Slashdot Mirror
Russian Kliper not Funded by ESA
anzha writes "It seems that while the Russians are making plans for the future, they are doing so alone. Space.com has an article profiling the Russian Kliper program. Largely seen as a response to the American CEV, the Russians had been stating the ESA would be supporting the enterprise as well. However, this week, ESA decided not to fund the project."
Maybe the ESA was concerned the Kliper would have too high a chance of success, thus ruining their pass project record.
In Soviet Russia, ESA funds you.
In Soviet Russia, the Moon lands on You!
No, that's in Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask.
As long as the funding comes from somewhere, it's not bad news really.
n storms.htm
And yes there is good news out there, just not on Slashdot tonight:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/07dec_moo
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
RTFA.
The ESA has tenatively decided not to fund the project for now citing political concerns that may be addressed by Russia in the future in order to gain much-needed financial support.
Nothing has been decided. Russia will probably try to sweeten the deal if the ESA flat out decides not to support the project.
On the scientific side of things, I hear that Kliper is very promising, and has already progressed further along than the CEV, and is technically superior. This is on top of the fact that Russia already has a suitable lifting body (and has another in development nearing completion). (I'm no rocket scientist -- can anybody here elaborate on the advantages/disadvantages of the two designs?)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
In Europe we have our own way of doing things, just for shits and gigles
Why bother actually going to space when you can just do this, it's the answer, nobody has ever thought of faking it before! Genius!
Yeah, imagine if Google made this rocket!
Seeing as the Kliper has been in development since before Bush took office I think not. The Kliper is a response to the space shuttle not the CEV. The sole reason why the Kliper is expected to be worth the cost is that, unlike the space shuttle, it will actually be highly reusable. This gives it a major advantage over the Soyuz, although I personally think the Soyuz is the "little spacecraft that could" and the RSA should focus on reusing modules of the Soyuz in space instead of letting them burn up in the atmosphere. David Anderman has suggested that spent Soyuz/Progress modules could be used to build a space station at the Moon/Earth L1 point. The RSA recently said they could take paying customers on a trip around the Moon within the next 5 years and that, with sufficient funding, they could land paying customers on the Moon within the next 10. That is, they could land a sufficiently enthusiastic billionair on the Moon before the CEV has even launched. Of course, talk is cheap, but the RSA has proven they have the skill and experience to provide manned space services.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Russia has had quite a good track record with their space program. The ESA wants control over Russia's program and they can't have it, so they're taking their ball and leaving.
I'm not sure if this is a bad move or a good move, but the motivations as stated sound really stupid. If you can't control it, don't be involved in it? That doesn't make sense. There's got to be more to this. Does anyone know?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The fastest growing job in the space industry has got to be doing concept drawings.
Ohhhhh yeeeaaaah, we have a surrrrging aerospace industry. Our engineers drew almost 1.2 Trillion--with a T--dollars worth of spaceships, last quarter alone. This is a *10% increase* over the same period last year, where only 1,120,234,323 tons of spaceship were drawn.
Analysts are expecting another great year of spaceship drawing in 2006. Even amid these boom years, some are warning against irrational exuberence. "It may seem crazy now, but we could reach a point where people actually stop responding to concept drawings of spaceships and may want actual spaceships." You be the judge.
This was a pretty stupid decision, especially granted the UK's recent statements about wanting to pursue a manned space program. Am I making that up? Google can't find it but I seem to recall at least two stories about it.
Kliper is robust, versatile, cheap, and based on proven technology. What the hell is the problem?
+++ATH0
why do we spend $795 million to bring back space rocks...?
I love humanity, it is people I hate
Come on, it's Russia. A high-school chess club could fund it's space program with their lunch money. That is, if it wasn't taken away first by a bully. Where else in the world does a PhD in Rocket Science get paid in turnips and heads of cabbage?
Nothing to see here.
Not to bring everyone down, but this article, and most of the rest of the Slashdot homepage just gives bad news.
