Update on russian Klipper project

[wvbraun]

Link<br /><br /><br /><i> MOSCOW, September 14 (Itar-Tass) -- The Russian Federal Space Agency has not received proposals of cooperation in the design of a new manned spaceship from abroad, Agency spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.<br /><br />“The Klipper spaceship project of the Energia Aerospace Corporation has been underway for several years solely with Russian money,” he said.<br /><br />“We offered the European Space Agency and NASA to take part in the Klipper project but did not receive an official answer,” he said. “European partners showed interest in the offer.”<br /><br />Klipper will replace the world’s most reliable spaceships of the Soyuz series, which are growing outdated, Davidenko said. Klipper can deliver six crewmembers to the International Space Station (ISS) instead of the current two or three. It will not be a space shuttle but a new generation spaceship, he said. Klipper will be capable of flights to the ISS and interplanetary missions. The reentry capsule of Klipper can accommodate six people and withstand 25 landings.<br /><br />Energia Vice-President Nikolai Zelenshchikov said Klipper could be ready within five years if the financing is sufficient. </i>

 

[Aetius]

I think the Kliper rocks. As a bonus, it doesn't have the awful acoustic environment that the Zarya 'Super Soyuz' would have had:<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm

 

[halman]

wvbraun,<br /><br />To me, it is saddening to think what a Russian-United States combined effort could acheive if the United States were not so suspicous of the Russians. The Russian history of spacflight thoroughly demonstrates their ability to engineer working launch vehicles and spacecraft. They would be willing to produce hardware for a fraction of the cost U. S. companies insist upon. The influx of hard currancy would do wonderful things for an economy struggling to adapt to open-market environments.<br /><br />Unfortunately, a true spirit of co-operation seems to be beyond the abilities of the U.S. government to comprehend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[Aetius]

Halman, that's a nice idea in theory.<br /><br />However, Russian aerospace contractors sell all kinds of weaponry to the Third World, just like ours do. Any technological advances the Russian companies learn will be at American expense. Are you prepared to sacrifice American defense workers' futures on the altar of cooperation? I'm not. I doubt that ANY American President would allow it.<br /><br />I like the Russians. I wasn't impressed by how the TsUP treated its cosmonauts in the book, "Dragonfly", but the Soviet/Russian space vehicles themselves are incredibly robust. The policies of incremental design change, and not assigning too many roles to a single vehicle type, are just good ideas.<br /><br />

 

[centsworth_II]

Now, we need to see how Putin's efforts to become Dictator-for-Life of Russia will affect U.S. -- Russian cooperation on space programs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<i>They could reactivate their Energia heavey lifter.</i><br /><br />Oooooh, I like that idea. Mmmmmmm ridiculously huge reusable rocket.<br /><br />/homer

 

[commander_keen]

*Pees pants*<br /><br />Wow, the concept behind this new soyuz replacement is amazing. I'd be all for it, if I had the money. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br /><br />I agree with Shuttle_guy, we can get the Russians to turn away from selling arms to 3rd world nations if we give them a better market to sell their goods. And it appears that this is the most opportune time to do it. Vlad and Bush are on good terms, Bush wants a new space vision but lacks congress support. Simple answer: get the Russians onboard and design a CEV off each others research to save costs!

 

[nopatience]

I'm not sure that would work. <br /><br />You see, if Russia and the U.S. create a new market or contracts that improve tech shares then Russia will do well. <br /><br />But will that stop them from selling weopons to 3rd world countries? nope. When new markets are created, economic growth follows. to close markets would decrease growth. <br /><br /> economic growth in new markets fuels capitalism and "open markets." <br /><br />As long as companies (or governments like China) can sell a product and make money, they will continue to do so. <br /><br />P.S. the only way to stop 3rd world countries from buying weapons is to get them to buy food and building materials---in other words- deconstruct the hate <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[wvbraun]

Onega, Angara or Zenit?

