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

spacefire · Dec 7, 2005

apparently Kliper needs a tug to reach the ISS. That would make the costs of each launch balloon. my prediction is...bye bye Kliper. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/051207_tech_wednesday.html all we're left with is NASAs CEV. bummer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · Dec 7, 2005

I know Dobbins is going to have a field day with this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · Dec 7, 2005

The Klipper Parom tie-up has been on the card for a couple of months, it seems a sensible idea if the docking to the Parom is reliable. Plus once in place it enables a single soyuz launch to get 15 tonnes to the ISS twice what the ATV can and comparable to a STS launch!

shoogerbrugge · Dec 7, 2005

spacefire, could you repost your thread in this thread ? To keep everything clean and easier for later use.

spacefire · Dec 7, 2005

this certainly is news to me. I thought the Kliper would be an independent delivery system. While a ferry seems like a good idea, let's not forget that it is to be refueled from time to time. It also needs to function in space for a long time with restarts of the engine?! Not that I wouldn't like to see this attempted, but for Russia's finances it seems like too much on the plate. edit: I guess it was on the plate already. Just not for the manned Kliper, only for cargo. I'm still dissapointed though, but oh well... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · Dec 7, 2005

It's probably cheaper than a completely new heavier launch vehicle. The problem is that Klipper is too heavy for Soyuz, Angara would need to be man rated and Zenith isn't Russian. Search for Parom on here and you should find some more links.

dobbins · Dec 7, 2005

"I know Dobbins is going to have a field day with this." Why? This tug isn't one of a space plane's many faults. The problem is with the launcher not the Klipper, the Soyuz launcher just doesn't have the power to get it all the way to the ISS. They need a KLV (Kliper Launch Vehicle).

carp · Dec 7, 2005

Well,X-20 Dyna-soar too in advanced version neded a tug.But,after the "niet" from europe also i think who the next russian spaceship will be an other modernized model of old sojuz .

j05h · Dec 7, 2005

>The Klipper Parom tie-up has been on the card for a couple of months, it seems a sensible idea if the docking to the Parom is reliable. />Plus once in place it enables a single soyuz launch to get 15 tonnes to the ISS twice what the ATV can and comparable to a STS launch! Both are going to use systems descended from their (fairly) reliable technologies. Russian design bureaus and US corps have been talking up space tugs for 30 years, this is why. A working LEO tug is an incredible leverage on up-mass. Parom and Soyuz2 would approach lift of Proton system, and are planned for both Baikonur and Kourou. They could lift light station modules, no/fewer toxic fuels involved. I really want to see Kliper and Parom fly, I think they are important for further commercial space development. This system, with Bigelow inflatables and control block, would provide a complete solution for commercial LEO stations. Can I be &%$#@!y for a second? I think the ATV is turning into a hangar queen. They have been stumbling along and putting off first flight by years, over and over. It's as bad as Shuttle at this point. If they are really having these kinds of software problems, what happens when they have to make the next flight unit and can't source the same components? Even with their own delays, SpaceX has the right idea: discreet boxes using Ethernet for C&C. Each box has known I/O, they can swap them out as needed. I've seen nothing of the kind in the pics of ATV, it's all spaghetti lines around Russian-type tankage. Anyway, with their current delays I think ATV might not fly. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

centsworth_II · Dec 7, 2005

"all we're left with is NASAs CEV. bummer." My sympathies. I'm glad I remain ignorant of the vast possibilities for manned space fight which are doomed to remain unrealized. My ignorance allows me to be excited about the development of the CEV and the return of humans to the Moon. Unable to visualize, in real life, vast domed cities on the Moon, I excitedly await the new scientific discoveries to be gained by manned exploration. I'm amazed when I hear "we've been there, brought back some rocks, nothing new to learn." Geologists have been going over the same old rocks on Earth for hundreds of years and still are making new discoveries. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bad_drawing · Dec 7, 2005

I don't think Klipers going anywhere. It sure looks more like a deal manuever than a rejection by europe. Its suspected they want a bigger role... or less of a blank check approach anyways. I'm excited at all this and would love to see it work out. With the people and cargo capacity of Kliper and the parom together, EU, Russia and possibly Japan could get a US-free STS equivalent ride to ISS or LEO (as far as crew and cargo). The fact that it can be reconfigured with different components and upgraded in various ways suggests the long and great history of its Soyuz uncle. I don't know if I'd write the Kliper off yet. Who knows...maybe europe is holding out for a Kliper on an Ariane V "KLV" The new CEV, Kliper, and Shenzou sound like good ways to start the 20teens.

