Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle.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.
Accepting someone elses design is almost admitting that a under funded agency can bring up better plans than NASA.
And what makes you think NASA does not have a better one on their plans.
http://almostsmart.com
Zelenshchikov said Energiya engineers were also working on a huge spaceship for a flight to Mars, set to weigh 660 tons, the Interfax news agency reporte
660 tons? Wow. That's a lot of hard currency at work there. You think maybe the Chinese have put a back-order in for a ship to beat the US to the red planet?
First off, I was really pissed off at NASA and the media outlets for the scant coverage of the mission results concerning water on mars. All we got was a 4 minute introduction and one panelist into the release and it was back to the CNN/FOX 30 minute cycle of endless Pro-Bush news bits and Iraq coverage. Luckily, I have the NASA TV channel on satellite, so I was able to flip over -- but for the >95% of americans without NASA tv, they missed out on an hour's worth of enlightening details of Mars, straight from scientists and not tabloid writers with no understanding of science.
Now, this release isn't even going to be televised. The only initial outlet is a conference call for reporters only.
I'm ashamed of NASA and I am ashamed of our media coverage of science. When I was a kid, every space shuttle launch was televised. Taking 10-30 minutes of time out of my day to watch the occasional launch helped inspire me to think above the quagmire I was born into, to know there was something greater. Kids today get MTV and 24 hour news spin channels in 30 minute loops.
But hey, at least they get a nice, fast Internet and ~225 national channels of garbage via satellite.
Would you really want to be the guy using it the 25th time?
-- If it aint broke, fix it till it is. --
"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.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
IIRC, most of the Burans left are chopped up into bits, and two are not even assembled. Anyway, the Buran is as dated as the shuttle, which is the entire point of building a new one... Take a look: Buran, by NASA BTW, the Clipper is being built by Energiya, which also has the Buran launcher to its credit...
OK, if it is designed to be used 25 times...I sure wouldn't want to be on flight 25.
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.
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Who went there on Russian spacecraft. I am not talking about who is in space. I am talking about who sends them there. Now who's the troll?
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
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.
The Russians are a smart people, they are the only country that are flying( Yeah China are flying but 1 flight ) and have contuined no matter what the public think of them or what weather condictions are like.. -40oC and a snow storms had not stop the Soyuz from being launched in to orbit. The country has always lacked the funding for its space program, they have beaten all other countrys in a number of races ( frist satellite, animal, man and woman. ) also they are the only country to have a long term presence in space, the Mir space station comes to mind. I beleave that they have proved themselves over the years. I am not saying they should revice full funding from NASA or anyother country.. but certnely a few bucks in the right direction would help, even to a design stage.
To per it in perspective, the statue of liberty is 225 tons I believe. The best argument for lunar orbit recovery was the amount of fuel required would blow up the cape if there was an accident.
The Saturn I's empty weight is about 85 tons, about 650 tons fueled... with a payload capasity of 120 tons into earth orbit, 45 tons to the moon.
While I'm all for a Mars mission... I'd rather that such a launch vehicel were to rendezvous with a space station, tank up, then launch.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Because NASA will probably be busy developing their own Crew Exploration Vehicle. I think that a partnership between ESA and Russia could work out well in this case. It will help the russians build a new spaceship, and it might help speed up ESA's Aurora programme.
Actually, Russian treasury is relatively full of money, and they had positive budget for several years. That is, in fact, not very good (limits investments), and the new government is being assembled now that knows how to spend. The previous government was stuffed with ex-bankers who, from all arithmetics, only knew how to add and multiply :-) These bankers fixed the economy, and now it's time to use that money. Space is as good technology investment as any, if not better (because it affects many areas of science at once.)
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.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I have posted this before and will post it again. Buran program started at about the same time as the Shuttle, but was initially aiming for a smaller vehicle which could land nearly anywhere, not a specially prepared strategic bomber airstrip with 30 km to spare. There are pictures of a Russian Kiev class carrier group recovering one of the prototypes taken by a New Zeland destroyer as early as later 70'es in the pacific. In btw, it looks exactly as one of the competitors for the current NASA vehicle. IMO Energia should sue for plagiarism. Unless whoever was the proposer actually used their blueprints (which is quite likely, happens quite often lately, especially when congresscritters are not watching).
