Update on russian Klipper project

[JonClarke]

Another titbit on the Kliper situation. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04ze.html<br /><br />While it does not bring much more money, it does pool the expertise. I really hope this bird flies!<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>

 

[yurkin]

Halman<br />So let me see if I’ve gotten your plan straight. You want to outsource US aerospace jobs to Russia? You want congress and the American taxpayer to fund this outsourcing?<br /><br />Don’t you think the American aerospace industry is hurting enough without congress actively trying to undermine it?<br />

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">So let me see if I’ve gotten your plan straight. You want to outsource US aerospace jobs to Russia? You want congress and the American taxpayer to fund this outsourcing? </font><br /><br />We have a goal, and an idea of what the spaceship should be like. The Russians are already building what we only have on paper. I thought NASA and space exploration were about exploring. I didn't know NASA and our "domestic" aerospace firms were just a jobs program. Sorry I'll update my interpretation... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[halman]

yurkin,<br /><br />Rather than re-inventing the wheel, (i.e. building a Crew Exploration Vehicle which will do the same things that the Kliper will do,) I suggest that the American aerospace workers should be put to work designing and building a vehicle to travel from Low Earth Orbit to the surface of the Moon, which can support up to ten people for 30 days, and can lift off from the Moon and return to LEO. We will need at least three of them.<br /><br />I also believe that we have learned enough from the Space Shuttle to begin design work on a second generation reusable space plane. At some point in time, we are going to need to be able to bring cargo to Earth. Sooner, I hope, rather than later.<br /><br />There is so much to do to get off of this planet that it makes absolutely no sense to duplicate our efforts. We are still stuck in Low Earth Orbit, and we can barely get there. Kliper is an extension of the same technology that Russia has excelled in for over 40 years. Engage their skills, build the darn thing, and fly it! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

newsartist,<br /><br />"The second system, with as little commonality with the first as possible, needs to be built too, or you risk long flight stopages if anything goes wrong." Is this a reference to a second generation Resusable Space Plane? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />I don't quite understand your comment that my proposed Lunar Shuttle would be "huge." In relation to the Lunar Excursion Module, yes, but in relation to a 747, no. Allowing 225 kilograms of consumables for each man, plus 10,000 kilograms of equipment, we are looking at about 15,000 kilograms of payload.<br /><br />We have already been to the Moon. When we go back, we should be prepared to begin construction of a base. In conjunction with automated disposable freight rockets, this Lunar Shuttle would allow construction of a Lunar base to procede rapidly. Crews would be rotated out every three weeks to a month at first, until living quarters can be established on site.<br /><br />An effort such as this would cost about 25 billion dollars a year, over a span of 20 years. This is still considerably less than 1 percent of the American Gross Domestic Product. As a percentage of the combined economies of China, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the United States, it is more like 1/100th of 1 percent. And it would be a lot more fun than blowing each other up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

newsartist,<br /><br />Personally, I consider capsules to be a primitive form of spacecraft. However, right now capsules are the only game in town. The Kliper is an advanced form of capsule. It would serve as as a Crew Exploration Vehicle for 10-20 years, just as the Soyuz has served. But the future belongs to Reusable Space Planes.<br /><br />A second generation shuttle, properly designed, would avoid the drawbacks the original shuttle has suffered from, which mainly resulted from compromises made to get the darn thing built. Even if we started today, it would take about 10 years to get a new RSP on-line. I am hoping that the original shuttle can be kept flying, at least occaisonally, for that long, to provide a compliment to the CEV, or Kliper, whichever is finally agreed upon.<br /><br />The United States should buy into the Kliper program, and finance the construction of the large Energia booster, to avoid duplication of effort. At the same time, our resources should be directed toward building a next-generation space shuttle, and a vehicle to make developing the Moon possible. We have wasted for too much time already, and we are losing the engineering and scientific talent needed to maintain our capability in space. Without substantial investment in the space program, we face the possibility of having no choice but to hitch rides with the Russians, the Chinese, or whoever is willing to invest in making the future happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier post. What I am purposing is a shuttle vehicle to go from Low Earth Orbit to the Moon, and return to LEO. This is the only way to be able to send any reasonable payload to the Moon. The Klipper would be needed to get the crew to LEO, where they would transfer to the Lunar Shuttle.<br /><br />We are never going to get anywhere if we go on trying to send people directly from Earth. We have got to have specialized vehicles, one for travel between Earth and LEO, and others for travel from LEO to the Moon, or to Mars, or the Asteroid Belt, or wherever. This is why I am saying the United States should sign on to the Kliper project, because the Russians have already done most of the engineering, and are preparing to build it. If we begin now, we could have a Lunar Shuttle in operation in 5 to 10 years, and be back on the Moon, ready to begin construction of a Moon base, by 2015. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[nacnud]

