why Kliper isn't going to make it. Russian overstatements!

[gaetanomarano]

"...are suggesting a design life of 25 launches..."<br /><br />to-day (and in future) ALL (space and non space) companies and agencies (+politics) "suggest" (and will "suggest") MORE and MORE and MORE than REALLY possible... nothing new under the sun...<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"to-day (and in future) ALL (space and non space) companies and agencies (+politics) "suggest" (and will "suggest") MORE and MORE and MORE than REALLY possible... nothing new under the sun..."<br /><br />All of the shuttles other than challenger have been put through more than 25 missions. I see no real reason why a competently designed lifting body like kliper couldn't do the same.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />because Kliper is not a true lifting body, it's a capsule with two little wings, so it will burns too much on reentry and will be unreusable like all capsules<br /><br />Shuttle is a TRUE spaceplane on reentry because, thanks to its large wings, its body is well protected and don't burns so it can land like an airplane and reused like an airplane!<br /><br />unfortunately, Shuttle lacks jets to be a real airplane-spaceplane and was designed for only 100 flights each (around 30 real), but Shuttle is the "DC3 of spaceplanes"... in future, a REAL spaceplane may fly hundreds times in its life with low cost servicing (not only "25" times like Kliper or "30" times like Shuttle or ONE time like ALL capsules)<br /><br />the main problem of Kliper (if it will happen) will be launch costs due to its dimensions, rocket and lack of cargo

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">the Kliper+Soyuz 2 rocket is clearly a fake-image for business & propaganda only</font><br /><br />yeah all this time I was under the impression that that is how they were going to launch the Kliper, with an upgraded rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[alpha_centauri]

@gaetanomarano,<br /><br />-I understand what you mean but that is assuming that the idea is to keep with the status quo, that LEO will not develop. Clipper is planned to be used in varying forms for perhaps just as long as Soyuz has. The idea is that soon demand for transport into LEO will be higher and so 3-man craft won’t cut it. You can try and cram 6 or more researchers and tourists into a Soyuz size capsule if you want but in reality to cater to the expansion in the types of people that will need to “go up”, not just highly trained professional astronauts, you need a bigger vehicle. You assume you can use Soyuz forever, it’s getting more expensive and difficult to build as parts become more difficult to acquire, <br /><br />-It is not a “fake-image for business & propaganda”. It is part of the Clipper-Parom system as opposed to the previous soyuz-3 iteration of Kliper. Firstly the soyuz 2-3 is a small improvement over the currently planned core Soyuz 2. Secondly the vehicle has been reduced in weight allowed for by the “splitting” of the system and thirdly the Clipper will not be launched all the way to the ISS (so more mass can be sent up) and will be placed in a lower orbit from where the Parom can pick it up. The whole point of adding Parom is that it allows the use of relatively standard launch vehichle. <br /><br />-Firstly we do not know the costings for Clipper and wont for a little while and will depend on much so I wont speculate much however if a variation on the Soyuz 2 is used as planned I can not see launch costs exceeding $40 million, and this is still very cheap. Secondly, PAROM IS REUSABLE! A new Parom is not sent up every time a Clipper is. The Parom lays in wait at the station until a canister or Clipper needs collecting.<br /><br />- “cost like TEN house windows' factories”. I don’t think it necessarily will, as a programme.<br /><br />- “Costs”. And this is true of ANY new spacecraft, so what’s your point? Are you expecting to get a new spac

 

[josh_simonson]

>I think the problem is not with life support but with space, you see the Habitation Module is no longer in the Clipper-Parom plan meaning that extended stays aboard Clipper is not desirable. I’m assuming since Parom has taken over the abilities of the Habitation Module (Parom will be built around a central, habitable walkway) that once docked with Clipper the mission duration can be extended. <br /><br />It's probably power-limited too. However, consider what would have to occur for a catastrophic failure. The parom that's pre-positioned for intercept would have to fail in the time between launch and intercept, there would either be no spare parom, or the second one breaks too. Then the kliper would have to be damaged during launch such that it is unable to re-enter. So two, or perhaps 3, spacecraft would have to fail to result in crew stranded in orbit. Extended life support is clearly un-warranted in this case. <br /><br />BTW, they quote the development costs to be 10bln rouples, which is only $350M. Thats 15% of the cost of 1 B2 bomber. Flying 3 tourists and 3 replacement crew members, one flight could gross $60M in addition to NASA and ESA payments for crew rotation. One could complain about technical aspects of it, but certainly not the cost.

