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.
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
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.
why do we spend $795 million to bring back space rocks...?
I love humanity, it is people I hate
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.
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
"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?
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
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
Actually, Ariane 1 was based on French Diamant launcher technology, in turn based on the precious stones military launch vehicle series. Which came from Veronique, which was designed by... a bunch of "Nazis" including, among others, Eugen Sänger.
The USA, Soviet Union and France all had ex-"Nazi" scientists working on their rocket programs. IIRC the USA had the V-2 team, the Soviet Union had the Wasserfall team, and the French got the folks working on rocketplanes.
Still, I wonder why some seem to like putting Europe's space program down so much. I mean, Arianespace had for many years the commercial launch market leader in Ariane, ESA subcontractors designed some nice launchers, have working indigenous LH2 rocket designs, and manage to do Carbon/Carbon rocket nozzles. Is this not significant?