New pictures of Kliper

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Thank you for the update! Too bad that the United States is too proud to buy into this project. Looks like this could be the spacecraft of the future! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not sure if it's pride, paranoia (the ITAR ramifications would be enormous), or just insufficient interest to go to the trouble of rewriting the laws that prevent doing that sort of thing. It was difficult enough to get political clearance to partially fund Zarya. Active cooperation on something like Kliper would be awesome, though.<br /><br />But I gotta agree with wvbraun too -- it would be even cooler to have TWO next-generation manned spacecraft in use. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Another relatively new article on the Kliper here<br /><br />It's now to be launched on a Zenith booster rather than the Onega. Which is an interesting development considering that the Zenith is built in the Ukrane. <br />

 

[wvbraun]

"Over the last two weeks i've become very much disgusted with my own country, we've become evil malicious people."<br /><br />I don't think so at all, quite the contrary. But such comments really belong in freespace.<br /><br />

 

[davepeilow]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A couple of odd places that I don't really trust very much. Old pages form when hermis was still a remote possiblity. I had problems finding acurate figures to LEO not GTO. <br /><br />I'd go with the astronautix figures, although I susspect the difference was that the 17500kg was to ~0 degrees but I can't be sure.... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You could go with the ESA figures, which say 21 tonnes...<br /><br /><br />Dave<br />

 

[nacnud]

I didn't know about the Ariane 5 ES back then, thanks for the link. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Just a quick comparision to LEO<br /><br />Zenit 13 tonne at $90M<br />Ariane 21 tonne at $180M

 

[davepeilow]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's now to be launched on a Zenith booster rather than the Onega. Which is an interesting development considering that the Zenith is built in the Ukraine.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Zenit was always supposed to launch out of Plesetsk as well, and I think that is still in the future plans. That would be the Russian connection.<br /><br />In someways it would be nice if a part of Energia could live on as a manned program. Zenit is an ultra modern booster which despite a lot of teething trouble has become a real asset to the fleet. If needed they can launch very quickly - originally this was to get a spy satellite up in under 90 minutes during a war but could equally perform a capsule standby and fast-launch and rescue function.<br /><br />Dave

 

[davepeilow]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm not sure if it's pride, paranoia (the ITAR ramifications would be enormous), or just insufficient interest to go to the trouble of rewriting the laws that prevent doing that sort of thing.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />ITAR restrictions on stuff coming into the United States? Now that is paranoia <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[davepeilow]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I didn't know about the Ariane 5 ES back then, thanks for the link.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're welcome. Didn't spot that this thread was so old <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[henryhallam]

I like the idea of a vehicle that is reusable for 25 flights with relatively minor refurbishment in between. This allows cost savings over a disposable vehicle while still needing replacement often enough that the production lines must be kept open, so we don't end up in the present situation with the Shuttle where building another orbiter is impossible.<br /><br />Replacement after 25 flights gives you a bit more tolerance in the design of individual components as well - not that they can be allowed to be more failure prone, but designing for a shorter life still allows design and materials cost savings.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...the production lines must be kept open"</font><br /><br />Actually -- what I see as being a much bigger plus than that is obsolescence. With the ship being replaced after 25 flights, that means that instead of continually having to retro-fit the ship with bits and pieces of new tech every few years, the entire craft will be replaced with a new one built with the benefit of technology advances since the last craft. If you were to assume a flight rate of 5/year (not unreasonable, and perhaps low if ESA buys into Kliper) -- the craft would be replaced every five years with a new one that had better/lighter/more capable equipment and corresponding increases in payload capacity and overall utility.

 

[halman]

The United States could save billions and several years by adapting this design for the first CEV. Probably, we will spend billions, over several years, to build a craft identical to the Kliper.<br /><br />"Not Invented Here." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[syndroma]

<br />Latest pictures of Kliper mockups. <br /><br />http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_032/index.html

 

[nacnud]

Thaks for that, they give a much better idea of the size of the kliper and how it would be laid out.

 

[spacefire]

this looks even more promising!<br /><br />http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_032/pages/IMG_4655.html<br /><br />my only grip is that I'd like them to do away with parachute landings and land on a runway for a change.yes I know that wouldn't work for somethinga s small as the Kliper, but, who knows, this might pave the way for larger lifting bodies with HL capabilities and RTLS. the winged version should be able to do that. I'm a little bit torn though, I'd like to seea pure lifting body with HL capabilities, but, what the heck, if it needs some stubby wings, put them on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

and wow look at this...this can't be the configuration they proposed,it's freaking huge!<br /><br />http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_032/pages/IMG_4625.html <br /><br /><br />no, wait , it is, nevermind, I checked back at Astronautix.com. Just that the mockup looks a bit digfferent inside than these cutaways:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I think the winged kliper is a development of the basic kliper, could be good for tourist flights and for LEO only flights once the basic kliper is up and running, but get the basic kliper working first.<br /><br />From russianspaceweb.com<br /><br /><b>Winged version</b><br /><br />In November 2004, RKK Energia presented a winged version of the Kliper spacecraft, apparently developed in cooperation with OKB Sukhoi, a renown manufacturer of military jet aircraft. The new configuration would enable Kliper to increase range of its side maneuver from 500 to 2,000 kilometers and to terminate its flight at virtually any orbit with subsequent landing on a regular runway. However, an emergency escape during the launch accident would now require a controlled landing at the airport rather than a relatively simple descent under parachutes into a random location along the flight path.<br />

 

[henryhallam]

Now that sounds like a good idea, both for Kliper and CEV. The ability to have a more-or-less ballistic shape for best payload, reliability and use on most missions, but with the option to have a winged version that is structurally similar for use on those few missions when you really need the crossrange. They key is to make sure that both versions share as much of the design as possible.

 

[spacefire]

or, a better Idea-the CEV for space operations only, and a lifting body space shuttle to take astronauts from earth ro CEV and back.<br />in case of emergency, a T/Space capsule up front of the CEV can take the astronauts back on the ground.<br />For early flights, the T-Space system will be used as a CTV as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The only difference that I can see between the winged and non-winged klipers is in the bolt on TPS and in the parachutes. Everything else is the same.

 

[wvbraun]

Thanks a lot.

 

[j05h]

Those are great pictures, especially the cut-away of the crew cabin. <br /><br />I think I like the CXV's planned deorbit orientation over Kliper's. I'm assuming that the Kliper reenters nose up, at an angle. If so, with the seats locked to the floor, the cosmonauts are going to be in a -Z deceleration but with their heads downward. Blood will tend to pool in shoulders and head. How is it going to reenter? nose forward or docking adapter forward? The seating seems odd.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

that thing looks like it has a lot of empty space. I assume the real one will have a lot of equipment stowed in the now-empty areas. true? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Most likely, yes. But it does look fantastically roomy compared to Soyuz. How does the space in that mockup compare to Shuttle?

 

[spacefire]

we'll have to wait till the actual craft is built and ready for launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Yes, the 5 "upright" seats in the display should be the launch position, it's launched nose-up atop third stage with cosmonauts in supine posture. The couches look like modified Soyuz seats. The one couch "laying down" is either a landing configuration or a stowed position. Stowed, it would provide a large volume for passengers along with providing bedding. But, if that position is also the landing position and it reenters as described, the "laying down" position will result in head-shoulder pooling and possible blackouts. <br /><br />Other options include a different, belly-first (vs nose first) reentry or they are going to do something like CXV. Looking over the pic, it probably works in that orientation, but it still looks slightly head-down. Obviously, they are rocket scientists and have thought this through, i'm just trying to figure it out after the fact. <br /><br />It's really cool looking, BTW. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>