 

[spacefire]

you assume that the price/tourist would remain at 20mil?<br />I thought the aim should be to decrease the price in order to get more tourists?!?!?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Nope. They're instead decreasing all the training, exams and other BS that's currently intimidating people from buying seats. How many billionaires have 6 months to devote to training in addition to spending 20mil. Not many. That time is probably more of an expense to them than the ticket.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...of people that will need to “go up”, not just highly trained professional astronauts..."<br /><br />if you see some of my past posts/threads you discover that I completely agree with that point, but it need the development of a TRUE spaceplane a little, low cost and 100+ times (really!) reusable Shuttle 2.0 (or 3.0)... before it will happen, build an "half-shuttle" like Kliper is only a waste of money...<br /><br />I suggest Russia to upgrade its very successfull Soyuz and Progress in next years<br /><br />- the Kliper weight is higher than Soyuz, so, it can't be launched with similar rockets... the Kliper-Parom split is RISKY for crew and each launch cost will double<br /><br />- costs... if the little old Soyuz (that don't need new rockets and research costs!) need $60 million for a launch (please add a 50% for the REAL cost), a Kliper+Parom launch can't cost less than Soyuz (if Kliper will happen you will see its real "list price"...)<br /><br />- Parom reusable... where Parom will find in space the NEW cargo and fuel to be "reusable"???<br /><br />- new spacecraft costs... true, a new spacecraft costs money, but I think that money is well spent with GOOD project, spend money with BAD vehicles (that will be costly and poor used) is a waste of money, not a "capital investment"<br /><br />- huge hydro-electric dam... I suggest Russia and ESA to use Kliper money to build dams... Europe and Russia need ENERGY much more than Klipers...<br /><br />- reduce costs... it is impossible for cargo-Kliper (Progress send more payload at LOW price, also, new and cheaper ESA and Japan cargo-only will happen in next years, so, there is NO MARKET for a cargo-Kliper) and very difficult for crew-Kliper, it is too big (and dangerous) for 90%+ of future ISS missions (why spend MORE?) since ISS will NEVER become (not in next 15 years) so big to need many six-astronauts missions per year!<br /><br />- Roscosmos funds... I suggest ESA to give money to upgrade Roscosmos without waste 90% of that funds

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Erm<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>- Parom reusable... where Parom will find in space the NEW cargo and fuel to be "reusable"???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Parom would be a truelly spacecraft. Remaing in space for all of its service life. When not tugging anything around it will remain in orbit. Waiting in "sleep position" for the next cargo to be brought into orbit. This payload could either be a Klipper, or a cargo container. Once this payload is orbited, the Parom will dock and bring it towards its destination. <br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>- the Kliper weight is higher than Soyuz, so, it can't be launched with similar rockets... the Kliper-Parom split is RISKY for crew and each launch cost will double<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Doubling in weight does not mean doubling is cost of the LV. There are other launch vehicles capable of lifting the Klipper right now (Zenit) which are not twice as expencive. And the doubling in weight also comes with a double capacity and more then 25 times the re-usability of the systems. Almost 100% of the Klipper can be re-used while only 5% or so of the current soyuz can be re-used. While the Progress can't be re-used at all. Replacing this system with the Klipper/Parom and simple cargo containers makes economic sense. Parom is an all new vehicle, Zenit is already there, and a substantial part of Soyuz is being used in Klipper. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> 5 days... I don't know the Kliper's life support days, I say that ALL new spacecrafts MUST have 30+ days life support BY ITSELF without any "docks" with other vehicles (that may NOT happen if someting goes wrong, at launch or in space!!!) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />5 days should be suffiecent, considering the more direct course the Klipper can take towards the ISS, due to Parom. Looking back at Soyuz operations, how many times did the Soyuz go without docki

