Energiya Pushes For A 6-Person Space Capsule

voss writes "Apparently the Russians want to build their own reusable capsule called the Clipper that can be used up to 25 times and can fit 6 people. They also say they can build their ship in 5 years. The key here is if they can get the funding. The shuttle will be retired in 2010 and with no credible replacement on the horizon...why doesn't NASA give the Russians a chance?"

Comments

Re:no way

[Anonymous Coward]

Russians always seem to have a much, much different design philosophy than America when it comes to space. It's not just about funding. I think this comes from their cold war philosophy. The idea that an soviet fighter jet should be able to land on almost any airstrip, even half bombed-out, refuel, and take off in an hour (or something like that). Contrasted with American designs which are always very maintainence-heavy, and more technologically sophisticated/complex.

This is really a core difference in design/engineering philosophy between Russian and USA, and I think it definitely extends into their space programs. USA craft are very susceptible to slight malfunctions. Russian craft will be fine as long as you have a roll of duct tape or a bit of wood glue. Anyhow, my point I guess is just that, I think sometimes the Russian approach is more practical. I'd like to see what they would build.

Re:Russians Do It More Economically

[deglr6328]

"Out of the 14 people who have been killed inflight in Spacecraft, all 14 died in Shuttle accidents"

Sorry, wrong. In 1971 a Soyuz crew was lost when it depressurized too early, asphyxiating the astronauts inside. Soyuz 1 also killed it's occupant when it's main and reserve parachutes failed.

Picture and more info

[zzabur]

A nice picture and more information on the plan are in astronautix.com.

The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space.

This is mainly based on proven technology, so there is a chance it may actually be built. Space tourism is also getting quite hot lately. They are planning to use another Russian designed spacecraft.

Re:14 people in two incidents

[sould]

Americans are the leaders in this technology, have been for years, we won the space race.

Shamelessly ripping off the Wikipedia Space Race page:
- first artificial satellite - Sputnik 1 (1957, USSR)
- first animal in orbit - Laika - Sputnik 2 (1957, USSR)
- first spacecraft on moon - Luna 2 (1959, USSR)
- first human in space - Yuri Gagarin, Vostok 1 (1961, USSR)
- first orbital flight - Vostok 1 (as above)
- first dual flight (1962, USSR)
- first woman in space - Valentina Tereshkova (1963, USSR)
- first flight with more than one crew member - Voskhod 1 (1964, USSR)
- first spacewalk - Aleksei Leonov on Voskhod 2 (1965, USSR)
- first space rendezvous - Gemini 6/Gemini 7 (1965, USA)
- first space docking - Gemini 8 (1966, USA)
- first human orbital flight of moon - Apollo 8 (1968, USA)
- first human landing on moon - Apollo 11 (1969, USA)
- first space station - Salyut 1 (1971, USSR)

Depends what you mean by space and race.

Bullshit: re NIH & Engineering Philosophy

[cmholm]

NASA, the DoD, and American aerospace firms have had no reluctance to buy and/or license better Russian technology. Both the newest Boeing Delta and Lock-Mart Atlas use license-built Russian engines with nary a design change. NASA couldn't wait to get it's hands on Russian space nuke power generators when offered. When the DoD needed a drone to simulate a common Russian anti-ship missile, they skipped the American contractors and just bought the Russian anti-ship missile.

Regarding the generalizations for strength/weaknesses in Russian and American aerospace products, particularly aircraft:

Russian airframes, landing gear, gearboxes... built tought to work in shitty conditions.

Russian turbojets, great while they work, but need to be rebuilt every few hundred flight hours.

Russian avionics/radar: relatively primitive and prone to crapping out.

American airframes: finely engineered and can take a licking. Landing gear: engineered for whatever a particular design's expected environment, pick one: candy-ass smooth USAF tarmac, a carrier deck, dirt strip.

American engines: reliable, last long time, 1000's hours between rebuilds.

American avionics/radar: used to crap out regularly, even if not as often as Russian... until Hughes and Westinghouse got their digital h/w worked out in the 80's, now tough as nuts and runs for weeks w/o swapping out.

Just as an example, ask the Royal Malaysian Air Force. They fly F-18 and MiG-29. Sure, the 29's were about a quarter the price of the 18's, but it's the 18's that are flight-ready almost 24x7.

NASA can not fund Russians because of US law

[Martti]

A U.S. law known as the Iran Nonproliferation Act prohibits NASA from making cash payments to the Russians unless the president certifies to Congress that Russia is not providing missile or other sensitive technology to other countries(=Iran).

Re:Good for them

[_Sprocket_]

Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle. We've really been slacking ever since we stopped going to the moon, and maybe international involvement will help us get back on track.

Great. Perhapse you can help ensure NASA gets a budget that matches its former glory?

Take a look at the CAIB report. Pay attention to Volume I, Chapter 5. Read over section 5.3 An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little. Along with some very interesting text is some telling charts. NASA's funding in 1965 was a little under 4% of the national budget or $5,250 million (the equiv. of $24,696 million in 2002). Meanwhile, FY 2002 saw a budget of $14,868 million - less than 1% of the national budget.

How about using a meaningful comparison?

[Tau Zero]

NASA's funding in 1965 was a little under 4% of the national budget or $5,250 million (the equiv. of $24,696 million in 2002). Meanwhile, FY 2002 saw a budget of $14,868 million - less than 1% of the national budget.

I really hate to see statistics abused like this.

First, in 1965 the national budget did not include much money for certain programs which have exploded since then (for example, most of the Great Society stuff like Medicare). Comparing fractions of the budget without adjusting for huge changes in the portion of GNP which goes through the government makes any comparison suspect.

Second, the economy is several times as big now as it was then. Is something less important if you allocate 1% of 4*x to it instead of 4% of x?

Third, we have already solved many of the technical and engineering problems required to do the things we want to do in space (I think we should put a permanent population on Mars, others may differ). For instance, we already know how to maintain people in space for months at a time. We know how to handle ultra-cryogens such as liquid hydrogen; we now use them routinely in rocket boosters and other applications. We don't need to spend money to re-invent these wheels.

What NASA really needs is a mission and a reform of its bureaucratic mentality so that it can pursue it properly. It doesn't need more money, it needs to shed the albatross of the enormously expensive and obsolete Shuttle program so that the money can do something more useful than paying for an army of government contractors.