alpha_centauri · Dec 7, 2005

The Clipper-Parom transport system has been known for some time, this is old news. The impression I got was that this was always going to be the most likely system, that’s precisely why I’m so exited about the CP transport system. I don’t see much problem with the fact that the Clipper-lite will not be able to reach the station on its own. Automated docking is getting more reliable, enough for ESA to use it on the ATV. Besides the Clipper still retains the ability for orbital manoeuvring, it can de-orbit itself if required so no ones put in danger. It's funny how so many people are so negative about Clipper. Who knows...maybe europe is holding out for a Kliper on an Ariane V "KLV" Doubt it, too expensive and overpowered. Remember the Clipper-Parom is planned to be launched on a variant of the Soyuz 2, which has a lot of European involvement and ownership. Starsem is a sister company of Arianespace. This was done to appease ESA.

josh_simonson · Dec 7, 2005

The parom tug is a very significant craft because it expands space infrastructure, rather than throwing away everything after the mission. Most importantly, it allows payloads that meet the parom to be relatively dumb - all they require is attitude control. Parom does all the manuevering and heavy lifting, and all these engines and avionics don't need to be launched on every mission. That reduces payload cost dramatically, especially for relatively cheap supplies or fuel. Such cheap payloads are ideal for fledgling rockets to cut their teeth on due to the low cost of failure. They claim parom will save money over using progress freighters within 2 or 3 years, so the parom based cargo freighters may be compelling enough to be built on their own, independent of how well the Klipper program goes. With the shuttle soon the be out of the picture, NASA wants to purchase resupply missions rather than run them on their own. NASA will much prefer to use a US based rocket like the Atlas, Delta or Falcon, but as the EU has shown, a full automated transfer vehicle is expensive to design. NASA would probably be willing to pay for US based resupply missions that use the Parom to dock, which would save Boeing, Lockmart or SpaceX the costs of developing a full ATV. It may be easier to rent the services of a russian spacecraft than to commission a full launch under the current export rules as well.

shoogerbrugge · Dec 7, 2005

would it be an option for the Roskosmos to sponsor development of the Parom, and just freeze the whole Klipper idea for a decade or so. It seems unlikely that Russia is able to develop two vehicles side by side. And I guess that the progress needs replacement sooner then the Soyuz.

spacefire · Dec 7, 2005

are there any non-ISS LEO missions foreseen for the Klipper? It can only spend 3 days in orbit, lest the space.com article is mistaken, so its only purpose would be to get to the ISS. At the same time, the ISS cannot support 6 people and most likely never will. Maybe a destination for Kilper could be a Bigelow space station in an orbit the Kliper could reach by itself? Or, could the Kliper reach the ISS without the Parom if it were to carry only 3 cosmonauts and no cargo? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

josh_simonson · Dec 7, 2005

Missions: Delivery of crews and cargo to space stations and their return to earth; space station lifeboat; autonomous missions to orbit for space research or tourism; lunar orbital missions. Maximum mission duration five days with full crew and payload. So Kliper can support a full crew, alone, for 5 days, but presumably it can be stored for at least 6 months, crewless, in lifeboat mode.

gaetanomarano · Dec 7, 2005

despite its "wings" Kliper is NOTa (true) spaceplane but a CAPSULE.. like CEV it's an OLD design vehicle with some new technologies... like CEV its departure is vertical, like the semi-spaceplane Shuttle and... like CEV with its six-seats, Kliper is too big, a "space-limousine"... like CEV it's a "proprietary" product that ESA can only rent to use it... like CEV it need a big, completely new and costly rocket to fly... like CEV its cargo weight is VERY poor and VERY expensive... like CEV it is unnecessary for to-day and future ISS dimensions... like CEV each Kliper launch may cost 5+ times more than Soyuz/Progress/Shenzhou... like CEV a Kliper can be used MAX two times per year for orbital missions... like CEV it is too expensive for ESA, China, Russia and the rest of the world... like CEV then, it will remain a "mockup"............. like CEV if 2016 US withdraw from ISS is true... CEV will fly only 20-22 test/orbital/lunar times in 2014-2025, so, its cost per launch will be around $1.5-2.5 billion EACH, including shared research, development, testing, factories, training, launch pads, etc... TWO TIMESa Shuttle launch but with HALFcrew and WITHOUT25 tons payload, airlock, robot-arm, space assembly/repair, etc. etc. etc.

nacnud · Dec 7, 2005

a Kliper can be used MAX two times per year for orbital missions Where did you get that from?

erioladastra · Dec 7, 2005

If the lifetime is 5 days then it could not be used to ferry expedition crews. The week or so that they currently have is not enough time for handovers. Plus it takes a few days to carefully pack a returning vehicle. If that 5 days is correct I don't this being very useful.