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">- Parom reusable... where Parom will find in space the NEW cargo and fuel to be "reusable"???<br /><br /><font color="white">The Parom will be refuled from tanks on the ISS or possibly onboard the klipper. Given that Soyuz LV + Parom can get 15 tonnes to the ISS I would think that on average a Kliper lanch to the ISS would take about 1.2 Soyuz launches ie once every 5 flights the Parom will need refueling. This is a WAG if anyone has the real numbers please take a better guess.</font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...not tugging anything around..."<br /><br />separate cargo from crew is a GOOD idea... separate cargo/crew modules from long life support, orbital navigation & docking system and space engine is an INCREDIBLY BAD and CRAZY idea!!!!!<br /><br />ALL new spacecraft MUST have ALL these features in the BASE MODULE!<br /><br />a cargo module must be used only for resupply NOT for any VITAL function!<br /><br />separating vital functions to save money will INCREASE the (already high) risk of space flights and Kliper crews will risk to die at every mission!<br /><br />rockets costs... "list prices" of rockets increase very much for high payload, but, to put Kliper "out of market" it's unnecessary a 500% increase, it's sufficient a mere 100%<br /><br />then... new vehicle + bigger rocket + shared Parom launch and use + shared Kliper development costs, etc. = higher price to have the same service of low cost and reliable Soyuz/Progress... wait to see the REAL Kliper-Parom total launch price!<br /><br />spend more is a good idea if you REALLY have more, not "more for less" (or "the same")<br /><br />reusability... only with practice we can know if Kliper will be REALLY reusable (and how many times)... I think that its design don't protect it from burning too much, so, it will be like a capsule... not reusable...<br /><br />5 days autonomy may be safe ONLY if ALL go well at every mission... but space flights are a risky job...<br /><br />NO NEW SPACECRAFTS MUST BE MADE WITH CREW'S LIFE SUPPORT SAVING IN MIND!<br /><br />spend more and give to Kliper's crews 30+ days of life!!!!<br /><br />this time is necessary to launch a rescue mission if something goes wrong!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">"...The Parom will be refuled from tanks on the ISS or possibly onboard the klipper. Given that Soyuz LV + Parom can get 15 tonnes to the ISS I would think that on average a Kliper lanch to the ISS would take about 1.2 Soyuz launches ie once every 5 flights the Parom will need refueling. This is a WAG if anyone has the real numbers please take a better guess..."</font><br /><br /><br />if it is true... Parom will be the first gasoline-pump refueled from car-tanks...<br /><br />

 

[yurkin]

I remember back in the day there was a lot of discussion on this board about the merits of space tugs. Personally I always liked the idea because you can build a smaller launch vehicle for the same size payload. With these method RSA only needs a slightly larger LV over the ones it has.<br /><br />The thing is that I don’t think a space tug has flown since the Gemini missions. So the Russians are certainly pushing new ground here. I wouldn’t expect to see the Kliper fly for another decade. But I guess we’ll have to see.

 

[nacnud]

Well the tanker will be once every 5 flights, assuming my WAG (wild arse guess) is credible.<br /><br />More like a tanker refueling a tug that docks ships. Seems very similar to how cargo is moved by sea.

 

[gaetanomarano]

space tug is a great idea as "box-move" from different orbits and/or objects, but (absolutely) NOT to move crewed vehicles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />crewed vehicled MUST have ITS OWN navigation system, engines and fuel + 30 days life support!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">launch them separately... is like separately launch a parachutist and its parachute... (and hope the first will take the second in time...)</font>

 

[nacnud]

No because the kliper will have the ablity to re-enter on its own if the docking is unsusessful.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />all new strategies will be good ONLY if the risk will be for vehicles and cargo, not for crews!<br /><br />only safer and reliable vehicles and strategies must be used for crews... no new "experiments"!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

new vehicles CAN'T be made with "the most optimistic vision" in mind (it will docks or reentry... SURE!), they MUST be complete with ALL navigation and support systems and as much as redundand possible... the first and most important redundancy parameter of a new vehicle is "life support autonomy" (that MUST be of 30+ days!)<br /><br />low life support time + vital systems separation (only to save on rockets!) is only a dangerous "experiment" made with human lifes (that many times may have a "Laika" end...)<br />

 

[nacnud]

The risk is to the mission not the crew, the crew will be able to abort at any time unlike the STS.<br /><br />I don't see your problem.

