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."
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 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
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
The Soyuz already exists and can do that, although if they can get the CXV to work it may be cheaper than anything else planned. That is a big if imho, it's an interesting design and that usually means "there are a lot of new things that can and will go wrong" (and with a low-mass/low-cost design the consequences may not be pretty). I'm not sure how much Kliper will cost however it is bound to be a pretty penny, mostly for the rockets which alone cost more than the $20mil that they claim CXV will cost. (which I am also skeptical of). Either way we'll know in 4 to 5 years.
I doubt whatever NASA is planning will compare to either design (CXV or Kliper) however they'll use it anyway. Between needing to convert rockets to something they weren't designed for, designing something they have little experience with, massive bureaucracy and no desire to make something which is useful I doubt the result will be anything but another shuttle-like disaster.
Also, the Shuttle's main job right now is to sit in a hanger. It's main job while flying is two fold from now on:
1) Bring large sections of the ISS to orbit, perform work on the ISS (ie: attach the sections), bring cargo to ISS
2) Bring large experiments/general garbage down to Earth.
Sending people up and down can be done by Soyuz; the Shuttle is usually used because it's being sent up anyway and because otherwise it'd have nothing to do.
Getting to the moon was strictly about beating the other guy there. Without the desire to beat the other guy, why would either government spend the money on it? They could have built more shiny, nuclear-tipped ICBMs with that money. Without the Space Race, the US moon landing probably never would have happened because there would have been no incentive to do it.
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
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.
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