 

[halman]

aetius,<br /><br />American defense workers jobs are already in jeopardy. If foreign governments stop buying Treasury bills, there will be no money to pay for defense contracts. The United States is losing market share even in areas which it has always dominated, such as aerospace. Without investing in new technology, with the expectation of creating new markets, we will see more jobs outsourced, more companies going under, and more pressure to sell weapons to whoever wants them.<br /><br />The restrictions on funding Russian space technology stem from a disagreement on whether to aid developing countries to raise their standard of living, or trying to force them to change their political nature by withholding assistance. In trying to mold the world the way a small group of political leaders want it, we run the risk of hurting our own chances of continued growth.<br /><br />The United States still has the financial resources to open space up for commercial development in a short span of time. However, we have let our technological abilities atprohy, and rebuilding them will take time. Whether or not we will still have the financial wherewithal by then to make a large investment in space is questionable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[dreada5]

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/16/kliper.shtml <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Here is the picture from the article posted by dreada5, looks like it shows the Klipper under construction, follow the above link for more <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

I agree but it is good to know that real hardware is getting built rather them just paper studies. Also looking at the design as it is presented on astronautix it seems that at least 30% of klipper systems are common with Soyuz ones which should speed things up some what.

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />Everyone seems to think that the only market for space travel is in tourisim. That may be so, but I believe that there are other areas that are being overlooked.<br /><br />Large corporations are desperate for new products. This is why we see 'New and Improved' all the time. They are trying to increase market share. If they had a product which no one else could make, and which was somewhat popular, they could make a killing. If there were production facilities in orbit, that would give the entities that own them a monopoly on the production source, until their competitors build their own facilities. The United States has discouraged the private sector from getting into space by making the cost of spaceflight seem extremely high. The Russians are able to put a pound in Low Earth Orbit for considerably less than the U.S. The International Space Station is engineered to be endlessly adaptable, which makes it endlessy expensive. Skylab was pieced together out of surplus hardware, and flown without having to get special funding. Simple space stations do not have to costs billions of dollars.<br /><br />The Moon is a huge, natural space station, with natural resourcues that can be utilized by many industries. Opening up the Moon for development would spark an economic revolution, which would create a steadily increasing demand for launch capability, orbital living space, lunar shuttles, lunar habitat, and lunar surface transport. Initial costs of establishing a lunar base, if spread out over 25 years, come to well under 50 billion a year.<br /><br />Without the Louisana land purchase, the United States would be vastly different today. Investment in the future is the key to choosing what the future will be.<br /><br />As long as the private sector is only allowed space tourism, the future will not bring prosperity. Economic growth requires investment if it is to be sustained, investment by both the private and the public sector. The potential for grow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Everyone seems to think that the only market for space travel is in tourisim. That may be so, but I believe that there are other areas that are being overlooked.</font>/i><br /><br />As an example of this alternative, I encourage people to read Dennis Wingo's Moonrush.<br /><br />The author's position is that the Palladium Metal Group (PMG) are an important component to switching to a hydrogen-based economy. There are economic, political, and evironmental reasons to switch to a hydrogen-based economy. PMGs can be economically harvested from the Moon.<br /><br />Also, new discoveries will probably be made. When Spain funded Columbus, their goal was to discover a new route to trade with Asia because the Muslim's had effectively cut off the spice road. The Americas were accidentally discovered which led to a huge influx of gold to Europe, trees for a largely deforrested England, and potatos to feed the expanding masses in Europe.<br /><br />So what will the potato of the Moon be for Earth?<br /></i>

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />Perhaps the single most important aspect of developing the Moon will not be a tangible, physical product, but the psyhcological impact of knowing the there are people living and working on that ancient symbol of inaccessability. No other feat will convey the idea of space being a real destination, somewhere other than the Earth.<br /><br />In the near term, at least for the United States, developing the Moon would mean jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Even though a small number of people would actually go to the Moon, there would be large numbers of folks working to support the effort. And all of those people would be making enough money to buy new cars, houses, big screen TV's, as well as hiring gardners, baby sitters, home decoraters, etcetera. The way that our economy is set up, we need growth to be able to continue living the way we are. Real, physical growth, not just productivity increases, expansion of service industries, and the supposed increase in the value of publicly traded stocks.<br /><br />The Russians seem to be the only players actually making headway on developing the next-generation spacecraft. At the current rate of development, the United States will not have an alternative to the shuttle for another 10 to 15 years, if then. We could save a lot of time by accepting the Russian designs and supporting their construction. We are already dependent upon their technology to keep the International Space Station operational, why can't we acknowledge that they know what they are doing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[wvbraun]

I think the US should compete with the russians rather than cooperate with them. Same for China. Competition will get us to the Moon much faster than cooperation.<br />I hope though Europe will make up its mind and support the Kliper project with some real money. Since there is no realistic prospect of an independent european moon program anyway, we stand nothing to lose.

