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.'"

9 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Brain Dump on Old News by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. :-)

    1. Re:Brain Dump on Old News by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I do not like the fact that the shuttle-derived launch vehicle uses solid rocket boosters.

      I'm sure NASA would love to obtain more control over launches by reengineering a kerosine rocket like the F-1s on the Saturn V, but the fact of the matter is that we have the SRBs now and they work. (They work extremely well too! Over twice the power of the F-1 engines on the Saturn V!) It would be a waste of time for NASA to develop new hardware when they already have a solution.

      I do like the fact it uses shuttle main engines for the upper stage though.

      Actually, the SSMEs fire for the entire launch duration. The launch profile is very similar to the Space Shuttle, but with five SSMEs instead of three.

  2. Microsoft Lookout! by Frac · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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. ;)

    1. Re:Microsoft Lookout! by m50d · · Score: 4, Funny

      It looks like you're trying to write a first post

      --
      I am trolling
  3. This is a duplicate, I think by TheReckoning · · Score: 5, Informative

    Original article here.

  4. Re:Great relations... by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Space Program Futures by Fox_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  6. The future of manned spaceflight looks interesting by TheReckoning · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Space Plane? Any new materials? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?