Is there any tech *good* news out there?
Here's some good news.. from Department of Statistics at the University of Georgia: a recent study showed one days worth of online submissions to a single tech news site is not a population large enough nor unbiased enough to draw a statistically meaningful conclusion! Woot! Go Science!
I forgot to mention that a member of the astronaut corps (hasn't earned his wings yet) came to speak at my school not too long ago. He was talking about how Shuttle operations were supposed to stop by 2009-2010. If this really happens (though I'm not sure I buy it), that's a hell of a lot less access to space that the ESA has. As it is now, they rely on us and the Russian Soyuz-TMA for their manned space transport. And since you KNOW they're not going to get the CEV ready on time... the ESA may become de facto supporters of the Kliper.
+++ATH0
The CXV being tested by t/Space has a lot of promise too. It is less capable than either the CEV or Kliper, but will probably get to production a hell of a lot faster and can do the job the Shuttle is mostly doing now - transferring personnel back and forth between the ISS.
+++ATH0
ESA is already scheduled to build the ATV, or Autonomous Transfer Vehicle, to haul cargo to and from the ISS. The first, the Jules Verne, should be close to being ready to go as soon as the Space Shuttle can get back to a regular construction schedule and deliver the Columbus module (ESA's lab module). Maybe they are just figuring that they can trade cargo space for a passenger seat or two with the US or Russia, so they don't need a direct stake in a passenger craft.
I've always been a space-nerd. I like the fact that nations are talking about big plans to go to the Moon and Mars again, but does it seem to anyone else that these news stories are trying to hype into existance a new "Space Race"? Last time it was the Soviets we were trying to beat to the Moon. Huzzah, we did it! Then we've pretty much sat on our asses since then. Now in these modern times it seems as if every few weeks we're given a new story about which country is trying to develop the technology to get back up past Earth's orbit. It seems to be that the collective media are trying to excite us about competing with other nations to get back up into space and I'm afraid it isn't working on me and many others I've talked to about it. I would rather see us all work together on such a massive undertaking instead of trying to out-do each other.
Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
I'm sure there's a joke in there involving KDE, Clippy and Soviet Russia just waiting to be made. But I'm not the one who's gonna do it.
Any takers?
The filesystem is the package manager
"the Russians had been stating the ESA would be supporting the enterprise as well."
which enterprise? SS NX-01? USS NCC-1701? A,B,C,D,E,J?
You're polish, aren't you?
That or Ukrainian.
Hi. We're really smart scientists from Russia. Cool! We've got some cool ideas on how to transfer humans back and forth from space. Great! We've done all of the design work. Wow! Now give us money so we can build it. No. Fudge.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Helium_3
Yeah, MARSIS finds huge underground ice-reservoirs.8 ,387725,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/0,151
(sorry, german link)
Well, as a Russian, I would say, the business culture here still leaves much to be desired in many respects. But: Can you cite an example that would support your words specifically regarding RSA? AFAIK their track record is good.
...for the ESA to deny funding for the Russian Kipper.
Would you like kippers for breakfast?
It is interesting that along with the CEV they think it may take them to the moon. Is it really sensible to have these grand ambitions for what is essentialy a launcher to get humans into orbit. Isn't that hard enough? It seems to me that a better approach for all parties would be to adopt the single-purpose tool philosophy.
Let people have a chance to learn the truth about ESA...
The Kliper is a response to the space shuttle not the CEV.
No. The Buran was a response to the space shuttle. The Phase 1 contract for the CEV was awarded in 2004 (before the elections; meaning the idea was out there long before that). The initial press release for the Kliper was in 2004 as well. The Kliper was a response to the CEV.
-everphilski-
Russia has had quite a good track record with their space program. The ESA wants control over Russia's program and they can't have it, so they're taking their ball and leaving.
Who can blame ESA? Why should they fund Russian technology development to the detriment of their own?
