the adaptor shroud. this is at the base of the orbital block. in a launch emergency the rockets would fire, pushing the descent and orbital blocks away from the booster. After these burn out I would assume the shround and orbital blocks would be jettisoned, allowing the descent block to land normally. Despite the different stacking this is not too different to what happens with Soyuz, where the LES on the top of the shroud pulls the orbital and descent blocks within the shroud away from the booster and instrument block. The descent block then separates and descends under its parachute.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I would suggest the Kliper is well past the paper stage. The It has reached the advanced mockup phase and there is at least one bilateral agreement regarding its development in place. It is certainly much more advanced that the CEV, for example.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> It is certainly much more advanced that the CEV, for example. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Additionally, Kliper has a booster rocket, tried, true and tested, ready and waiting for it.<br />

 

[nacnud]

They might have been added for the winged version due to its greater instablity on escape.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

An upper stage which is not tried, true and tested!<br /><br />The Russians have definitely been better in the past at building on their existing equipment, rather than junking it for the next 'great leap forward' as the US has been prone to do. Fortunately, it appears that the US has realised that the Russian philosophy has its advantages.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Additionally, Kliper has a booster rocket, tried, true and tested, ready and waiting for it." <br />So does the CEV, it is the Shuttle SRB with an to be developed upper stage. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Huh. this doesnt follow. What i said is that if Kliper was completed right now, it could basically launch right away, because the launch vehicle is there.<br />CEV couldnt because the launch vehicle isnt there. The issue of what the vehicle is going to be built of is relatively irrelevant.<br />Getting from PLANS for a booster to an OPERATING booster has been historically difficult, no matter which technologies and components were put into it. <br />Even everybody's favorite enterpeneur Elon Musk who chose proven technologies for his Falcon I is late by years and overbudget, and the booster still isnt operational.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

depends 2 out of 4 possible options are flying, but need some paperwork and a lot of fine tuning (Zenit 2 and Ariane). <br /><br />The other two are still paper designs (Anarga and Onega)<br /><br />I guess the SRB/CEV is a lot closer to reality, but it really depends on the upperstage here. <br /><br />On the otherhand, some parts of the Kliper will be taken from Soyuz. thus making it cheaper and easier. The CEV vehicle will be an all new design.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Perhaps there is no other way. The benifit of taking them to orbit must be outwieghed by the addition delta v from using the escape motors rather than just throwing them away.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"On the otherhand, some parts of the Kliper will be taken from Soyuz. thus making it cheaper and easier. The CEV vehicle will be an all new design."</font><br /><br />The CEV will almost assuredly do a lot of borrowing as well -- at least in the same basic percentage as Kliper will be able to borrow from Soyuz. The only thing I can see Kliper getting from Soyuz is subsystems (communication, ECLSS, avionics, etc.). The structural designs and aerodynamic aspects of the two is so different that I can't see anything else being applicable.<br /><br />The CEV will likely use ECLSS subsystems built by Hamilton Sunstrand -- which will essentially mean they'll provide air circulation/replenishmenst systems and a space-potty pretty close to what they made for the shuttle orbiters. The avionics are likely to involve Honeywell's E-SIGI, already used by NASA on the ISS. LEO communications will probably be handled using ITT's Low Power Transmitter, although a different comm system will be required for long-range comm (I haven't researched these, but I'm sure something already exists). If an Apollo CM derivitive is chosen, then the CEV design will have <b>lots</b> to borrow from existing information regarding structural elements, aerodynamic data, and subsystem requirements.<br /><br />So 'all new design' isn't really something that I see happening -- either for the CEV or for any spacecraft being built. No one starts from a clean sheet when there are existing craft that have elements that can be useful.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>depends 2 out of 4 possible options are flying, but need some paperwork and a lot of fine tuning (Zenit 2 and Ariane). ...<br />I guess the SRB/CEV is a lot closer to reality, but it really depends on the upperstage here. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />huh .. im still baffled. How is an operational Stick configuration closer to reality than <b>TWO</b> flying boosters ?<br />Here's another advantage in terms of head-start for Kliper: it has <b>alternatives</b> for a launch vehicle, two of them currently operational.<br />CEV, if i understand correctly, is being locked into a launch vehicle that currently exists on paper only and if its development doesnt work out the CEV is left stranded as well.

 

[no_way]

SRB != the Stick <br /><br />To clarify: RL10 engines have flown lots of times too, this doesnt mean that Delta Clipper is anywhere near operational launch vehicle.<br /><br />To clarify even further: if you wanna declare SRB an operational launch vehicle, then ATK is not going to be paid a dime for developing the Stick, right ? No wait ...

 

[no_way]

I've been suspected Vulcan before

 

[ronatu]

<b>FROM press:</b><br /><br />NASA is developing a shuttle replacement called the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which it hopes to launch by 2014, but has said it does not want international governmental cooperation on the project. That has "shoved" Europe into searching for an alternative spacecraft to ensure "we'd always have access to space", says Thirkettle.<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. Estimates put the cost for Russia to build and fly the first Kliper at about $1 billion – 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.<br /><br />Completely autonomous<br />It may include features that had been developed for a space plane called Hermes, which ESA had worked on in the late 1980s but abandoned in 1993 through lack of funds. These features may include the wings, nose cones, or rudders, says ESA spokesperson Franco Bonacina. "We have some things in the drawer already that we can easily pull out," he says. <br /><br />Kliper is also being designed to operate completely autonomously, without the need for pilot control. "It's got to be capable of automatic flight," Thirkettle says.<br /><br />Some on the team hope Kliper would be able to travel to the Moon, "but I think there's a little bit of science fiction in that", he says. The faster speed and higher heat experienced during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere from the Moon require an aerodynamically and thermodynamically different design than those currently on the table, he explains. <br /><br />"It could well be that Kliper is a truck that goe

 

[ronatu]

No_Way!!!<br /><br />Such booster do not exist yet. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Onega - avaiable in 5 years<br />Soyuz3 - 4..5 years<br />Zenit<b>3</b> - 2...3 years<br />Angara - 5-8 years<br /><br /> need more?<br /><br />Ariane - belongs to ESA and location, location, location...

 

[spacefire]

I'd never thought I'd see the day when the Ruskies are clearly ahead of the US in space exploration.<br /><br />What was the point of beating them to the Moon (other than trying to bankrupt their economy, which actually succeeded) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[ronatu]

From your post above I jump to conclusion that your younger then 36 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />