neviden - 21/9/2007 6:54 AM
Quite dead. The Russians will work on upgrading Soyuz TMA instead.
AntiKev - 14/10/2007 4:49 AM
Why? To go where? ISS will come down in 2016.
vt_hokie - 19/10/2007 10:30 AMQuoteAntiKev - 14/10/2007 4:49 AM
Why? To go where? ISS will come down in 2016.
I still don't believe that. To launch the European and Japanese labs now, and then node 3 for a mere 6 to 8 years of use is so insane that I can't believe even NASA would do something that stupid.
vt_hokie - 19/10/2007 10:30 AMQuoteAntiKev - 14/10/2007 4:49 AM
Why? To go where? ISS will come down in 2016.
I still don't believe that. To launch the European and Japanese labs now, and then node 3 for a mere 6 to 8 years of use is so insane that I can't believe even NASA would do something that stupid.
wannamoonbase - 19/10/2007 2:56 PM
ISS won't be abandoned outright in 2016, but it will become less important and perhaps with only Russian and ESA occupants with the occasional tourist.
Jim - 18/10/2007 11:03 PMAnd what in exchange US will offer the Europe and Japan?Quotewannamoonbase - 19/10/2007 2:56 PM
ISS won't be abandoned outright in 2016, but it will become less important and perhaps with only Russian and ESA occupants with the occasional tourist.
No US, No ISS
As transfers RIA "Novosti", Perminov has informed, that the government of Russia has approved the project of creation of the new space piloted ship and a booster rocket under it.
...
" We shall necessarily build both the new cosmodrome, and a new spacecraft, and the carrier under it, but all this will be after 2020 ", - chapter Roscosmos has told. It has noted also, that competition on creation of a new piloted reusable spacecraft proceeds. "Energy" and the Khrunichev's Center.
publiusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AMThey already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
publiusr - 16/11/2007 8:57 AM Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Something like this is the plan for Soyuz-3, which would be a Zenit class LV. Don't hold your breath, though.
clongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AMQuotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AMThey already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
gospacex - 16/11/2007 5:02 PMQuoteclongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AMQuotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AMThey already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Those strapons were bigger and used different engines - RD-170. They were similar to Zenit 1st stages.
Danderman - 16/11/2007 2:17 PM
The Soyuz "2-3" concept is shown below:
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/souz-2-3.jpg
patchfree - 10/2/2008 2:20 PM
It seems that's the time to reactivate this thread or to start a new one about the future new russian spacecraft as Vitali Lopota was giving an interview about it.
How about a link to the Russian interview?
clongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AMQuotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AMThey already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Patchouli - 19/2/2008 1:55 AM
Russia will develop a new spacecraft with or with out the ESA's involvement.
neviden - 19/2/2008 5:36 AM
If that was NASA I wouldn’t be surprised, but Russians have a history of not fixing things that are not broken. Soyuz TMA is a good example of that thinking. I don’t see them abandoning Soyuz for a system that would do less.
neviden - 19/2/2008 9:36 PM
ESA (and Japanese that will join if ESA joins) and the Russians are already working on CSTS and we will have to see what comes out of that. That, more than anything else, will dictate Kliper’s fate. The first try at cooperation went something like “We Russians, build – you Europeans pay” and of course Europeans said “forget it”.
wannamoonbase - 20/2/2008 12:54 PM
But I wouldn't team up with Russia. they are unreliable, do what they want and take forever to do what they agreed too.
@RD170@ - 14/3/2008 6:37 AM
You´re wright MichaelF, ESA is making the things you are saying. Esa has bought a Soyuz Launch Pad, to have the capability of manned LV in a short term. Maybe its a cleverer way to spend 200 millions of euros in a launch pad than design and construct a new one LV spending 10000 millions of euros in a new LV.
But I must remember you that USA makes the same thing. For Atlas Vehicle instead of develop a new hidrocarbon power plant ( RS-68 ), USA decided to buy a Russian power plant RD-180, developed from RD-170 and RD-171.
Who is cleverer ¿?
@RD170@ - 14/3/2008 12:42 PM
Again MichaelF you´re right, ESA can´t afford manned missions to mars or moon alone. ESA must share costs.
@RD170@ - 14/3/2008 1:39 PM
So in a manned plan money is the key. Any country want to go like CCCP ¿? spending money that they don´t have ¿? for what ¿? for the proud to touch moon or mars before ¿?.
Seriusly ¿?
Lampyridae - 30/3/2008 5:19 PM???
The big manned spaceflight objective in coming decades will be the moon. At the rate NASA is going, it might wind up being 2nd or even 3rd in the gravity well after all. Russia and USA are both being hampered by internal infighting and politics, whilst China has a (seemingly) much more coherent vision.
Patchouli - 30/3/2008 9:40 PM
MTV acting as a breaking stage
Patchouli - 30/3/2008 9:40 PM
Lifting bodies can perform lunar reentries and in theory so can a space plane if a skip reentry is used.
The Apollo is not the only shape one can use for this nor is it the best LM likely hit on the best shape so far with their first CEV concept the lifting CEV.
The apollo shape can't be used for high speed mars returns with out the MTV acting as a breaking stage or a skip reentry is used for example while a lifting body can perform a direct return.
Lockheed Martin found they needed a L/D of at least 1 if the G forces were to be kept under 6 or 7.
The LM vehicle was designed with mars return in mind and they went and figured out how to apply it for lunar missions.
Other workable shapes the soyuz headlamp shape not as low g as apollo but within limits as well as the biconic shape.
The biconic shape might be more ideal as this also might work for mars reentry and provides lots of cross range yet is still very simple it's also more mass efficient then apollo.
Here's a link of a biconic vehicle showing how the interior space is better utilized.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/biconic.cev.l.jpg
As far as mass goes the three module soyuz system is by far the most mass efficient system tried so far and this is what the Chinese choose likely with the moon in mind.
Though having three modules can be used with any shape of reentry vehicle if you move the parts around.
The LM CEV concept for example did use three modules for lunar trips even though it was a lifting body.
The biconic shape might be more ideal as this also might work for mars reentry and provides lots of cross range yet is still very simple it's also more mass efficient then apollo.
Patchouli - 1/4/2008 7:29 AM
1. Oh and Zurbin's ISRU mission was fairly detailed engineering wise but didn't take some human physiology issues into account early on.
2. By 2030 the Orion could be nothing more then a museum piece having been replaced by a new vehicle and hopefully it will be replaced by then.
Lampyridae - 31/3/2008 10:28 PMQuoteThe biconic shape might be more ideal as this also might work for mars reentry and provides lots of cross range yet is still very simple it's also more mass efficient then apollo.
Er, no... even from that drawing you can see dead space everywhere.
Apollo capsule good. Apollo capsule works. We like Apollo capsule. Everybody like Apollo capsule.
Yes, 3 modules is more mass efficient but manned spacecraft are pricey and it is worth recycling much of them. Also, you don't have to worry about yet another separation event (which almost resulted in one lost Soyuz crew, I believe).