gaetanomarano · Dec 7, 2005

"...two times per year..." now the two crew + russian pilot Soyuz is used around two times per year, so, the five crew + russian pilot Kliper will be used half times (but we can launch it ten times per year without any reasons, if we want) we don't know how many times a single Kliper can fly... but it has no large wings (like Shuttle) to protect the capsule body, then, it will be not so "reusable" as they hope

nacnud · Dec 7, 2005

Astronautix says the design life is 14 days, but I don't know if this is including a crew of three or 14 man days or what...

alpha_centauri · Dec 7, 2005

with its six-seats, Kliper is too big, a "space-limousine"... like CEV Too big? The point is to get as many people into space as cheaply, safely and comfortably as possible. The whole point of Clipper as opposed to the CEV is that it will facilitate access to orbit for researchers, tourists and others opening up new areas of usage of LEO. In this respect Clipper is different to the CEV. it need a big, completely new and costly rocket to fly... like CEV No it doesn’t, the Soyuz 2-3 is a small modification on the standard Soyuz 2, Soyuz 3 appears out of the picture. The Soyuz 2 is comparatively dirt cheap and is of Soyuz (reliable) heritage. (Note I’m talking about Clipper-Parom, the original Kliper would require another, but not necessarily completely new or unplanned vehicle) its cargo weight is very poor and very expenisve... like CEV o it’s not, again if talking about Clipper-Parom. it is unnecessary for to-day and future ISS dimensions... like CEV Windows are unnecessary in a house but I prefer my house with windows and it makes heating it cheaper! Just because something is unnecessary doesn’t mean it’s not useful. each Kliper launch may cost 5+ times more than Soyuz/Progress/Shenzhou... like CEV Where did you get that from? I was not aware figures on the costs of an as yet unfinished design had been published. Each clipper can do much more than a Soyuz/Progress/Shenzhou and none of those are in any way reusable. it is too expensive for ESA, China, Russia and the rest of the world... like CEV Too expensive? The whole reason why the system is so attractive is that its costs compared to todays should be significantly cheaper. What are the

nyarlathotep · Dec 7, 2005

>>"we don't know how many times a single Kliper can fly... but it has no large wings (like Shuttle) to protect the capsule body, then, it will be not so "reusable" as they hope" The russians are suggesting a design life of 25 launches.

ve7rkt · Dec 7, 2005

So are Clipper and the unmanned cargo pod going to be packing the fuel Parom will use to push them around? Just make sure Parom has enough fuel after its last mission to pick up its next payload, which will again have its own fuel supply? Seems like a pretty sensible plan to me. Why lift the engines and associated gizmos over and over, when you could just leave them in orbit and use them as needed?

gaetanomarano · Dec 8, 2005

answers: - it's clear that if you build a "limousine" instead of a little vehicle you will spend the same (high) amount of money with 3-seats or 6-seats missions, two Soyuz will cost LESS than one Kliper for six-seats missions and MUCH LESS than Kliper for 3-seats-only 80% missions, also, Soyuz are available NOW (not in 2010+) and don't need very high research, development and test funds - Kliper may launch twice astronauts + five times payload than Soyuz, so, it's weight CAN'T be the same of Soyuz but 50% or more, then, it will need a new and bigger rocket (the Kliper+Soyuz 2 rocket is clearly a fake-image for business & propaganda only) - Kliper & Parom mean DOUBLE LAUNCH and DOUBLE COSTS (and risks), so, a Kliper+Parom mission may cost 8-10 times a Soyuz launch!!! - windows... if Kliper will cost like an house's window I can agree with you... but EACH Kliper launch will cost like TEN house windows' factories... - costs... great part of costs of a NEW vehicle is due to shared costs for research, development, tests, etc. etc. etc. (see my CEV "real costs" evaluation) - expensive... due to research & development costs, dimensions, etc. a Kliper launch CAN'T cost less than a single or dual Soyuz launch... if Kliper is so "cheap" why Russia ask ESA for funds and try to sell its flight to other countries? I think that Kliper (if will happen) will be so costly that NOT EVEN Russia will use it and will continue to use the Soyuz/Progress duo - 5 days... ALL countries and space agencies that build a NEW spacecraft with 5-days-only life support are ********CRAZY******** and, if they think to use it also for lunar orbital missions, they are ********TEN TIMES CRAZY******** ALL new spacecrafts MUST have 30+ days of life support and MUST increase that figures with orbital resupply... this for good operating and crew safety

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

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

shoogerbrugge

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

dobbins

Guest

carp

Guest

j05h

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

bad_drawing

Guest

alpha_centauri

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

shoogerbrugge

Guest

spacefire

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

nacnud

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

nacnud

Guest

alpha_centauri

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page