-
#40
by
Damon Hill
on 19 Feb, 2008 22:12
-
The problem is that Soyuz/Progress have almost no growth capacity and very limited return capability. A larger spacecraft design is needed, for which any of several proposed designs would serve. Certainly a conical re-entry vehicle would be easier to use for a high-energy re-entry, but there aren't going to be many of those for the forseeable future while there is going to be a real demand for low earth orbit operations.
I like the general concept of Kliper, too. Unanswered is how much the system is going to cost to develop, and what it will cost to operate.
-
#41
by
Lampyridae
on 20 Feb, 2008 00:36
-
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”.
The Europeans seem like they're unwilling to go farther than Columbus and ATV for manned spaceflight. In fact, it looks like they're unwilling to do ANYTHING until AFTER ISS is deorbited. Which means that (if they decide to actually develop a crew vehicle) they would have something like ACTS or whatever by 2025. If they even bother putting humans into space. Whether or not the Brits decide to contribute to manned spaceflight will be a big predictor of what's going to happen.
As for the Russians, there's no telling what they'll do, but you can bet for the next decade or so it'll be lots of bold plans and no hardware. A 6 person crew transport is definitely on the cards, it's the flavour of the decade. With their increasingly nationalistic attitude, though, it won't be long before it's the good/bad old days of the Space Race... although with shoestring budgets.
One thing I am certain of is that nobody is going to go for a lifting body like Kliper, not anytime soon.
-
#42
by
wannamoonbase
on 20 Feb, 2008 11:54
-
If I was ESA or JAXA I would team up on a manned vehicle, perhaps with Indian involvement too. But I wouldn't team up with Russia. they are unreliable, do what they want and take forever to do what they agreed too. One might think they have something to leverage and offer but Japanese and European industry could easily match anything Russia has to offer and then you wouldn't be held hostage throughout the design and life of the vehicle.
-
#43
by
nacnud
on 20 Feb, 2008 12:11
-
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.
Could say the same about the US too, remember CAM, CRV, etc
-
#44
by
meiza
on 20 Feb, 2008 14:12
-
Well, you probably get a lot of bang for the buck from Russia, considering their high skill level and knowledge base vs the lower salaries.
And of course it makes sense otherwise too in the larger sense, politically, to keep up good will and co-operate.
-
#45
by
@RD170@
on 23 Feb, 2008 18:50
-
ESA doesn´t need any help from Russia. If ESA want a manned craft in 5 years could have a return manned capsule on a ATV modified. And beyond of this because his effort in advanced laser docking ESA could park two or tree ATV sized BUS and go to moon or mars. Only in 10 years.
But this cost a lot of money of course, and why you want a manned and expensive ATV if you can buy a cheap seat per 20 M in a reliable an cheap Soyuz from Kazhastan and maybe Kouru in 10 years.
Soyuz is clever way and cheaper way.
-
#46
by
MichaelF
on 14 Mar, 2008 08:05
-
ESA (or rather, it's member-states) seems to avoid manned spaceflight like vampires avoid garlic. Their plan (if they have one) seems to be to buy into someone elses program. That might not work for the Moon and/or Mars, especially if those become "Space Race"-style national projects.
-
#47
by
@RD170@
on 14 Mar, 2008 10:37
-
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 ¿?
-
#48
by
@RD170@
on 14 Mar, 2008 10:43
-
Another thing, thanks to USA money in RD-180 Russia has developed RD-191 to his new project Angara.
-
#49
by
MichaelF
on 14 Mar, 2008 16:33
-
@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 ¿?
I meant that the ESA has no plans for an independant manned spaceflight program, and everytime the ESA has proposed such, the member-states have shot them down.
NASA may buy technologies from others, but they
do have a manned spaceflight program (2, at the moment). Not quite the same situation.
By "buying into someone else's program", I meant that it appears that the ESA will try to participate (whether by funds or technologies) in a Russian or US manned program (such as
Constellation). While that may have worked for the mature Soyuz and STS missions, I doubt it will work for Lunar or Mars missions. Not until long after the initial landings, anyway.
IOW, the ESA's usual methods of getting where they want to go (in this case, Luna or Mars) aren't going to work, unless they are OK with getting the odd seat on "Altair 25" or the 12th Mars Expedition.
The big two (US and Russia) are likely to be unwilling to share the glory of the initial landings (and neither will put ESA in the critical systems path, for different reasons).
The scifi movie trope, where the first Mars lander/hab has 12 different flags on it, is.....not likely to be reflected in reality.
The harsh part is that the longer the ESA (and JAXA) wait to get into a manned spaceflight program, the farther behind they fall (and, in turn, the longer it will take them to gain equivalent capabilities to NASA and RSA). If the US and/or Russia (with China perhaps a distant third) have functioning manned lunar activities in 2030, it's going to be very hard to sell a modest manned LEO program to the ESA member-states ("All that money, just to get the capability the Russians had in 1980?? And we still won't be competitive?"). No one wants to spend lots of money just to be dead last.
-
#50
by
@RD170@
on 14 Mar, 2008 16:42
-
Again MichaelF you´re right, ESA can´t afford manned missions to mars or moon alone. ESA must share costs.