 

[halman]

wvbruan,<br /><br />If there were a realistic American plan to go to the Moon, I would agree that competition would be beneficial. But I don't see any realism in the Moon-To-Mars vision, just a lot of hocus-pocus. I want to see human beings living and working on the Moon, so that I know the future will be better than today! It is not important to me if they are Russian, American, or Swahili. The United States is going to have to start all over, building a space vehicle, building a rocket to launch it, building a building to build the rocket in... We have been coasting, resting on the achievments of 40 years ago, without investing in the things that made those acheivements possible.<br /><br />The Russians have been slogging away, in spite of being broke, building upon success after success. We could be on the Moon in ten years if we whole-heartedly supported the Russians, worked with them, and didn't penalize them for the same things that we are guilty of. We need to get off of this planet! This is not a competition between two children, but a race for survival against Nature.<br /><br />The Russians have what appears to be a sound, practical design for a vehicle which would be useful in a number of missions. The United States is still trying to decide what kind of vehicle they want to build. When they finally figure that out, they will have to decide who will build it. Then they will have to decide where it will be built. If we are lucky, it will be flying in ten years, but not if we don't decide to build a rocket that can launch the darn thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[nacnud]

I posted this on a different thread but it belongs here really<br /><br />I think that there is a chance here for a major coup by ESA if it helps fund development of the Clipper project. There was a lot of co-operation between ESA and NASA on the X38 but although ESA supplied lots of material in return for test results the tests were never carried out. I think that they should try again with the Russian space agency (what is the Russian space agency called anyway?) having a European manned access to the station is really the only thing missing from European capabilities at the moment. As an even further aside the majority of the habitable space in the ISS has actually been built in Europe so come on ESA pull you finger out and take the opportunity while it’s available. If American doesn’t want the white elephant they’ve built I’m sure that we can borrow it and turn it into something useful. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

"...the majority of the habitable space in the ISS has actually been built in Europe..."<br /><br />Are you sure? The only european module is 'Columbus' as far as I know and it hasn't been launched yet.

 

[wvbraun]

"If there were a realistic American plan to go to the Moon, I would agree that competition would be beneficial. But I don't see any realism in the Moon-To-Mars vision, just a lot of hocus-pocus."<br /><br />I disagree. Besides: There are no concrete plans for a lunar mission at all from the russians.

 

[nacnud]

Absolutely positive, the ISS might have been paid for by NASA but it was built in Italy, this is from the website of Alenia Spazio the contractor involved.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Creating workplaces with no lack of space<br /><br />The International Space Station is one of the most technologically advanced projects in the world and Alenia Spazio is designing and building 50% of the Station’s pressurised volume, that is the living space, as well as launch, transportation and re-entry systems.<br /><br />More specifically, the company has developed the three Multipurpose Pressurised Logistics Modules (MPLM), Nodes 2 and 3, the Cupola and the Columbus scientific laboratory. In addition, Alenia Spazio is taking part in the construction of the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), the habitation module and the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV).</font><br /><br />This quote is a little out of date as the hab and the CRV have been cancelled but its is still an impressive amount.<br /> <br />Even spacedaily agrees

 

[wvbraun]

Interesting, I didn't know that.

 

[halman]

wvbraun,<br /><br />I apologize if I gave the impression that I think that the Russians are planning on going to the Moon. What I was trying to say is that they have the launch vehicles that could make it happen, if they had the financial ability. The United States, on the other hand, has the financial ability, but lacks the launch vehicles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />I don't believe that the United States has any idea what realistic costs are for a kilogram to orbit, because we have never mass produced a launch vehicle and flown it repeatedly. When a small number of rockets are built, the unit costs are artificially high. Currently, when we get a contract for a payload, we build a rocket. Having a production line that turns out a given number of boosters of identical design every year is the only way to truly guage how much it costs to put a given amount of mass in orbit. But, without a commitment to buy a certain number of boosters a year for X number of years, we are stuck with the current method of production.<br /><br />NASA can not enter into a contract to buy a given number of boosters a year, because no one knows how much money Congress is going to give NASA each year. We are victims of our own inability to commit to a space program. Instead, we redesign it every year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>