Russian Clipper/Kliper mini-shuttle gets European support

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vt_hokie

Guest
I really hope that Kliper flies! It would be nice to have something more to look forward to than this!
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
"This" http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.17.l.jpg has already flown to the moon and back in a smaller version whereas the Klipper still has years and years of flight testing ahead of it. Still I hope the Klipper is a success, but my gut feeling is that the CEV will be making runs to the ISS before the Klipper makes its first manned flight. <br /><br />I'm not sure why you consider Klipper better than the CEV (especially since neither vehicle is even built yet!). Both are lifting bodies at hypersonic speeds. Both drop like stones at subsonic speeds, both touch down on land under parachutes. Both carry about the same number of crew-- although Andrews shows the CEV modified to carry up to 10 passengers. The CEV shape and escape system has already been flight tested dozens of times. Is it just because the Klipper has cool looking fins on it?
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>Is it just because the Klipper has cool looking fins on it?</i><br /><br />Well, it's partly that it looks cool, I guess! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But it's also that it's something new and more innovative than a capsule. Both the pure lifting body version and the winged version will provide more maneuverability than a capsule at high speeds, and the winged version will be capable of making a precision runway landing. I think my biggest objection to capsules is the landing method. I really dislike the "drop like a rock and rely on parachutes" approach to that phase of the mission. <br /><br />I definitely feel that lifting body spaceplanes represent the future of routine flight to/from LEO. The CEV is a non-optimal solution for LEO ISS support missions due to the requirement that the craft also be capable of direct reentry from lunar flights, which may or may not happen. I still think we may see the LEO version of CEV and nothing more.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
The Lifting Body concept was patented in 1921 by Vincent Burnelli. The Space Plane concept dates back to the German Silver Bird bomber of the 1930s, which used a lifting body along with small wings. The Capsule concept dates back to NACA research for warheads in 1952 and NASA's patent on the blunt reentry manned Mercury capsule was filed in 1958.<br /><br />Capsules are the newer and more advanced concept.<br /><br />
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
Russia has loads of experience with lifting bodies, maybe even more then the USA. Lots of research has been done, and this has resulted in for example the BOR line of vehicles. <br /><br />I am sure that RSA or Energia will use this wealth of knowledge they gathered for the Klipper. I hope a rosy future, however, Im prepared for the worst, 3 more decades of Soyuz <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
I'm all for inovation, though I've soured on lifting bodies as of late (the worst of both worlds in many ways I think) but I DO want to see winged spaceplanes making runway landings again someday. I think either a straight wing orbiter that reenters ballistically and doesn't actually do any flying until its subsonic (like the x-37 shape) or a waverider that generates lift at hypersonic speeds and so avoids most of the heating issues will ultimately be the Earth to LEO taxis of the futrue.<br /><br />Is Energia still pursuing the winged/runway landing Klipper? I was under the impression they kinda let that die away for now in favor of the parachute approach. Klipper looks like its gonna be pretty heavy for those wings they were showing. I think if they try a runway landing its going to be a pretty hairy ride!
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
Im not too sure myself. I hope they will go for the lifting body version that will deploy a parachute at the final phase of flight. Thereby allowing the precision and flexibility a lifting bodies gives while not having to deal with the uncertainty of gliding down a runway or landing gears.
 