 

[gaetanomarano]

the Shuttle's 16 days autonomy was considered too little to save the crew with a rescue mission<br /><br />now, "5-days" Kliper autonomy is TOO MUCH!!!!<br /><br />it's true if reentry abort system will works and if the thermal shield or the Kliper capsule is not damaged... but if Kliper will have a Columbia-like problem?<br /><br />please, give to Kliper (and to ALL new spacecrafts) a full navigation system and 30+ days life support!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">Let's see... 4.5kg oxygen, 15kg water, 3kg food, and unspecified masses for CO2 scrubber canisters and hygene gear... rough guess, a minimum of 30kg of consumables per person per day. Six people, 180kg per day. 30 days means 5.4 metric tons just for emergency supplies, plus whatever other extra supplies it takes to keep the ship itself alive that long.</font><br /><br />???????????????????????????????????????<br /><br />oxygen... use LOX/LH2 propellants, they will give propulsion if you need propulsion, energy if you need energy, water if you need water and oxygen if you need oxigen<br /><br />15 kg water/day... do you want that astronauts make a shower each day?<br /><br />180 kg consumables per day... do you want to send six elephants in orbit with Kliper?<br /><br />30-days life support (to be used only in case of emergency) may need less than 1000 lbs. + the multipurpose (water/energy/propulsion/oxygen) LOX/LH2 tanks

 

[ve7rkt]

<i>Gaetanomarano's post quotes from a post I'd written but deleted because I wanted to rewrite it. He must have been writing his response when I deleted mine. I guess I'm stuck with what I said, now...</i><br /><br />No, I don't want to send six elephants in orbit. That's my whole point. You'll need six elephants worth of stuff to keep those people alive.<br /><br />The food value is apparently not in dispute. 3kg per person per day * 6 people * 30 days = 540kg. 540kg /> 1000 lbs. Well, there goes that.<br /><br />You say LOX/LH2 propellants will solve many needs. I say, sort of. If your craft's electricity came from solar panels, you're adding the mass of a fuel cell, though admittedly it'll make more than its weight back in water. If it was fuel cell powered to start with, not so much of an issue. But you're going to pack extra LOX/LH2 just for this anyhow, because the whole purpose of these backup supplies are for the case that the engine fails. Aren't you worried that, when the engine fails, you lose your LOX/LH2? So you're going to bring enough extra reactants to make the water you need. Say you decide you can get away with 3kg of water per person per day (2kg drinking, 1kg hygiene; enough for a spongebath and toothbrushing, and we'll hope people can shut up and not mind the mould growing under Komarov's chair for a month). Instead of bringing 540kg water + 810kg O2, you can bring 60kg H2 + 1290kg O2 (480 to make water, 810 to breathe). If you decide to risk things and draw this straight out of the fuel tanks, it means that at all points in the mission, right up to the point you kiss atmosphere on the way home, you still have that much unused O2 left in your tanks. Sure, it's in the fuel tank, but you still can't use it for fuel because you need to save it for emergencies!<br /><br />So: 540kg food, 60kg of unused H2, 1290kg unused O2. That's 1890kg (4158 pounds) that you want to launch and not use, plus the mass of the CO2 scrubber and dehumidifier

 

[gaetanomarano]

food... 3kg per day per astronauts may be correct if you include water... water needs will increase so much with high heat (like in desert) but in normal temperature 1/2 kg per astronauts is sufficient<br /><br />we need so much food on earth if we are obese or or make sports... in orbit there is no gravity and not so much work<br /><br />also, space-food may be the most efficient nutrition/weight possible, so, 300 kg. of food and water may be sufficient for 30-days emergency<br /><br />but, also your new "540 kg" evaluation is 10% of your first 5.4 tons evaluation...<br /><br /><br />if you consider the total weight of new vehicles (15-25 tons each CEV/SM, Kliper, etc.) add one ton to increase of 15-20 days the crew's safety and life support is not (and MUST BE NOT) a big problem!<br /><br /><br /><br />"...anybody's died in space so far was when a valve in their Soyuz let the air out..."<br /><br /><br />true, but "redundancy" and "life support" must be designed fo "reasonable emergencies", NOT for "EXTREME" problems, like Apollo13 tank explosion or Soyuz valve damage

 

[ve7rkt]

The original 5.4 ton guess was 810kg oxygen, 2700kg water, 540kg food, and rounding up to make a wild guess for the CO2 scrubbers etc.