Unfortunately, at one point some idiot above issued an order for Buran to comply with the same spec as the shuttle while retaining automatic landing. This was the most stupid decision ever, because the shuttle spec is a result of political horse trading. Its capacity was increased at the last moment at the expense of other flight parameteres to get Pentagon funding. This resultted in it being pushed way beyond the limits of our engineering at the time (and possibly now).
This resulted in:
Instead of a small launcher Soyuz or Proton Class stage 1+2, Buran had to use Energia which meant a dependency on a launcher program which was in its very early stages at the time.
It stopped being economically feasible. Let's face it, the shuttle is not. It is the most expensive (in terms of dollar per killogram) launcher.
As a result after one successful fully automated test flight, and one take off incident it was mothballed. Someone finally did the books and the numbers did not come out.
If you do not believe me check how many Burans are actually floating around (one was even on sale lately). Basically Russia still has definitely more then 2. It does not fly them because it does not make any sense (financially) and because launching them requires building Energia launchers which for all practical purposes are too far from being sufficiently reliable for human launches. They simply have not been tested enough.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Unfortunatly, I think the US, Russia, China and India are all going to get tied up in a "Vaporware" space race. That is the country that can draw the best plans and PR will win.
I have no faith that manned space flight will ever get passed LEO in my lifetime
Just like a bridge engineer would design a bridge for 30 tons and rate it for loads up to 20 tons.
The owls are not what they seem
I would not be too concerned about seals. In low-G environment, and with low thrust, you get very low acceleration - and low vibration. Your washing machine probably has more stress on its pipes than a zero-G rocket engine.
A properly constructed rocket engine, which stays at 50-100K all the time, will be fine for many years. Satellites also have small engines for orbit correction, and they seem to be OK. All modern rockets (incl. Shuttle) have cryogenic fuel, experience thermal shock of 300 degrees C during fueling, and still work fine.
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).
As you may see, I would have extreme problems with NASA getting so much money in its current form. It seems that many of the people from the current chief administrator downwards have lost their way, whther for space or aeronautiucs research.
This site - which I highly recommend - may describle something similar to this Mars ship:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marpost.htm
To quote a little from this site:
In December 2000 Leonid Gorshkov of RKK Energia proposed a manned Mars orbital expedition as an alternative to Russian participation in the International Space Station. The expedition would also provide the means for reviving Russian ascendancy in space.
The Marpost (Mars Piloted Orbital Station) spacecraft would have a total mass of 400 tonnes and be assembled in low earth orbit from components assembled in four launches of a revived Energia launch vehicle. As in the 1989 Energia Mars design, it would be powered to and from Mars by matrices of hundreds of solar-powered ion thrusters using xenon as propellant.
Yes, 3 persons killed in soyuz 11 and 3 persons killed in the soyuz 1.
There have been more than 800 soyuz flights (source: http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/introduction.htm).
If we assume on average ~2 (I believe its higher) cosmonauts for each soyuz, that means that ~ 1600 has travelled in a soyuz. Out of these 1600, 6 have died. => death ratio on: 6/1600 = 0.00375.
The space shuttle has had a total of 111 missions:
Challenger: 10
Columbia: 28
Atlantis: 26
Discovery: 30
Endeavour: 17
In these missions we assume an average of 6. (I believe its lower though). This makes the total of shuttle-astronauts: 666. With 14 dead this makes a death-ratio on: 14/666 = 0.0210.
(or about 5.6 times higher).
Now these figures are on "per traveller". But the risks are more associated with launches. On this front the soyuz has 2 failed missions in 800 and the shuttle has 2 failed missions in 111.
Then, of course, we have the costs. A soyuz-launch cost about 20 million dollars. A shuttle launch, on the other hand, cost about 500 million dollars (source: wikipedia).
BUT! What everyone is forgetting is that these 2 ships are not compareable. The soyuz is a human-crew only capsule and the space shuttle is a reusable crew & equipment lifter. However, the conclusions one can draw is that it might be more efficient and safer to launch humans in human capsules (reusable or not) and launch the equipment on a separate booster earlier. (This is how the russians have constructed their space stations in the past - which has worked). There is very little need in sending up the equipment and humans at the same time - unless you are in a hurry.
Yeah, it's new alright... From the linked page:
As for your other claims:
Topol-M: It's wobbling. Big deal. It's not as if the US has a functioning ABM defense.