It doesn't really matter about size of the launch vehicle so long as it is big enough to launch the LEO-EML1 shuttle in one, or many goes. What really matters is $ per pound to LEO especially if the whole system can be designed only to need consumables (propellant, water etc) in order to function.

 

[JonClarke]

Well halman some of us consider spaceplanes to be a technological dead end. They are inefficient in terms of payload, exact a severe penalty on booster design, and rhere is just no need for them in most applications. <br /><br />It it is any consolation the Kliper is not a capsule like Apollo or Soyuz. It is a lifting body and as such has the advantages of a spaceplane and a capsule and almost none of the disadvantages.<br /><br />Cheers<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>

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />Someday, we are going to have to get comfortable with assembling things in space, like space stations, space craft, interstellar probes, etcetera. I have not for a moment thought that a vehicle such as a Lunar Shuttle would be launched intact. It would be nice to have a large enough booster that sending up 2 or 3 sub-assemblies would be adequate, but, if push comes to shove, 10 or 15 launches may be required of the so-called 'heavy' Delta or Atlas.<br /><br />A manned mission to Mars will require the same type of on-orbit assembly, as well as just about every other spacecraft that is built over the ensuing years. Our thinking has got to evolve beyond the early days of spaceflight, when on-orbit construction was unthinkable. Instead, it has got to become the norm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Hi newsartist<br /><br />You are quite right of course, there is a complete spectrum. From memtory capsules like Soyuz or Apollo have L/Ds of 0.5 or less. Biconics are in the range of 0.5-1.0. Lifting modies 1-5, and spaceplanes 10 or above.<br /><br />The thing about Kliper is that it has enough lift to have a low G entry (2Gs) but is still recovered beneath a parachute. In this regard it is not dissimilar to the X38. i suspect that it will probably have terminal braking rockets, like Soyuz, as it some of the precursor designs<br /><br />Cheers<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>

 

[halman]

1207,<br /><br />Who has a heavy lift capability right now? I have heard that the Russians do, or at least have a working design for such. The Americans have no such capability at the moment, and even when the shuttle is back in operation, it will be committed to the International Space Station for the forseeable future.<br /><br />By working with the Russians, the Americans could advance the clock on returning to the Moon. And it would be a return with a purpose, not just sending a few guys in a small ship to spend a couple of days on the surface and then return. We have done that already.<br /><br />Working with the Russians would also give the United States an oppurtunity to pay hard currancy for Russian products, which would help to alleviate some of the problems being faced by Russia right now. This would not be speculative investment, as so much investment in Russia has been over the last 10 years or so, but money paid for goods delivered. If the goods don't get delivered, no payment would be made.<br /><br />Co-operating on the Kliper project could be the beginning of a partnership which would combine the financial resources of the world's largest economy with the skills of the most experienced space faring nation. Instead of wasting another 4 or 5 years developing a Crew Expedition Vehicle that we probably won't even be able to launch, unless it is designed so small as to be useless, we should accept that there are others who have not been idle in the pursuit of getting off of this planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Who has a heavy lift capability right now?</i><p>Nobody. And that's not going to change in the next 5-10 years either. The Russians, Americans, Chinese and Indians all have designs for heavy lift boosters, what nobody has is <i>hardware</i>.<p>The Russians are probably closest since they have (or had until recently) old hardware which could used as a template for newer rockets, the Americans are close too - the Shuttle provides components which <i>could</i> be turned into a heavy lift booster, given some time (and money). The Chinese and Indians both have workable designs, but neither has built a heavy-lift rocket before. In theory, building a heavy-lift is like building any other rocket - just moreso, but in practice things don't always work out. It remains to be seen if and how well they do at building larger boosters.</p></p>

