Re: Kliper and CEV

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:21:12 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

><genedigennaro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1124375059.641042.187760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Russia has set some approximate dates for Kliper's first flight:
>>
>> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05zz.html
>>
>> They also hinting at international co-operation. The timeline is
>> roughly the same as CEV. How do you think this will play out?
>>
>> Considering that Kliper is already in a mock-up stage and CEV is still
>> in powerpoint mode, do you think there will be pressure for NASA to use
>> Kliper instead of CEV? Likewise, will the RSA use CEV instead of Kliper
>> like they did with Shuttle/Buran?
>>
>> Comments anyone?
>
>No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
>
>I'd say if they can attract foreign partners,

The EU and Russians intend to pay for it.

>which shouldn't be too hard since it looks like the US is going to back out
>of as much of its ISS commitments as it can,

I am not sure what way to take this comment. NASA certainly won't fund
the Klipper (or "Clipper" as they now like to call it) for at least
two reasons. NASA killing ISS obligations could create quite a fuss
though.

NASA is not planning to break those commitments yet anyway. They are
just currently too hopeless to shift them at a suitable rate. I
suspect that they could improve when they ditch these safety notions
and go back to trying to launch on schedule.

>they ought to be able to build it.

The EU and Russia has already approved funding, which is why the
expected launch year has now been set.

>If they could get ESA and Japan on board,

ESA is already on board. They approved large scale funding on Klipper
last month. The Russian government then approved funding so that it
became a joint project.

I am not sure if any other country will chip in. This is mostly just
one more step as the EU and Russian space organizations come very
close to complete merger.

As I said before this is a good deal for both sides. The EU gets the
Russian experience and a cheapish manned space programme, while the
Russians get the funding to do all the stuff that they wanted to do
ever since the USSR came to an end and terminated most of their
funding.

>I think they could get the funding they need to develop the ship.

They already have it. Pending the political paperwork of course.

Klipper is a go. Unmanned flight in 2011, and manned in 2012.

>What's in it for ESA and Japan?

ESA has always wanted a manned space programme. For some reason that
idea just never got off the ground. Even their Ariane 5 rocket was
being planned to launch their craft.

Considering NASA's Moon and beyond programme, then the EU has felt a
pressing need to keep up with the Americans.

The Russians have been wanting to do Klipper for quite a few years
now, but only this large EU funding is now causing this project to go
ahead. That reason is exactly why the Russians already have a test
model to show off. They have been in a wishful state for a long time,
where following this go ahead, they have just now pulled out what they
have been playing with for the past few years.

I have no idea what the Japanese want to do. Their entire launch and
probe business seems to currently be in a questionable state. Too many
failures in other words.

>They could increase the crew size on ISS without the CRV that the US
>promised to deliver.

Since the Klipper is a six-person craft, then it seems ideal for a ISS
lifeboat. NASA had been wanting to do a 7-person version, but even
increasing the ISS crew to 6 would provide huge research gains.

>Without an increased crew size (beyond three, I think it's unlikely that
>ESA and Japan will be able to send anyone to ISS, except for the occasional
>short term visit on a Soyuz rotation.

Well in the planned 7 person ISS, then they could have had nearly a
full time crew member. Since NASA is wanting to reduce ISS
commitments, then it is possible that the EU/Russians can take over.

The main problem in increasing the crew numbers on the ISS is that
NASA has not yet launched the required modules, like with the main
crew sleeping area. They only have one of their large solar panels up
there, meaning limited power. And I suspect that life support is not
quite ready for 7 people either.

>Without a more permanent presence on ISS, their investment in ISS
>will never "pay off".

NASA is already very many years behind schedule. Even if they did
manage regular launches (miracle...), then they still won't come close
to completing the ISS.

So either billions of dollars worth of modules get left on the ground,
or an alternate launch and installation system will have to be found.

>The only potential problem would be working out the agreements so that ESA
>and Japan can minimize the cash they send to Russia.

The EU seems more than happy to put large funding into this Russian
project. After all they desire a spacecraft right now, where the
Russians are just about offering to build them one.

Joint EU/Russian launches should be quite common in the future.

>If they could provide hardware, perhaps even launches, instead of cash, I
>think they would be more likely to join with Russia.

The EU's ESA is already joined as joined can be.

The Russian space agency got interested in EU funding when the Russian
government was bleeding them dry. This is just the latest project in a
long line of EU funding into the Russian space agency.

Another example is that the Russians are to soon move their launches
to the ESA launch complex in French Guiana. The Russians get a brand
new EU paid for launch pad, and a great launch location. The ESA can
then make better use of launches on Russian rockets.

So I would not be surprised if they come very close to merger in the
future.

>After all, NASA looks like it's going to develop yet another launch vehicle
>and spacecraft on its own, which leaves ESA and Japan as "second class
>citizens" in space.

The Russians have been doing well enough for a long time. This is just
a good point for funding into new and better hardware.

Cardman.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
    ... H'mmm...more of the approach that evidence that the system works is by ... The Norway incident was consistent with an SLBM launch profile, ... To even surmise that the Russians are incapable of tracking SLBM ... have nuclear ALCM's still in the inventory, ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Flyback boosters
    ... Our spacecraft sit on the launch pad ... I am talking flight rate you idiot. ... The Russians truck their vehicle out, erect it, and fly it within a ... Russian vehicle is the ugliest duck around. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Clinton for Putin
    ... Well it seems to me that Bush is trying to justify the waste of research funds on this project. ... A full Monty test would be a surprise firing of a missile which had decoys. ... The decoy problem is critical and is avoided if the missile can be downed in the launch stage. ... They are getting there first-- well along with the French and the Russians. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
    ... launch site in French Guiana would be fuel for the LEO fuel depot. ... the Russians barely have enough money to fund their ... building and flying cryogenic upper stages for decades when they themselves ... Have you even read the testbed proposals from the Centaur guys? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: ROSKOSMOS DOUBTS U.S. SHUTTLE FLIGHT TO ISS IN JULY
    ... I imagine the Russians need to be realists in this situation. ... > ROSKOSMOS DOUBTS U.S. SHUTTLE FLIGHT TO ISS IN JULY ... We are not optimistic about the Discovery launch in ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)