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

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...did I say anything about mistakes..."<br /><br />I've used the word "you" but I refer to some uplink's users that (MUCH MORE THAN YOU!) runs all threads only to denigrate arguments and users they don't like (I've many examples... but I prefer to avoid to talk about them...)<br /><br />"...mistakes..."<br /><br />again... not you, but some uplink's user talk of past choices as "mistakes" (including Griffin's interview about Shuttle and ISS...)<br />

 

[bad_drawing]

Hey Gaet, I completely dissagree with your skepticism about the Kliper.....<br /><br />....But your graphic cracks me up. (the Soyuz boosters with the dingy, outboard, etc) Everytime I open this thread to see whats new and I see that I start chuckling. <br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

What's wrong with a parom rescuing the ship to the ISS or other space station? Why does the rescue have to go to the ground? The rescue profiles for a ground rescue and space station rescue are the same: both involve an intercept (from different starting locations, but same endpoint). Both also involve transfering the crew between spacecraft. The only difference is that the parom rescue involves a short flight to the space station before the crew transfer. BUT the parom rescue gets the crew and cargo to their destination, successfully completing the mission, where the ground rescue does not. <br /><br />It seems to me that the maximum endurance of the manned craft should be greater than the expected time to rescue, within reason, so by having a rescue tug in orbit the endurance can be relaxed because rescue can be accomplished quickly and reliably. I'd call this progress, not regress.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...skepticism about the Kliper..."<br /><br /><br />I only suggest to design a better vehicle with all "vital support" inside it (like old Soyuz and new CEV) and the same (16+ days) autonomy of the dear, good, "old" Shuttle...<br /><br />I can agree with Russia if they want to build a little spaceplane without the giant Shuttles' cargo-bay but NOT if the want to leave Kliper engines on earth or in another orbit!<br /><br />NASA will not send in orbit the CEV and its SM separately because it is too dangerous... why it is a good idea with Kliper?<br /><br />Probably, some wants that Russia build a BAD semi-spaceplane, so, when it will NOT works well (and costs too much), they can finally demonstrate that "capsules are better!" (and CEV is its king!), while, if Russia will modify the Kliper to build a WELL DESIGNED (and 100+ times reusable) little and safe spaceplane, it will demonstrate how much capsules are bad and expensive while spaceplanes are cheap and easy for LEO access!<br /><br />Since (as I've read on a Russian press agency) Kliper (with it's little wings) will try to lands on 3.5 km. military runways... if it will crash (and six astronauts will die) all "capsule-propaganda-men" (and gold-CEV supporters) may finally have their triumph!<br /><br /><br />-----------<br /><br />and, don't forget the COSTS of a Kliper-Parom-Cargo system... one rocket with twice the power and the price of soyuz-capsule-rocket for Kliper... one soyuz-like rocket for Parom... one for the cargo... one for the Parom that will drive the cargo... only the "rocket-cost" will be 2.5 times more than to-day's Soyuz+Progress missions (and their rockets)... add Kliper & Parom shared research & development costs, new launch pad, tests, training, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />why spend more to have the same service?<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

if Parom will be used only as cargo-engine and to "RESCUE" manned vehicles in case of emergency I can agree with you (and I hope will be many Parom in space) but, Parom CAN'T BE the main and vital engine of any spacecrafts that MUST have ALL its (autonomous) life support and navigation system!<br /><br />also, if Parom will be used to "rescue" it can't be only a space-engine but need to have aboard water, food, oxygen, etc. like a space-ambulance<br /><br />how doctors can save peoples in accidents if their rescue-vehicle (the ambulance) has only engine & gasoline but not any medical tool?<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