We must remember that in CCCP times Buran and Energía contributed to crack down the economy of the country.
We must learn about past.
-
#51
by
MichaelF
on 14 Mar, 2008 16:53
-
@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.
Again, that only works if the guys who are going (in this case, NASA and RSA) want to share. Nothing ESA is willing* to do will buy them a seat on the initial Lunar or Mars landings. Perhaps later, long after the political and national points have been proven, a few slots might open up.
This still leaves ESA a distant third (and fourth, when the Chinese program matures), at the bottom of the gravity well. It's up to the member states to decide whether they are OK with that. If they aren't, they should do what China has done.
*-just because you buy me a nice seat cover, doesn't make it likely I'm going to let you drive my Countache.
-
#52
by
@RD170@
on 14 Mar, 2008 17:26
-
It´s difficult to spend more money in this heavy and difficult times for the USA economy. Petrol is very expensive and EU is making a big effort to invest in Windmill power and renovable energy. The effort of EU is now here. EU want to spend money in infraestructure, power and telecomunications in earth. And USA must give up his dependency on Petrol.
EU and ESA hasn´t money to burn. And maybe NASA will be cutted by 50% in 10 years if all this goes the same.
We must remember the help from the central EU and World Bank to USA nowadays. They are dificult years for usa indeed.
-
#53
by
@RD170@
on 14 Mar, 2008 17:39
-
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 ¿?
-
#54
by
MichaelF
on 14 Mar, 2008 20:12
-
@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 ¿?
False dichotomy. NASA's budget is ~0.5% of the Federal Budget. Not the GDP. The Budget. The US Army is spending much, much more on a single vehicle system (FCS). It's not like Griffin is lighting cigars with $100 bills.
Secondly, at worst, we are looking at a mid-80's style downturn in the economy. Not exactly the Great Depression. The only reason NASA might get slashed is if we get a Proxmire Congress (or Obama).
ESA is underfunded. Especially with the Euro the way it is. The member-states need to fish or cut bait, as the point of diminishing returns (at which getting into a manned program, even an ambitious one, would leave you lagging everyone else by 15-20 years) is fast approaching.
As I said, why should the member-states pay all that money to repeat something the US and Russia accomplished a decade prior? (NASA returns to Luna in 2019, what prestige does Europe get by doing the same thing in 2030, when NASA is on the way to Mars?)
The Chinese are trying to catch up because they understand the long view, and believe (possibly correctly) that they can catch up. Or at least achieve a level of presence that will preclude Space turning into a US/Russian lake.
The ESA member-states don't have anything approaching this level of foresight, even though several of them could afford a Chinese-level space program on their own.
That attitude, not the money, is what keeps ESA at the bottom of the gravity well (except when NASA or RSA have spare seats).
-
#55
by
wannamoonbase
on 15 Mar, 2008 02:17
-
MichaelF, trying to get that many member countries to all agree at the same time is difficult.
But you are right, its time for ESA and Europe to get off center and get in the game or they will be buying seats to the Moon and Mars.
-
#56
by
Patchouli
on 30 Mar, 2008 23:46
-
The ESA can easily make a crew transport vehicle they could go the cheap and quick route and just add a descent vehicle to the ATV or go the Cadillac route and repackage the ATV's guts into a mini shuttle.
The descent vehicle can be based off ARD or they can just buy one off Russia or the open market.
A good landing system for ARD could be based off the VA capsule recovery system.
As for partners the best one at to moment by far would be Russia kliper and the parom tug are similar and a kliper would be a good choice for use with the ATV propulsion section.
Second option and this can be done concurrently the private groups like Spacex,Spacedev,and Orbital sciences.
Dragon also like Kliper could make a great complementary vehicle to the ATV esp the ATV mini spacestation.
Others might include Dream Chaser which might work very well on the Ariane V booster.
As for constellation they should try and stay far away from it for a few years as at the moment it's looking like another X33 and really isn't an optimal system anyway.
-
#57
by
Lampyridae
on 31 Mar, 2008 00:19
-
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.
Originally there weren't going to be all those flags on the Space Station Freedom and in the end all those flags are what kept ISS together in the first place! It's not so much budgetary contribution as simple lack of interest. What kept the ISS and shuttle flying all these years has been the "foot in the door" strategy. Oh, well, we've come this far, can't back out now, we've spent so much money etc. plus wimping out on those international agreements would be so bad.
Of all the nations on the ISS, who has the biggest, fanciest lab modules? The Japanese. They've invested 5x as much the Europeans.
As for a Kliper replacement, you really want something capable of lunar reentry and that means something like an Apollo. All lifting bodies are out; they're too expensive anyway and don't justify the structural mass hit.
-
#58
by
hop
on 31 Mar, 2008 01:05
-
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.
There is no indication that China is even seriously pursuing the idea, never mind having a "much more coherent vision"
They certainly don't have a program that has anywhere near the commitment that the VSE has. Neither does Russia.
-
#59
by
Patchouli
on 31 Mar, 2008 01:40
-
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.jpgAs 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.