 

[dan_casale]

I would think that the STS stack would fall in to the heavy lift catagory. If you count the shuttle as cargo, then the STS has a capacity of about 100 tons to LEO.<br /><br />How hard would it be to move the "cargo" from the side of the ET to the top, and move the SSME's to the bottom of the ET. I know that the propellent lines would have to be changed but generally it would be a "simple" change.<br /><br />I would assume, most likely incorrectly, that the move might actually reduce the stresses on the ET.

 

[JonClarke]

Hi Dan<br /><br />You don't need to shift the cargo from the side, it can be carried quite adequately there, as in the shuttle C and shuttle Z configurations. It could be moved to the top, if need by, as in the Ares concept.<br /><br />Cheers<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>

 

[bobvanx]

I love Biconics.<br /><br />I've never seen an animation of one, but I realized that you can launch it in a perfect conic, then rotate the aft skirt 180 degrees about an off-axis center and you get the biconic shape.<br /><br />I love all the wing/no wing debate. It's like the bi-wing/monowing debate. Eventually, the best planform does come out.<br /><br />We'll eventually look at the Shuttle and laugh that it has wings.

 

[bobvanx]

"Eventually, the best planform does come out...." <br /> <br />"For the job at hand".

 

[halman]

bobvanx,<br /><br />Perhaps we will laugh at the shuttle because the wings are not retractable. The shuttle only needs them for the glide to the landing site. They should not be extended until the vehicle has passed through the trans-sonic stage of re-entry. Unfortunately, composites were not available when the shuttle was designed, not to mention the fact that there was no previous experience with lifting bodies during re-entry to aid in the design, so everything was built to take lots of punishment.<br /><br />Perhaps the most unfortunate thing of all is that NASA did not get to build a vehicle anything like what they had originally proposed. There are so many compromises and sacrifices to outside agencies that it is a wonder the shuttle ever flew at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Biconics are great. A friend and I are designing a Mars mission scenario round a bent biconic that could be launched on an Ares-class booster.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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]

Both awesome aircraft.<br /><br />More example where the supposedly more advantaged technology proved to be a dead end in most cases are hovercraft and hydrofoils. Both have their place, but only in very specialised applications and nowhere near as wildly applicable as first thought.<br /><br />The continued use of propellers on aircraft is another example of old technology holding its own. There is no substitute for propellers at low to medium speeds and low to medium altitudes.<br /><br />Cheers<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]

The following links give all the information I can find on Kiper, including some nice views of the mockup I don't think were posted before. If anyone can read Russian and/or French they might make more sense of some of the links than me!<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm<br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html<br />http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=470<br />http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=477<br />http://membres.lycos.fr/kvant/vaisseaux/kliper/kliper.html<br /><br />Enjoy!<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]

The specs say 5 people plus 700 kg cargo going up (the 6th person is an emergency passenger), and 5 people and 500 kg coming down. If we assume 200kg per person (suit, seat, plus consumable for a week), a two person variant could carry 1300 going up and 11 kg back down.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"... (the 6th person is an emergency passenger)..."</font><br /><br />Dang what'll they think of next? A spare passenger in case you lose one. I wonder who gets elected to sit in the little box on the bulkhead behind the window that reads: "In case of emergency, Break Glass" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

At least you do't have to wait for the cubicle! But suppose you have to constantly vacate your seat for others. Perhaps you should arrive earlier <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><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>