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

[gaetanomarano]

<br />english is not my mother languages, so it's not easy for me to understand the different effect of "ten times" vs. "many times"... for me, both appear as "very much times"<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

with my "lack of technical knowledge" I've posted hundreds calculations based on known figures but I've never received different or alternative evaluations... simply because my calculations and evaluations are "very disliked" but TRUE<br /><br />when I give precise figures these comes from parameters and calculations I've explained in the same post or thread<br /><br />of course, if I only want to say that a "thing" is too expensive or too dangerous I don't need to be precise<br /><br />consider that "things" like Kliper or CEV simply DON'T EXIST so, no one can give precise figures about them<br /><br />after 100 Kliper or CEV flights we can know if they are 1.5 or 3.7 or 8.2 times dangerous than Shuttle or Soyuz<br /><br />probably you want miracles from me, not precise numbers...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I will keep your suggestion and will try to avoid to use "ten times" to say "many times"<br />

 

[dobbins]

Actually the number 10 times has been put out by NASA, a claim that the CEV will be 10 times safer than the Shuttle.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133820main_ESAS_Facts.pdf<br /><br />As usual Gaetano managed to get it ass-backwards and proceeded to babble on non-stop, spewing misinformation regardless of what anyone who actually knows what they are talking about may say on this subject or anything else related to space.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

ok... if NASA claims that the (unexisting) CEV that will make 100+ flights (for a true comparison) only after 2030, IS "ten times" safer than (existing) Shuttle (that have already made 100+ flights), that is a TRUE figure, while, if anyone, that don't is or work for NASA, says that the (unexisting) Kliper (due to its clearly bad design) MAY BE "ten times" more dangerous than other (existing) current vehicles, this is CERTAINLY a wrong figure!

 

[dobbins]

NASA has people who actually know what they are talking about. You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about most of the time and are too pig headed to listen to anyone else. All you do is pull crap out of your rear end and spew it ad nauseum.<br /><br />There is an old saying that God gave you two ears and only one mouth because he intended for you to listen twice as much as you talk. Did he give you three mouths and no ears?<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Have you even the faintest idea how staticstics work?

 

[teije]

My mother used to have a note on the wall that read (translated into english by yours truly):<br />'The fact that people talk so much but never say anything is due to the fact that people hear so much but never listen.'<br /><br />Sadly true I always thought....

 

[digitalman2]

A tug was part of the original plan at the time the shuttle was being designed. here is one reference I seem to recall something like that, except that the plans had to be scaled back and the tug was cut. I think there were a number of other tugs mentioned in addition to this one. <br /><br />It is a shame it didn't get built earlier. I think its great that they are considering it now, as you have mentioned.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...staticstics work..."<br /><br />I know that statistics are made with REAL objects & figures, then, no one (not even NASA) can give "statistical" figures of unexisting vehicle that will fly only from 2015 up<br /><br />all "statistics" about unexisting objects are ONLY "opinions" NOT reality<br />

 

[najab]

><i>all "statistics" about unexisting objects are ONLY "opinions" NOT reality</i><p>Does that include double-Shenzhou LSAMs?</p>

 

[subzero788]

nice call.<br /><br />just get ready for a list of reasons from gaetanomarano stating why you're wrong

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />of course... it include all unexisting vehicles... CEV, SM, CLV, SDHLV, LSAM, Kliper, Parom, Shenzhou+LSAM, CEV+LSAM, etc.<br /><br />no one (not even NASA) can give "exact" statistics on unexisting vehicles<br />

 

[holmec]

>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.<<br /><br />Could this be the beginning of a reusable service module. That is use a tug that refuels at a depot and remains in orbit. <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'd love to think so, its an idea that has been floated before.

 

[josh_simonson]

>with a dangerous hybrid Kliper (3-days life support and no orbital engines) "training time" for tourists must be multiplied by ten<br /><br />Apart from the 10x hyperbole, the '3 days life support' you quote is actually a little under the soyuz 3.2 days, and dramatically under the kliper's 5 days. <br /><br />The only thing soyuz can do that kliper can't do better is boost itself all the way to the ISS and dock autonomously. Given the availability of a larger rocket, it'd be simple enough to put a propulsion and docking module on the kliper - but for now, russia has to work with what they've got. Sure their labor is cheap, but they have a smaller tax base than when the USSR was whole, regular terrorist attacks, and their own version of 'iraq' in chechnya.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the image I've found indicate "3 days" http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=401384&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=1&vc=1<br /><br />as I've explained in my previous posts, I think that ALL "new" vehicles must be BETTER than "old" vehicles (like the old 16-days-life-support Shuttle)

 

[JonClarke]

Just as Kliper may have been downsized for launch by Soyuz 2-3 from Zenit, it is possible that the cargo pods it handles may be a downsided version of Progress M2, also was to have been launched by Zenit.<br /><br />Compare this drawing of Parom and a cargo pod http://www.fips.ru/fullimg4/rupat5/2003/11/02/2216489-1.tif with this drawing of Progress M2 http://astronautix.com/craft/proessm2.htm. The cargo pod looks very much like the payload end of Progress m2, without the service module. <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]

The links borked <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />, try removing the final dot

 

[JonClarke]

Sorry, fixed <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>

 

[avmich]

The argument what's wrong with Klipper was that it has a small orbit lifetime. Well, yes it is inconvenient. The reason it was done is to go ahead with Klipper development even without the need to have an uprated launcher first.<br /><br />It's hard to do all at once. If, for example, there were no questions with Zenit, if it flew regularly and reliably and Klipper could be mated to it, there wouldn't be much need for Klipper to dock with Parom first. Or if the Proton was somewhat lighter and worked on LOX and kerosene. Or Soyuz-U had twice the payload. None of this variants exist yet, so Klipper developers proposed a variant how to avoid having a more fitting launcher for Klipper.<br /><br />As soon as Klipper - with Parom, which is needed on early stages of Klipper use - flies, the issue with a better rocket for Klipper can be addressed better.

 

[gofer]

Do you know at what stage the Klipper/Parom program is now? Are the requirements finalized now and they are working on the specs/making an engineering test article (perhaps they could conduct subscale tests using some lighter rockets), or are they still undecided on the final layout? Is there an official page (Energia?) on the project somewhere? Thanks.

 

[spacefire]

that means that subsequent versions of Kliper will have a propulsion module mated to them?` <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]

If parom works well with the kliper, they may just add a simple up-cargo module to the back when using larger rockets.

 

[ve7rkt]

The advantage of a modular system would be that you could go either way. Say in 2015 there's a more capable launcher. If a mission is best suited by launching a Kliper with a propulsion module already attached, do it. If it's best suited by launching Kliper with a cargo module and meeting it with Parom on orbit, do it.