J

j05h

Guest
>Newer, perhaps, but not more advanced.<br />...<br /> />innovative<br /><br />Arguing over which planform is more advanced gets us no where. Implying that any new manned spacecraft is NOT innovative is hubristic and shortsighted. Every manned craft in the past has broken new ground, Mercury, Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle, SpaceShipOne all made unique contributions. To claim that CEV or Kliper will not advance the state of the art is patently ridiculous. Both will be 21st Century vehicles, it's not like they are going to drag the Apollo Flight Computer out of museum or use one of the old Spiral fuselage! <br /><br />These vehicles, along with any alt.space craft that fly, are going to BLOW YOUR MIND. If you can honestly look at a picture of astronauts in any new vehicle in space and think "Been there, done that", then please cash in your space-geek credentials. You won't be needing them anymore. 8)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
How do you know this? You are, of course far more educated and intelligent than all the design engineers of NASA? Heck, even such as John Young (who I would think has more possible experience than you?) must bow to your superior wisdom here, as he has enthusiatically endorsed the current CEV design. <br /><br />Tell you what, why don't you and gaetanomaro, and a few others go and form your own space site, and LEAVE THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THIS ONE ALONE!!!!!<br /><br />By the way I like others on here am NOT against lifting body concepts at all, we just think the argument at this time is totally moot as far as NASA is concerned!!!<br /><br />At this time if we are going to get out of LEO for the first time in some 40 years it is going to have to be with the current CEV design, this is dictated not only by NASA's budget, but even more importantly by the physics of the situation!! Is this concept to difficult for you and you friends???
 
N

nibb31

Guest
I agree. A lifting body is not a winged spaceplane. The rate of descent and manoeuvrability is not the same as a space plane. You get more crossrange capability, but it is still just a glorified capsule. Most of NASA's lifting body X-planes did not land like a plane.<br /><br />As it has been stated elsewhere. Kliper is designed for LEO missions. The CEV is designed to also be able to perform deep space missions.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the wingless Kliper is still on the table, but maybe it could be a variant for deep space missions also.<br /><br />As a European, I am really glad to see ESA participate in a real manned program at last! I would be even happier when I see an ESA Kliper on top of an Ariane 5! I doubt it will happen though because the Kourou launch site is not really suitable for ISS missions.
 
S

spacefire

Guest
<font color="yellow">At this time if we are going to get out of LEO for the first time in some 40 years it is going to have to be with the current CEV design, this is dictated not only by NASA's budget, but even more importantly by the physics of the situation!! Is this concept to difficult for you and you friends??? </font><br /><br />Because: The VSE does nothing to advance space exploration and colonization.<br />Because: The HLV+CLV will be more expensive than developing a fully reusable spaceplane in both human and cargo configurations.<br />Because: The reasoning behind the VSE is not space exploration. The reasoning is: We suck at getting to LEO reliably so let's go straight to the Moon and show'em! (typical Bush 'thinking'). This whole project is make-work to keep NASA and USA from disbanding and especially to keep the JSC alive because ya'all know we gotta' help eachother here in the great state of Texas.<br />Because:it's time to kick the good old boys out and start afresh. Why adapt hardware that had time and again proven expensive and unreliable when you should use the lessons learnt to develop something BETTER. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
typical Bush 'thinking'<br /><br />Translation= "Bush proposed it so me hate it"<br /><br />1. Every attempt to build a reusable space plane has proven to be more expensive than building a capsule.<br />2. Reusable Spaceplanes aren't economically viable without far higher use rates than we are going to see for a long time.<br />3. Colonization is at least decades away and trying to do it now is pie in the sky at it's finest.<br />4. The VSE includes LEO missions.<br />5. The Moon has barely been visited, let alone explored, the VSE address this.<br />6. The incessant whining from Spaceplane fan boys isn't making anyone think more of the concept.<br /><br />
 
