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.
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.
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