about world's aerospace engineers and scientists...<br /><br />I don't agree with many of their past and present choices (like CEV) but I RESPECT their experience and their work MUCH MORE than "capsule-propaganda-men" that continuosly and heavily insults all spaceplanes' and "non-capsule" supporters, because it is an INDIRECT but EXPLICIT (and continuous) INSULT to THOUSANDS engineers and scientists that have worked in last 50+ years to design, build and launch sub-orbital vehicles (like X15), flying bodies, Shuttles <font color="yellow">(that in 25 years have made so much work in space than the RIDICULOUS CEV will NEVER be able to do in next 200 years!!!!)</font>and all future "winged" vehicles, with hundreds new concepts and original ideas!!!<br /><br />THEY CONTINUOSLY INSULT ALL PAST, PRESENT AN FUTURE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS THAT DESIGN THINGS THEY "DON'T LIKE"!<br /><br />(but, probably, some of them, may have lot<font color="yellow">$</font>of <font color="yellow">$</font>ientific rea<font color="yellow">$</font>n<font color="yellow">$</font>to do it...)<br />

 

[j05h]

>also, if Parom will be used to "rescue" it can't be only a space-engine but need to have aboard water, food, oxygen, etc. like a space-ambulance<br /> />how doctors can save peoples in accidents if their rescue-vehicle (the ambulance) has only engine & gasoline but not any medical tool? <br /><br />That is what the access point between the two Parom hatches will contain. There will be supplies and materiel for the cosmonauts. The drawings were pretty clear that there is a tube for astronauts to move through in the Parom. You can expect supplies in lockers there. They could even include different survival packs depending on which emergency deorbit you choose. Or more food, whatever fulfills your paranoia. <br /><br />i hope Energia pulls this off. Kliper-Parom seems pretty cool.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Has anyone mentioned that Parom seems to be a shortered version of the FGB? In this respect it seems to be similar to the FSM used to dock Kvant 1 to Mir. Apologies if this is old news.<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>

 

[gaetanomarano]

I've a simple principle about new spacecrafts (no matter if it's a capsule or not) that is used in ALL hi-tech and lo-tech markets:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"the NEW products MUST be BETTER than the OLD products"</font><br /><br />the "old space-product" is the Space Shuttle, so, all "new space-products" must be BETTER than the "old" Shuttle<br /><br />well<br /><br />if Shuttle has a large and comfortable cabin... their substitutes must have a larger cabin (as space per astronaut)<br /><br />if Shuttle has a life support time of 16 days before it (and its crew) die... a "new" and "advanced" vehicle must have 20+ days of life support and operation<br /><br />if Shuttle can operate in different orbit, dock/undock ISS, etc. WITHOUT external help (like Soyuz, CEV, etc.)... an improved vehicle must offer more autonomy and a larger operation range than Shuttle without external help<br /><br />etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />if you buy a new TV at high price, you want that it has better color than your old TV!<br /><br />if you buy a new and expensive car, you want that it has more power, more speed, more airbags, etc. than your old car!<br /><br />this is PROGRESS<br /><br />but if you buy a new car that lacks airbags, ABS, sat navigator, alarm, etc. (that now are standard also on low cost city-cars) it is a GIANT REGRESS<br /><br />Kliper is a vehicle with 1/5 of Shuttles' autonomy and life support, 1/3 of Shuttles' cabin space, no airlock, 1/50 of Shuttles' payload, no orbital engines (it need Parom help), no large wings to protect the body at reentry (to be reusable 30+ times like the Shuttle), etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />HOW A SIMILAR VEHICLE CAN BE SAFER AND A PROGRESS vs. THE ***OLD*** AND ***DANGEROUS*** SHUTTLE THAT ***ALL*** WANT TO RETIRE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE????<br /><br />the "new" Kliper is a GIANT REGRESS vs. Shuttle and is TEN TIMES more dangerous than the "dangerous" Shuttle!<br /><br />(and this is LOGIC)<br /><br />I want (and hope) that XXI's century technology MUST (and can

 

[holmec]

how is a tug different from a service module??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I noticed that the Parom seems just like a smaller FBG. What was this FSM you mentioned?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>how is a tug different from a service module???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Practically speaking, they're very similar. The main difference as I see it is that the service module is flown as an integrated part of a larger spacecraft assembly and then discarded, while the tug is more flexible and would meet its payloads on-orbit. Semantics, really, although the tug would probably need more propellant than the service module would. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