S

spacefire

Guest
the VSE itself is as much pie in the sky as the Starship Enterprise...because it's going to get cancelled in 2008 after the next election. And that's regardless of any merits that it might have. NASA is still very much political, and with the certain change of government there will come such revenge on anything generated by the previous administration that a lot of initiatives are going to be reversed. I can't say if this is good or bad, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's gonna be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to nominate a sure loser. We are talking about a party that managed to lose to Bush, not once, but twice!<br /><br />
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
And so it goes. Yet another thread, this time one that should be exploring the exciting implications of ESA participation in Kliper gets highjacked into yet meaningless and purile "I hate VSE" thread. If people can't stay on topic they should remain silent. It's not as if there aren't enough threads for the anti VSE and anti ESAS people to exercise their spleen on.<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>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Taking "ambition and boldness" beyond political, economic, and technical realities is nothing but pie in the sky daydreaming. The VSE is realistic and it is an improvement over the status quo. I wish more could be done, but I never make the mistake of confusing wishes and dreams for cold hard reality.<br /><br />We finally have a realistic chance to escape from the LEO rut, and that is something that will NOT happen with some pie in the sky plan that ignores budget realities.<br /><br />
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
YOU are the one who constantly states that the VSE is going to be cancelled by the next administration. SO YOU are the one who is constantly bringing up politics!<br /><br />I am not a Republican, but you definitely give the incentive to become one! How do you automatically know WHAT the next administration is going to be, let alone WHAT it is going to do!<br /><br />Please take your speculations over to the phenomena forum where such things seem to belong!<br /><br />Also, it is far more likely that a LESS bold initiative as you call the VSE is going to get passed by any administration, then some so called bold initiative, just because it looks cool!<br /><br />Now, I happen to be one of those old timers that actually worked on the Apollo project, and I don't believe that I have anything to apologize for to some young character ( sometime I really wish the mods would let us start to call some people names again!) who has quite probably never done anything but play with the internet!! We from my generation at least DID things! To say that I resent your implications is to put it VERY mildly!!!<br /><br />I guess that people like John Glenn, and John Young are just some of those old people, but you can NEVER even come close to what men like they did, so why don't you just take your negative rear end someplace else and let those with some genuine knowledge of these subjects discuss them in a more adult manner!!!!!!!<br /><br />
 
T

tohaki

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And so it goes. Yet another thread, this time one that should be exploring the exciting implications of ESA participation in Kliper gets highjacked into yet meaningless and purile "I hate VSE" thread. If people can't stay on topic they should remain silent. It's not as if there aren't enough threads for the anti VSE and anti ESAS people to exercise their spleen on.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Well said!
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>I guess that people like John Glenn, and John Young are just some of those old people, but you can NEVER even come close to what men like they did</i><br /><br />What kind of message is that for our nation's young people? "You can never even dream of doing something as great as they did, so don't even try! You might as well just give up now and go start collecting welfare!" LOL!
 
D

dobbins

Guest
"I am not a Republican, but you definitely give the incentive to become one! How do you automatically know WHAT the next administration is going to be, let alone WHAT it is going to do!"<br /><br />I'm closer to being a Goldwater Republican than anything else, I didn't have much use for JFK or LBJ, but that didn't stop me from being a staunch supporter of the Apollo program. I happen to be capable of looking at proposal on it's merits instead of this mindless knee jerk reaction of "Me not like him, so me not like anything him say" that is all too common in both political parties today.<br /><br />Saying I'm not fond of Bush, or of the Holy Roller faction of the GOP that is in love with him, is a huge understatement but that sure isn't going to stop me from backing the VSE to the hilt. We aren't facing a choice between the VSE and some super grand plan. It's a choice between the VSE and something far worse, like puttering around in LEO for God knows how long, or even not having a manned program at all.<br /><br />
 
S

spacefire

Guest
<font color="yellow">Now, I happen to be one of those old timers that actually worked on the Apollo project, and I don't believe that I have anything to apologize for to some young character ( sometime I really wish the mods would let us start to call some people names again!) who has quite probably never done anything but play with the internet!! We from my generation at least DID things! To say that I resent your implications is to put it VERY mildly!!</font><br /><br />and my generation, besides worshiping reality TV, is trying to accomplish what your generation already has accomplished 30 years ago...instead of moving forward.<br />and you think that's OK. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
S

spacefire

Guest
<font color="yellow">Taking "ambition and boldness" beyond political, economic, and technical realities is nothing but pie in the sky daydreaming. </font><br />NASAs realities seem to change on a daily basis. Just remember how the CEV/VSE was mutilated in its initial stages. Face it, it's just a game between your NASA and the government and the big contractors. The system has gotten too bloated and functions only to ensure its survival. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts