Slashdot Mirror

Agreed. The proposed mission seems to be a replay of the ill-fated Phobos mission. It is puzzling that the Russiams would want to conduct a sample return mission when an asteroid sample return mission would require less energy. Phobos and demos are likely captured S-type main belt asteroids. Why go to the trouble of going to Mars to sample them. Sampling a C or M type body would be a lot more interesting. As for China, they don't offer much except money I'd guess.

As for others on this forum denegrating the US effort I would remind them that there is a flotilla of missions both operating and planned that are producing outstanding results. Spirit, Opportunity, Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Phoenix Lander, Mars Science Laboratory. This is a golden age of US Mars exploration.

One reason why NASA put its launch facility at Cape Canaveral (and the missile range at Vandberg AFB) is that it is usually advantageous to launch as close to the equator as possible. Because the Earth's rotation, being at the equator means you have a greater starting velocity than if you launched from, say, the north pole. The rotation of the Earth, in radians per second, is the same for everyone, but your tangential velocity increases the farther you get from the axis of rotation. (It's easier to draw or demonstrate with a ball it is to describe)

This is why the ESA has a major launch facility in French Guiana, at just 5 degrees latitude.

A craft launching from Cape Breton, which lies at about 45 degrees north latitude, would only have about 70% of the initial velocity, and so only 1/2 the kinetic energy, as a craft that starts from the equator. The only way to get that extra energy you'll need to reach orbit is by burning more fuel.

That's kinda why I think the entire organization of NASA should be replaced with something else.
Who is going to replace NASA? They are the best at what they do. You need to divest the organization from the burracracy. They have decades of experience. We should replace (about 1/2 of) our lawyer congressmen with scientists.

You are happy with one successful mission a decade that spends tons of money doing it!
So your suggesting cheaper-faster-more? That does not work. At least in the long run; in the economical sense.

Overall I think you get the wrong impression from my post. I am gratefull for the things NASA has accomplished despite small budgets and the erroneous initiatives of our political leaders. I am optimistic that in a few decades the agency will once again be great. I, like yourself, want a human future in space. But that's eaiser said than done my friend.

P.S. did you know that Voyager 1 & 2 have to adjust their telemetry to account for the engagement of the tiny magnetic tape head that records the data. That's right, every time that tape flinched, they had to stabilize the craft, otherwise, it would have produced blurry, unusable pictures of Saturn. One of a thousand examples of precise engineering that takes decades to get right.

You shouldn't call the Russian craft a pickup truck when it really doesn't have the horsepower (delta-V) to push the space station up. The russian spacecraft are more like a really reliable 4 cylinder coupe. - you mean you shouldn't call the Russian 4 cylinder coupe but you then should call the Russian pickup truck

You shouldn't call the Russian craft a pickup truck when it really doesn't have the horsepower (delta-V) to push the space station up. The russian spacecraft are more like a really reliable 4 cylinder coupe. - you mean you shouldn't call the Russian 4 cylinder coupe but you then should call the Russian pickup truck

I am 45, and grew up during Apollo missions. I closely followed every mission. I KNOW it happened. It could not be faked. If you disagree, consider, If it were a hoax the Soviet Union and any other country with a radio telescope could tell it was. On launch mornings, the television coverage would include a shot of the Soviet "trawler" hanging off the coast observing the proceedings. In fact, the soviets were very interested in observing our spaceflights. They tracked them in orbit, they tracked them going , decending, acending, and returning from the moon, and then at the splashdown theres another "trawler" hangin around. It was easy to do! you did'nt need a powerful radar as the spacecraft was constantly beaming back telemetry data and radio transmissions in the clear. Unbeknownst to the rest of the world at the time because of their absolute secrecy, the Soviets manned lunar programwas having a little trouble with their N1 boosters blowing up. In light of their own failure, and the general hostile attitude toward the United States, you cannot convince me that they would just stand by and let us evil capitalist pigs get away such a fakery! WE WENT!

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

...that the Russians, with their Soyuz design, are moving to a winged vehicle at the same time the US is moving to a capsule (a la Soyuz) design, with everyone here (and elswhere) championing how much better the Russian approach has been?

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

Bear in mind the the Kliper is no Shuttle - it's much better thought-out. I think the greater flexibility of the reentry profile is invaluable, and am generally excited to see this bird fly.

Also, there are no Shuttles ready that could boost the orbit either, so the Russians are the ONLY method right now. I'm not sure how fast the Russians can send up another Progess if the one currently docked can't get the job done. This IS a serious risk to the station and crew, but it's not panic time.


Using the Progress is only one way to do it, they could always fire the engines on the Zvezda Service Module

There is an obvious problem with the Progress, but I think they only use the Progress reboost because otherwise it's propellant (used to rendezvous, dock and de-orbit) is wasted. The Progress refuels the SM from seperate tanks.

There is a Russian government policy not to rely on foreign suppliers of potentially hostile countries for parts with possible military uses, and this includes launch vehicles.

Well then, you had better tell the Russians that, because they say they're using the Zenit.

One of the reasons both these vehicles were shelved, and indeed why the Shuttle configuration was picked decades after the Dynasoar debacle was precisely because of aerodynamic instability caused by the wings during launch.

Monsense. The Dynasoar program continued right up until Shuttle development when the president forced the Airforce to accept the Shuttle program as an alternative. The Titan IIIc with its revolutionary SRBs (later to be used by the Shuttle) was the rocket intended for the Dynasoar. (Yes, they were that close to completion.)

On point 5, the main reason for having a winged vehicle is that is the only way to get a capability to bring significant mass down from orbit

That's not the *only* reason. Wings are also safer for the crew for a variety of reasons:

1. Fewer reverse Gs.
2. Gentle touchdown. (Apparently, Cosmonauts often receive injuries when the capsule hits the ground.)
3. The ability to control the flight.
4. Aerobraking manuvers become possible.

Of course, wings add a great deal of engineering difficulty to the design, but the US already has a great deal of experience with them.

This press release doesn't say anything about the launch vehicle. Any information?

It was in point 7, under this link. Originally Russia was going to build a new "Onega" booster, but they seem to have settled on a Zenit.

Collection of random thoughts, aka A Brain Dump:

1. This news is older than the hills.

2. What's with the dates? The Clipper was supposed to be in service by 2010, not 2011. Originally this would have put it ahead of the CEV, but the latest projections have the CEV flying by 2008.

3. HOTOL, Skylon, Hermes; need I say more? Russia obviously wants the money for building, not the enigineering experience of the ESA.

4. "The Clipper would allow Russia and Europe to collaborate with the Americans on lunar exploration, allowing six astronauts to orbit the Moon and to act as a back-up rescue craft, if needed." I'd be happy if we collaborated, but I think it's a bit premature considering that Russia never landed anyone on the moon. Did they get close? Maybe. The details are a bit sketchy there. There certainly seems to be a coverup involved, but considering the number of "Moon Rockets" that Russia had blow up on the pad, I wouldn't have held my breath either way.

5. You'll note that Russia is looking at a winged vehicle. Lockheed proposed a lifting body for the CEV, but was turned down. I'm consoled, however, in that the CEV vehicle will be a small part of the future stack and very easy to replace. Even if the CEV flies capsules for the first couple of years, there's a strong liklihood that we'll go back to lifting bodies with reinforced carbon-carbon heat shielding. (For those of you who complain about carrying wings and landing gear into space, it really isn't that big of a deal. The problem with the Space Shuttle is that it's FREAKING HUGE so that it can carry satellite packages. Reduced to a more normal size for human cargo, its wings and gear wouldn't cost all that much in weight.)

6. "The Clipper also enhances the possibility of space tourism." I just love Russian zeal. Those guys are never worried about the, "Why not?" =)

7. "The development and operational side of the programme is expected to cost around 100m (£68m) euros a year." Am I the only one who thinks that price tag is a little low? Even if you expect Russia to take the brunt of the costs, you're still a billion or so Euros shy. According to this page, they are thinking of using the Zenit booster (now there's a hell of a ride) so I imagine that would help reduce the costs. Still...

Personally, I wish them the best of luck. If all goes well, maybe the ESA will build its own Clippers and begin flying them. Their recent Galileo system certainly suggests that Europe is finally looking to be technologically independent from the US. :-)

According to NASA the russian spacecraft Soyuz chases the station for two days before it docks. Considering that the Soyuz is the smallest manned spacecraft to dock with the ISS you gotta wonder how much of its total mass is fuel needed for that maneuver. According to the russian space web the total mass of the Soyuz at launch is 7.1 tons. The propulsion module takes up 2.6 tons of that. Note the amount of payload the Soyuz can actually deliver - 3 crew and 30kg. Less than 1% of the total mass. Oxygen aint that heavy. So other than the heat shield on the descent module (total weight 2.9 tons) what's taking up so much of the total mass? It's gotta be fuel right? So what happens if you gather solar power in space and use it to propel your orbiter? You could use a MagBeam to do it. All of a sudden you havn't got much to lift up to orbit. Just those nice light humans and some nice light oxygen so they don't suffocate on the way and a nice light inflatable heat shield so they don't burn up when you take them home.

But here's a silly question. Who says we have to take up a whole heat shield on every launch? We could send up parts of the heat shield, sew em together in orbit, tie together all the descent modules we've launched in the last 10 flights and send everyone home together.

The room for innovation in manned space flight is astronomical. We just havn't seen any because there's no motivation to reduce costs when your space program is funded by taxpayer dollars.

One version I've read...
After the rocket failed to fire, Nedelin ordered technicians to go service the rocket and try again. As he stood by the pad watching, someone re-cycled the launch sequence. The launch clock had meanwhile counted from T-Minus to T-Plus, so the rocket's (perfectly functioning) second stage ignited, ending Marshal Nedelin and many others.

It'll re-enter like a lifting body or a glider (like the Space Shuttle). Capsules drop.

Russia had several plans for lifting body or glider manned orbital space craft, such as the Spiral.

So did NASA, which recently had Scaled Composites (of SpaceShipOne fame) develop the X-38 (notice the similarity to the Russian Bor), only to see it cancelled because of the cost. That cost, incidentally, was slightly higher than the projected cost for the Kliper, and still half that of a successful Space Shuttle flight.

That is the one thing of the US space program I still don't get. Why have a hugely expensive and dangerous shuttle program, then claim at the same time that astronauts' lives and money are so important, when you have a half-developed, modern, cheap and presumably safe system sitting on the shelves?

The Russians have made it to the moon.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_l unar.html

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_lunar.html

While there are considerable more failures than successes, the Russians have achieved lunar orbit and returned.

The Russians have made it to the moon.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_l unar.html

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_lunar.html

While there are considerable more failures than successes, the Russians have achieved lunar orbit and returned.

Hello

I might have interpreted your post incorrectly, but it seems to indicate that the two programs have not been very successful.

While the failure ratio of the Soyuz program is not that much better from the shuttle, as a program conceived 10 years before the shuttle, it has outperformed any original expectative, both technologically and economically. There had been proposals to replace it (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html), but, even with today's technology, the added performance does not compensate for the added costs. To simply put it, it's so simple and cheap that you better build two than make a new one. Now, as any engineer will tell you, don't deceive your self, making things simple is difficult, clunky and complicated is easy.

From project goals met, the Soyuz has been an outstanding success that has lead to more than 10 different versions of the same ship.

While I can agree that it is difficult to compare the exact costs, please, Tito paid 20 million for the Launch, and believe me, they made a profit. In the other hand:

"as the average launch expenditures during its operations up to 2005 accumulates to $1.3 billion [1], a rather large figure compared to the initial projections of $10 to $20 million. The total cost of the program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 ($112 billion of which was incurred while the program was operational) and is estimated at $174 billion when the Shuttle will retire in 2010."
(Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle)

In conclusion, the Soyuz has been a technological success, though, as good as it was, it is obsolete now. In the other hand, the shuttle, while it has helped test and develop newer technologies, it failed to meet the original project goals.... by far.

It's unfortunate that both countries, USA and Russia, are now stuck. One, because of a dead design that tried to meet too many people's wishes, and the other, because it has no money.

First, number of lives lost is not a good indicator of reliability, due to, ahem, shortage of the statistic base.

Second, several horrible disasters at launch pads puts the Russian number rather high.

First, number of lives lost is not a good indicator of reliability, due to, ahem, shortage of the statistic base.

Second, several horrible disasters at launch pads puts the Russian number rather high.

Energia has had a perfect (if admittedly short) track record.

It launched polyus and buran without a hitch. Polyus itself failed before reaching orbit, but this was not a fault of Energia, and has been argued that the failure may have been intentional.

Energia is interesting in that it can act like a normal rocket booster, but is able to deliver massive payloads -- the Russian space shuttle was strapped to it on its only flight. If energia were to be ressurected with the help of the US, it is possible that russia could scrape together the funds to rebuild one of the buran orbiters if Kliper (the next-gen russian orbiter design -- still unbuilt) were to fall through.

IT should be noted that energia uses several (depending upon the configuration) Zenit boosters for the first stage. Zenit is used today independently of Energia, and has an excellent track record. Despite the fact that it is the most technically advanced/efficent rocket today, Russia has plans to replace it with a more advanced rocket.

Personally, despite the massive infrastructure improvements needed to reinstate Energia, I think that it would be a benefit to rebuild it. It is alredy an adequate booster to get to the moon or mars. Right now, Bush and Putin aren't getting along quite well due to a number of Putin's policy changes that are effectively destroying the russian democracy. Money talks. If bush were to offer a contract to Energia in exchange for some concessions from Putin, I think US-Russian relations would improve.

What we need is something like a Crew Entry Vehicle, but really more like the Shuttle EXCEPT it cannot carry much in the way of cargo. Of course, the Russians are already working on a similar replacement for their aging, though practical, Soyuz ferry, so maybe this is an opportunity for Russia and the US (nay, more international partners) to chip in together on a common crew ferry.

There are plenty of light and medium-lift boosters. The ESA has it down with their Ariane rockets, though they haven't much to do with them. Again, why reinvent the wheel? Borrow the design (or buy them off the ESA or invite them here as an alternative launch site), slap a ferry to it for manned flights, or a cargo pod for others.

I would prefer reusability rather than pitching more metal in the oceans and debris in space. I would love, personally, to see the Space Ship One concept molded into low-Earth orbit use (it's that flaky bit of accelerating the vehicle to gravity escape velocity, meaning it would be much larger, carry more fuel, and need much better computer controls and thermal protection.

But, hasn't NASA done all that homework already, too, in the form of the early Shuttle concepts? The only thing that's needed is to NOT combine cargo AND crew areas, nor simply make a dumb booster with a crew pod.

Keep the humans in the loop with a flyable, steerable, versatile vehicle that can also be used on a larger booster for use as a true spacecraft that can also ferry crews to and from the Moon.

After all these years, is this really that hard?

The USSR actually DID have a series of manned military space stations that orbited during the 1970s. It was known as the Almaz project (more info here). In addition to reconnisance equipment on board, they also carried anti-satelitte weaponry.

The USSR also had some other scary space plans for military space stations. I mean, it even LOOKS sinister, painted black and all...

... they could have a new type of spacecraft much earlier. Russian engineers are pretty advanced in their plannings for a soyuz replacement: Kliper

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

the maiden flight was originally planned for 2007-2008 if I remember that correctly (read it in a German aviation magazine (Fliegerrevue) some time ago), but as usual with such projects and russia: sadly they have no more money to complete it. Relatively little american money could have a huge effect here. But I guess national pride on both sides will prevent this from coming true.

regards, sqar

The russian Clipper (Kliper) lifting body space capsule is already being built. There is no need for the yankee to reinvent the wheel.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

By the way, air launch is one of the most dangerous methods. In-flight collision is invariably fatal. Remember the drone that killed the SR-71 motherplane? The idea is silly.

THey moved to wings because the military insisted on it.
What's the point of having a reusable vehicle if it's far more expensive to operate than a one-time-use capsule?? The effort in going through the shuttle inbetween launches cost an enormous amount of money! Mind you, *cheap* reusable vehicles would be good (and nothing stops a capsule from being reusable, russia was building one until lack of cash stopped them)
You can actually land a capsule fairly accurate, within 5 - 10 km^2 IIRC. I assume you think of the soyuz capsule a while ago wich deviated far from it's landing zone. The reason for this was a computer error which stopped the capsule from trying to 'glide' (yes you can steer them a bit!) and it then automatically went for the safest option which was a ballistic trajectory. Lots of G's for the crew, but they were unharmed in the end.

Heres a really good run down of the kliper.

Looks like the nose cone section of the shuttle without any wings or tail

Have a look here and tell me this design isn't just a prettier soyuz system ...

Actually, while one of the Pioneer Venus atmospheric probes did survive its impact with Venus's surface, it had no cameras. All the landing site images we've seen of Venus's surface came from Soviet Venera landers.

...and the first space station (MIR ....

Indeed, Progress resupply craft is not a good example.

A much more similar system from Russians was the "IS" anti-satellite system, developed and tested between 1960-1980s. The core of the system is a destroyer satellite that approaches target at a kill distance and then explodes.

Some more info here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html

Actually, the space treaty doesn't prohibit the weaponization of space, just the deployment of weapons of mass destruction.

For an example of a weapon previously deployed in space by a space treaty signatory, check out Salyut-3's air-to-air (I guess, space-to-space) machine gun cannon.

At the moment, as far as I know, both the European ESA, with their ATV and the Russians, with their Progress do this same thing, i.e. autonomously meeting and docking with ships in orbit (the ISS mainly). Apart from that, I can't imagine that the technology is all that spectacular that NASA wasn't able to do this in the past. Or is this a case of NASA wasting money in trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak?

Is there some aspect to this that really is new?

--There was a major fire in 1997, the crew was barely able to extinguish it before it killed them (story here).

--We have no idea what the failure rate of equipment on MIR was before the USSR collapsesd. Who knows what might have happened up there. It was not reported in the press.

--Here is list of problems on MIR: (list)

To my knowledge, Russia now has another space port, Plesetsk, and is actively developing it. Perhaps this is to minimise dependency on Kazakhstan and "their" Baikonur.

To my knowledge, Russia now has another space port, Plesetsk, and is actively developing it. Perhaps this is to minimise dependency on Kazakhstan and "their" Baikonur.

Just try to imagine a Soyuz-based mission to fix the Hubble.

I don't see any problems here at all. What specifically makes you say it can't be done? The Soyuz can be brought to the same orbital plane as Hubble. The Soyuz can maneuver in space - and if you think it doesn't have enough fuel, just send a Progress ship to dock with Soyuz. The Soyuz has airlock. The Soyuz can fly with two people onboard, and extra cargo, needed for repairs, can be taken along.

Best of all, all of that was already successfully tried. Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5 have docked in space in 1969. Progress was used to boost the orbit of another ship, ISS in this case. The Soyuz' airlock is the orbital module. Soyuz have flown with two people on board. Soyuz was actually used to repair a station in space, when all the control was lost.

Venus is active, the Venera 9 & 10 probes that landed on the surface there took pictures of magma flows
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/venera75.html

Boeing, though, and the development of the D-IVH, is heavily subsidized by the military. Boeing is rapidly becoming "the" defense contractor, having swallowed up McDD. Throw in some sweetheart 767 tanker leasing deals...and you can't hardly say that Boeing is anything but a large piece of the military-industrial complex. I will definately agree that it does represent a leap in technology for the USA, but is still short of the mid-80's Soviet Energia. The D-IVH can carry 28,000 pounds to geosynchronous orbit...the Energia could lift 36,000 pounds to the same path. The D-IVH can lift 48,000 pounds to LEO, the Energia could lift 200,000. So while the D-IVH is quite an accomplishment, it's not a Saturn V.

I don't know about you all, but I found there to be a more than slight resemblence between this picture of Kliper:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_ch1_2.jpg
And Blofeld's spacecraft from "You Only Live Twice" (1967 007 Movie)
http://www.thejbw.com/pics/yolt/bondpic5eats.gif
(Sorry for the awful pic. Only one I could find of the thing. Unless you want to rent the movie.)

This implies that it is a derivation of the word Clipper.

Great! Kliper is about 14.5 tons in launch configuration, and Ariane 5G can launch 16 tons to LEO. Ariane 5G was designed for the Hermes space plane, so it should be feasible to man-rate it.
Let's hope that there will be a close cooperation between Europe and Russia. Rumours about Russia joining ESA already surface now and then. AFAIK the main prolem (next to authoritarian, non-democratic tendencies in Russia) is that the cuurent ESA treaty requires every member to pay a share of the common space projects. The treaty would have to be altered to allow Russia to pay it's share in hardware and services.
Nevertheless, this seems as a promising opportunity to me. Especially as a the article on russianspaceweb.com states that a major portion of the 10 bn. Rubel development costs is for the Onega booster, which wouldn't be required if Ariane 5 could be used.

Like this.

I remember reading on a site about the origins of Baikonur, and there were other aspect in the choice of the Kazakh desert.

Since Baikonur was planned to be an ICBM firing range (for testing new rockets), the soviets needed a clear path where some radio beacons would be installed to guide the rockets during its 8000km flight. They could have chosen to build the complex west of the caspian, but that would have prevented them from installing the radio guidance system properly (which ironically became obsolete when they started to use inertial systems).