The FSM was the highly modified FGB used to dock Kvant 1 to Mir. It massed 9.6 tonnes. It was afterwards undocked and moved away, exposing the rear port. The FSM eventually deorbited. Apparently originally most of the Mir modules were to have used this method, in the end the modules themselves were modified FGBs without the separate FSM tug.<br /><br />As far as I can see Parom is shorter than the FSM, has two docking hatches rather than one and has a pressurised tunnel. <br /><br />In this document http://t2spflnasa.r3h.net/history/shuttle-mir/references/documents/mirhh-part3.pdf you can find a picture of the basic FGB in Figure 3.4, the Kvant 1/FSM specs in Figure 3.8 and a picture of Kvant/FSM in Figure 3.4.<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>

 

[nacnud]

Cool thanks for that.<br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

The astronautix site calls FSM the Kvant FGB. There is more information and some mored rawings at http://astronautix.com/craft/kvant.htm Interestingly this gives the mass at 7.9 kg, it is easy to see how a shortened version could be launched by a Soyuz booster in this case.<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>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...Why Ten times..."<br /><br />is only to say "many times", of course... we can't know now "how much" the Kliper is dangerous... it depends of the % of bad Klipers/flights will crash... with Shuttle that figure is less than 2%

 

[nacnud]

The pods are put on to a destructve re-entry heading by the Parom. The Parom then undocks and boosts itself back into orbit.

 

[gaetanomarano]

I completely agree with you<br /><br />Russia must invest first on Parom (insead of Kliper) because it may be very usefull in next years and INDISPENSABLE when the Shuttle-Truck will go to retirement (with only a poorCEV as "subsitute"...)<br /><br />but I suggest to use Parom only as space-tug and space-rescue but NEVER as vital life support and space engine of manned vehicles, that MUST have ALL their VITAL system INSIDE them!<br /><br />also, I suggest to upgrade Progress (for little payloads) and use only Parom to move bigger masses from orbit to orbit<br /><br />

 

[gofer]

The Parom as envisioned by Energia in the 90's had nothing to do with the Klipper. The Klipper (the replacement for the Soyuz) had its own SM (that contained a Souyz OM) with propulsion and that was it. The Parom was meant to be a tug to ( a replacement for the Progress) haul some cargo and fuel. The KURS would not be used on it (made in Ukraine, you see), AFAIK, so the Progress/Souyz auto-docking experience is null and void. <br /><br />This latest move to move the Klipper's SM off into the Parom is an act of desperation (smaller budgets and smaller rockets) not some stroke of brilliant engineering. If Energia's folks wanted to save the mass they'd have dropped those wings first. Notice how gd'mn stupid they look on this 'abriged' Klipper. The Klipper in any incarnation WILL be more expensive than the Souyz per flight. But more capable, apparently.

 

[nacnud]

One reason to develop the Kliper over the Soyuz is the Billionaire playboy market. Currently it takes ages to train for the Soyuz, time that people that can afford the ticket price can't spair. With Kliper the training time for a tourist is vasly reduced.<br /><br />How much this figures in the designs I don't know but it could be significant.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />had its own SM... not in recent designs (but Kliper design change every week...)<br /><br />not some stroke of brilliant engineering... I sustain this from my first post here... but I've only received insults from "experts"...<br /><br />dropped those (little) wings first... I've suggested to build a FULL capsule OR a FULL shuttle... not a dangerous "hybrid"<br /><br />more capable... it's the ONLY advantage of Kliper... unfortunately, 90% of to-day and next future missions don't need so much astronauts per flight... then, it is only a waste of money<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"... training time for a tourist is vasly reduced..."<br /><br />with a dangerous hybrid Kliper (3-days life support and no orbital engines) "training time" for tourists must be multiplied by ten (+ a multi-confession integrated church ...if someting goes wrong), if "playboys" don't want to die like flyes...

 

[nacnud]

Rubbish, please stop making things up.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I don't understand exactly your phrase... but I feel you don't like irony...

 

[strandedonearth]

You already have the idea, quit pulling numbers out of thin air. Quit saying 'ten times' as a guess, just say 'many times.' Otherwise you're just destroying your credibility. Oh ya, I forgot, you already destroyed that long ago.