Sunburn: It's nuclear, who cares if it slams into the deck or the side?
Shkval: We already know how they work.
Schmel: So what? An RPG with a fuel-air grenade, not exactly rocket science.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Ion engine is indeed useless for a planetary launch. However it is kinda possibly OK for a long haul. All depends on what you want to accomplish. It is quite efficient, since its reaction mass is thrown away with a very high speed. But probably it is still too weak for any meaningful flight to Mars. I'd say, H2+O2 would be the best choice, especially if you can refuel on Mars, and because planetary landers can also use this fuel.
Challenger never had a problem with cryogenic pipes. The part that failed was designed for room temperature, and it was used in an engine (solid fuel) that won't be used on an interplanetary craft. Generally, you rarely get a fault where you expect it (and prepare for it.)
The correct number of _manned_ soyuz flights is ~87. This includes soyuz, soyuz-t, soyuz-tm and soyuz-tma flights.
So, the reliability of _manned_ flights is statistically approx. equal between sts and soyuz.
Ofcourse, soyuz hasn't had a serious accident since the seventies.
For example, a friend of mine was on a mining job in Uzbekistan. They had taken over a mine and substantially upgraded the equipment with the latest western stuff. After a while, some major items (pumps) were switched back to the Russian models because although they broke down more often, the downtime and running cost was much less than the Swiss models.
Back to combat operations, this was one of the successful aspects of the Red Army during WW2. The Germans were living on the edge of an extended logistical supply pipeline and even though the Russians were local, the fqctories were often a long way away (Stalin moved his production as far away from the advancing Germans as possible) so easy maintenance was very important.
I don't know enough about modern military aircraft, but it would be interesting to put in a total picture including maintenance costs and logistics (part inventories and so on). I have an acquaintance that flies the big Antonovs, and swears by them (even though they too are forever engine swapping).
The Russians [former Soviets] have the largest flying object in the world - the Antonov-225. I once witnessed its smaller cousin the Antonov-124 land with over 100 SUV size vehicles and extra crago. It was an amazing sight. Even the airport staff who see aircraft of all sizes and types of craft were amazed. This aircraft handled itself and took off in just 90 minutes! For any person who saw the amount of cargo it put on tarmac, they could not believe it. I understand its wheel alone weighed in at more than 180Kg! Russians are amazing people. I also once had them as class mates, but they always produced better and more efficient code even compared to the lecturer's code. I have always respected them. But the problem, they are not good at PR.
Cb..
while Russia is now a democracy, they are still communist
That's a good one; they're actually neither. They're rapidly morphing into the same kind of post-capitalist information oligarchy that everybody else is heading towards, wherein a veneer of democracy and free markets thinly disguises the fact that whoever controls the mass media has all the power.
Consider: China is heading towards free markets and (local) elections but keeps a tight grip on its media. In Italy the media czar is also the president, and brazenly changes laws so as to evade corruption charges. Across the Anglo-Saxon world, virtually all the mass media are in the hands of only a half-dozen moguls, and religiously toe the government line.
This new game is played by smart people, they've all read the sign of the times. It's the post-capitalist feedback loop of money and power: the media shape public opinion, public opinion elects politicians, the politicians decide where the money goes, the money buys control of the media. Welcome to the information society.
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
When I started writing this post, I was going to show how the Russian approach care less about the lives of the astronauts, treating them like expendable components, and thus wasn't suitable for a country like the US that puts more of premium on human life.
Then I did the math.
They've done about twice as many manned launches as we have, but lost only 4 people, while we've lost 14 so far. (Not counting Apollo 1.)
Maybe we should be looking more closely at their approach.
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.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Not one person has been killed during a manned Soyuz launch since 1971. I believe the last fatality related to the space program over there was some ground crew when one of their unmanned rockets exploded on the launch pad last year.
I'd take their modern safety record over NASA's any day.
The Russians don't get fancy. They figured out what works and stuck with the same design with only very slight evolution over the decades. That helps eliminate the variables. No foam or O-rings or other nonsense.
Even when things do go wrong like it did with the ballistic descent of the Soyuz coming back from the ISS, it only resulted in minor injury for the capsule crew.
I think it would take quite a dramatic mishap for a Soyuz to actually disintegrate on re-entry the way Columbia did.