Slashdot Mirror
Euro-Russian Manned Space Vehicle Planned
drachton writes "BBC News reports that the 'European Space Agency (ESA) is proposing joining forces with Russia to develop a new vehicle for human spaceflight, the Clipper.' The head of the ESA permanent mission in Russia also told BBC that the Clipper 'is meant to service the space station and to go between Earth and an orbit around the Moon with six crew members.'"
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"The Clipper is essentially a "people carrier" designed to transport astronauts, said Alan Thirkettle, head of the Esa's Human Spaceflight Development Department."
;)
Not to be confused with The Clippy (TM), which "is essentially a "people harasser" designed to deliver inane suggestions.
Original article here.
with russia involved with the rest of europe, now what's keeping them from researching a nuclear rocket?
It just seems like a great use of nuclear ability. I mean, space, nuclear reactions, the two just go so well together, like peanut butter and...and whatever else goes really well with peanut butter.
Is it still just public opinion about nuclear power? Because that's dumb.
This has nothing to do with relations. It has everything to do with the EU wanting to have access to it's own vehicles, and with Russia wanting an updated vehicle of it's own.
It's funny how we can't keep the political trolls out of even an article like this.
I would rather work with Japan anyways as it increases the likelyhood the spaceship would change into a giant robot once on the moon and include a direct link to some blue haired J-pop singer.
This kind of thing is really interesting. Without the Russian space program honestly the ISS project would be dead right now. The American space program has had far more money invested in it, and while arguably more success, the success per dollar ratio may not be as good as the Russians. The real kicker is that the Russian space program has been mostly funded by the West (US & Allies) during the past decade while it has been really taking off. One area that may explain the differences in success are management and design philosophies. By being forced to operate on stricter budgets the Russians have relied on simplier designs and technologies. In effect they never had the opportunity to let a project BLOAT out of control. It's a good thing that the Russian program is recieving this investment and that this vehicle is being developed. It's likely that it will happen, unlike the myriad of plans that have come from the NASA side of the world. One can only hope that the US private industry picks up the reins from their government and keeps the US competitive with the Russians in the future space industry.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
AFAIK, Russia never developed Nuclear Propulsion. On the thermal side of the equation, the engineering costs of starting from scratch are likely too high for Russia to consider. On the pulse propulsion side, Russia never really worked out the "micro-nuke" problem, and the Orion nuke designs are still classified.
Add a healthy dose of Chernobyl fears and you've got a country that has no intention of pursuing nuclear propulsion.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
1. Russia already has it engineered. Plans are made, mockups are built. Some test pieces are already constructed.
... the ESA didn't do shit for Clipper (formerly Klipper when it was an exclusively Russian project) other than potentially help fund it.
2. The vehicle will be launch on top of a Russian launch vehicle.
3. The vehicle will be launched from a Russian facility.
Therefore...
4. All Russia is just looking for capital to build. They know the US can't give them money due to the non-proliferation act (with exception, possibly, for a few soyuz flights with the condition that they support Space Station).
My angle? I hate the fact that people keep trumpeteering that "The ESA is so much better than NASA" "The ESA this" "The ESA that"
-everphilski-
It's looking like there should be quite a bit of competition soon in human orbital spaceflight. Here are the
various competitors I can think of off-hand:
* USA: Shuttle-derived system, probably with a CEV capsule on top. There's several downsides to a shuttle-derived system, but it keeps the constituencies happy and should have enough government momentum to keep on going.
* Russia and Europe: Kliper's been searching around for financial support for a while, and it looks like they finally got at least -some- funding from Europe.
* China: various iterations of Shenzhou spacecraft
In the private sector:
* t/Space: The (Rutan-affiliated?) company just completed a parachute drop test and water landing of a full-scale model of their proposed CXV space capsule. It's uncertain if they'll get more funding from NASA, but their concept seems sound and may get private investment. Oh, and their web page has some really spiffy videos.
* SpaceX: They've already announced their intent to compete for Bigelow's
orbital prize, and their upcoming man-rated Falcon V will be large enough to carry a Gemini-style capsule.
Now what about destinations? Besides the ISS, we've got Robert Bigelow's inflatable space station modules, which should be up and operational by 2010, with several prototype launches before then. He's planning on selling these modules to various groups and countries, so hopefully we'll have several different space stations up there.
Between Shenzhou 8 and 9 China is planning on launching a small orbital laboratory, which Shenzhou 9 will be docking with. Various members of the Chinese space program have also been visiting Bigelow's facility, so perhaps we'll see them doing something with his modules.
The future should be interesting.
Well done is right. We should be welcoming this competition. It was the cold-war space race that got us to the moon before, and hopefully this competition from ESA/Russia will be enough to finally whip NASA back into shape. We had some fun experimenting with shuttles and space stations over the past couple of decades, but now it's time to jump-start the human exploration of space again.
The clipper design appears to be a shuttle-like space plane. Have there been any significant materials improvements that make a space plane built today more pratical and safer than the current shuttle deisgn?
Yeah, don't make it so damn big and complicated; don't tie the engines into the main craft; and DON'T use heat tiles when carbon-carbon shielding is available!
Does that answer your question?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Well, the right-wing nutties currently in charge in USA agrees. It's foretold in the Most Holy of Printed Acid-Free Paper that there will be a Second Roman Empire run by a hexor that insists on leaving His mark 666 everywhere. Bloddy spammer.
Can anybody tell me why they're not going to put a human crew in this thing until 2020? Almost half a century after the first manned flights it's going to take 15 years to develop this thing?
Or is there something else going on here I didn't spot?
Insert witty sig here.
Nuclear electric is a whole different thing, though. It's not really nuclear propulsion, but rather a small nuclear powerplant to drive electric propulsion. In other words, it's not really a new form of propulsion, but a natural evolution of an existing one.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
On the other hand, the USSR pursued the nuclear-electric avenue extensively, while the US was working on its failed nuclear thermal programs. Both nations wanted ways to get heavy cargoes out into the solar system, but picked radically different approaches. It's no coincidence that US electric propulsion technology advanced greatly in the years following the collapse of the USSR. The Russians were working on Hall effect thrusters back in the 1960s - they were using them on spacecraft as far back as 1964 (Zond-2). We really missed the boat on that one.
;) The USSR at the time correctly saw that nuclear engineering wasn't yet advanced enough to make reliable enough nuclear thermal rockets without politically unaffordable amounts of investment and prolongued timelines, and pursued an ultimately invaluable, nearer-term propulsion method instead (electric, with the intent of nuclear electric).
I suspect that nuclear thermal will eventually become *the* way to launch payloads - however, it shows what can happen when you focus too intently on a single technology to revolutionize your access to space
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
I think you'll find that the European Space Agency and the European Union are two seperate entities, run by different people, funded in different ways. Whatever fate eventually befalls the EU, ESA should be able to carry on regardless.
Mod me down now and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
Also, mount engines aligned with the center of mass to reduce vibration. And have an escape tower for launch. :)
:)
Lots of lessons from the Shuttle. Lots of lessons.
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
"DON'T use heat tiles when carbon-carbon shielding is available!"
Umm the leading edge that failed was carbon-carbon. The tiles have never caused a shuttle fatality. Also carbon-carbon is not as light as the tiles.
Bringing back the engines was a good idea and will be used again if we ever get a SSTO craft which I hope we do someday.
Big and complicated are not problems if it is reliable. A 747 is big and complicated.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Let's be clear, Clipper won't be of much use to rescue people actually on the Moon, since it won't have the capability to land on the lunar surface.
That said, there's orbiting the Moon and then there's obiting the Moon.
First, you can follow an elongated orbital path around Earth that just happens to get close enough to the Moon that it's gravity alters your path and swings you around the backside of the Moon and then towards Earth. That's the path followed by Apollo 8. The vehicle does not actually enter Lunar orbit.
Second, the vehicle uses internal rockets or thrusters to insert itself into a permanent Lunar orbit. Leaving orbit to return to Earth requires another application of thrust to accelerate out of orbit.
I suspect Clipper could handle the first variation, but not the second, making its rescue ability effectively nil.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
can't we just drop our own manned space vehicle plans and collaborate with Europe and the Russians on this thing? It's an elegant, simple design, gets the job done and is eminently reusable (what's with the "10-reuse capsule" thing?). It's even kinda pretty.
I'm sure the answer has something to do with feeding business to Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed, etc., but there's no reason those companies couldn't contribute to the development of a United Nations Space Administration (!) group-effort manned spacecraft.
And before you complain "look what happened with the ISS!", that was a MUCH larger-scope project with interests pulling on it from every direction. We basically all want the same thing here: a cheap, simple way of putting people into LEO, high earth orbit, LaGranges, and interplanetary space, depending on the booster technology.
I hate waste.
+++ATH0
2. The vehicle will be launch on top of a Russian launch vehicle.
Which vehicle? I doubt if a proton is reliable enough. Since this is larger and heavier than the Soyuz it does not seem that there is a rocket in the Russian inventory that can orbit it, much less send it to the moon.
an ill wind that blows no good
I agree. There was so much work done on this in the 60s that took us so close to being able to put people into space. We could have Carnival Cruise line class ships if we wanted. 2001: A Space Odyssey would not have been all that far off if we hadn't lost our nerva.
http://nuclearspace.com/
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
I am just happy if we can get a useable stack going and can get back into space. After that point, we can redesign the CEV. Yeah, there will be some that will say that we need to stay with the current one (the new CEV, whatever it is). But I am guessing that once we have a more useable design (multiple parts that function more akin to a lego set) esp WRT to getting a heavy lifter, then we will tinker with each part. Perhaps the CEV will be judged to be harsh. Then offer up a Y-Prize.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I thought the main reason for using lifting bodies to to have greater crosstrack.. i.e., you can have a landing sight further away from your orbit's groundtrack which means you don' t have to sit around in your orbit waiting for the groundtrack to go over your landing site.
1. Fewer reverse Gs.
The deceleration from a capsule landing should be in the same direction as the acceleration during launch.... but for a lifting body the directions are different... which, to me, implies more problems with reverse g's for lifting bodies.
2. Gentle touchdown. (Apparently, Cosmonauts often receive injuries when the capsule hits the ground.)
The X-38 lifting body used a parafoil for its (gentle) landing... I see no reason why you can't use a similar system for a capsule.
3. The ability to control the flight.
You do have the ability to control the flight with capsules (Apollo did this)
4. Aerobraking manuvers become possible.
You can use capsules for aerobraking maneuvers (they should be better than lifting bodies even because of the higher heat loads.)
and from the grandparent:
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
this isn't true... you should be able to bring more payload mass down from orbit with a capsule of a given weight because of less structural mass and less TPS.
Again, I'm pretty sure that the only reason to use a lifting body for entry is for the greater crosstrack.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.