Another aspect was soil composition, the soviet military though they could dig the soil as a flame deflector

There's an article about the origins of Baikonur here.

Although dealing with the heat from re-entry is hard, I don't think it is undoable. How many people believed before SpaceShipOne that a private company could bring a man to the edge of space, and pay no more than 25 million US$ for the privilige?

RKK Energia have designed a space ship that, like SpaceShipOne, glides into the atmosphere, albeit from an orbital position: Kliper. Cost of development estimated to be 60 million US$, IIRC.

On the whole, the Shuttle has proved to be an impractical vehicle; it tries to be everything and does nothing properly. Most people in the industry now believe that the Shuttle flights should end 2010. Replace them with three different vehicles: a capsule like Soyuz for getting people into space and back again, expendable launches for hauling cargo up to space, and (something we haven't seen before) an inflatable return vehicle for bringing back large objects. I'm only aware of one instance of the latter, Russia has it (see last entry on this page).

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

b) Sealar *did* get off the drawing board, and was an attempt to prove Sea Dragon. It failed. Not due to lack of funding, but because of catastrophic failures of its main tank during testing led to little lack of enthusiasm for continuing the project.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have any links to back this up? All I can find is that the SEALAR "got some funding from the Navy". And not very much at that.

Did you ignore what I wrote about the decline in market for heavy lift?

No, I didn't. I'm saying that manned space travel needs a paradigm of heavy lifters. We need A LOT of materials up there. "Smaller" doesn't do it. There's a decline in payload for the commercial satellite market, which is a different beast than we're discussing.

Because we want to *reuse it*?

Like you reuse a paper cup. The shuttle has to be rebuilt and certified after every flight. That's where the economics of it broke down. It's such a complex machine, that it's very expensive to "reuse". For the cargo the Shuttle is sending, It would be cheaper to use anything from a Proton to a Titan IV.

Besides, when you state "~29 metric tons of cargo, plus another 104 metric tons for its own orbiter weight", that is disingenous in that it makes it sound like it's dead weight. It's not. Most of that is things like the fuel tanks, engines, turbopumps, frame, and whatnot that would have had to be included in any upper stage rocket (the orbiter is, after all, the uppermost stage).

It gets to orbit, therefore it's payload. The fact that we're sending up 104 metric tons of orbital glider is irrelevant. The Russians were able to learn from us when they built the Buran. Instead of putting all the engine components inside the orbiter, they simply strapped a vehicle with no engines to a BDB, and lit her up. Total dry mass of the orbiter? 82-87 metric tons. The payload capacity was even slightly higher than the space shuttle!

Even then, there's no reason to fly a cargo ship like that, when there's no need for the cargo to come back. It would be cheaper to strap the cargo to a Proton rocket, then fly the crew in a five person orbiter launched on the back of another Proton booster.

Bullocks back at you - look at the numbers. Energia had an 88,000 kg payload to LEO. Launch cost was 774 million in 1985 dollars. That's 8.8k$/kg in 1985 dollars. Even many types of US rockets are cheaper than that, when you adjust for inflation, let alone other Russian rockets, Chinese rockets, and Indian rockets.

Do you have a link for those numbers? The only link I could find states the launch cost at $3000-$5000 per kg. Using these rocket cost figures and the maximum weight to LEO on Wikipedia, a "small" Delta II costs about $9000/kg to LEO. ($45m / 4971kg to LEO) A Proton is *cheap* with a cost somewhere in the $1750 - $3500 per kg to LEO range.

A very interesting thing, is that the above link lists Energia launches at arounf $110 m per launch. Since only the 4 booster configuration flew, we must assume that is what the cost figures are for. According to Wikipedia, the maximum mass to LEO in a standard configuration was 100 metric tons. 100 metric tons at 110 million per launch, leaves us with a cost of $1100 per kg to LEO. Consider that the entire ISS could have gone up on only two such launches, and almost the entire station to date would have fit in ONE Vulkan launch (175 metric tons according to Wikipedia).

Now a Long March 3 can lift 4.8 metric tons to LEO, and weighs in at a cost of 33 million per launch. That works out to ~$6800 per kg to LEO. Nowhere near as cheap as the Russian solutions. The Long March 3B was also the rocket that officially

The Saturn V was arguably the most powerful machine built in all of recorded human history (that was not a bomb) and to this day, no launch vehicle has ever matched it's sheer lifting capaibility.

Ever heard of Energia rocket?