I'm not sure if this is a bad move or a good move, but the motivations as stated sound really stupid. If you can't control it, don't be involved in it? That doesn't make sense. There's got to be more to this. Does anyone know?
Why is refusing to write a blank check for the Russian stupid? Europe has not been served well by Russian launchers lately. Also, Russia is headed in the wrong direction politically. The risk premium of dealing with Russia is increasing. Europe is highly capable of developing its own advanced space infrastructure. The only question is if it becomes a budget priority. The welfare state is expensive.
an ill wind that blows no good
On the scientific side of things, I hear that Kliper is very promising, and has already progressed further along than the CEV, and is technically superior.
In what ways? But Kliper and CEV are reusable. Both use solar power. Both support a crew of 6. Kliper appears to be quite small because of the legacy Soyuz rocket used to launch it. CEV has a lot more interior volume. Both are launched by conventional launchers. Kliper has not announced details about its thermal protection. The CEV will use a lightweight replaceable ablative shield. CEV has a conventional, robust escape system that allows survivable aborts throughout the flight regime. Klipper appears to have none. Can Klipper safely land in water in an emergency? CEV can. Kliper has wings and skids, which are a wasted weight. CEV will use advanced, lightweight alloys and composites which the Russians do not have. All in all, I think the CEV compares pretty well.
an ill wind that blows no good
You, nor the parents site any statistics or facts to back up the idea that the ESA is anything more than window dressing to make people feel there is actually some sort of pan-european cooperation going on at even the simplest levels.
The ESA is simply a feel-good organization who shies away from any risk and only backs projects that have a high degree of success. In terms of doing anything more than getting things into earth orbit, their success rate has been "poor" to put it charitably. They routinely screw up when they plan anything more complex and their touted successes are simple stuff that rely on the Americans doing the heavy lifting.
If I was a citzen in a country that belonged to the EU, I would urge the dissolutuion of the ESA because its a waste of money.
It points out that the EU is nothing more than the EEC only worse.
"unlike the space shuttle, it will actually be highly reusable."
Don't you think when the shuttle was just blueprints, NASA and their contractors made the same claim?
Nothing new under the sun here.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But I'll bite. You realize that ariane, a VERY sucessful space launcher which MAKE money and has got a great track record of reliability, prove quite simply that your idea of QUOTE the ESA is anything more than window dressing to make people feel there is actually some sort of pan-european cooperation going on at even the simplest levels.
is pure horseshit ? You realize that when they started back in 79 they started from enarly nothing, and on the contrary to some country I won't citate, they did not have any NAZI to spare and get their ICBM/Launcher from ? From something made from scratch it looks quite sucessful.
How well anyway I am probably stupid to answer to somebody which like to do name-calling, without having the guts to have a "name" by itself, mister Anonymous coward.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
americans stole the idea (as usual).
The link doesn't mention it, but I remember reading an article about then-curring edeg FEM (finite element method) thermal simulations on the Hermes nose cone. Computations showed that the nose cone would overheat during reentry and that the material of choice for the nose cone tile was unobtainium. Of course, it might just have been a technical excuse to scrap a project doomed by management failures, as is too often the case with state-run projects.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
The most likely future for NASA involves buying flights on whatever Russia builds to replace Soyuz and probably paying Russia to build the Clipper instead of trying to build its own spaceship.
The Soyuz was incredibly complex, involving 3 modules connected by an intricate system of hatches, which had to be jettisoned to reenter the atmosphere. In keeping with Russia's tradition of making incredible complex systems to do simple tasks, the Clipper is supposed to require a space tug to transport it to the space station.
A second launcher is going to boost the space tug to the space station only to burn more fuel to descend to a lower orbit to pick up the Clipper, and
burn more fuel to ascend back to the space station. It's an incredibly complicated solution and only one that a Russian would design.
No, not Soviet Russia, BUGTOWN! http://www.matthowarth.com/bugtown.php
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
captain: do it so.
crewman: i've found s.th.!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1 701-J)
captain: on the screen!
crewman:[click!]