New Russian Shuttle?

Nicolas · #1 (**permalink**) 07-December-2004, 10:15 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/1....ap/index.html

Quote:

Also Tuesday, Yuri Semyonov, head of the RKK Energia company, which builds the Soyuz, said RKK planned to send a new manned shuttle to the station between 2010 and 2012, depending on funding.

What do they mean, demothballing what's left of the 2 finished Burans (and LV Energia's) after the roof collapse, finishing the third and improved Buran, developing a new shuttle for the LV Energia, developing the proposed shuttle that would be launched directly from teh An-225, or a completely new program? The Energia website sas nothing about the fact. Or do they mean the next generation Soyuz? ("shuttle" does not necessarily mean "reusable, however it is normally used with that meaning, because "shuttling" only once up and down aint really "shuttling"...

BTW are the SRB's and the main stage of the LV Energia all reusable? The SRB's probably will be, I thought the main stage (fuel tank with engines) too, at least here on the univ. there has been a research to make the Ariane5 main stage reusable, I thought with Energia as example...

Nicolas · #2 (**permalink**) 07-December-2004, 10:26 PM

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...ussiacraft.htm

GOT IT!!!

A follow-up for the Soyuz capsule (don't know if it will have a new rocket with it too, or another existing one than the Soyuz orcket used now, like the (maybe too heavy) LV Energia.)

The new soyuz will carry up to 6 persons and be reusable. I haven't heard about a cargo bay, so prbably the craft won't be a Space Shuttle concept, but more a passenger vehicle (most probably with limited cargo possibilities). That sounds like a good choice to me, not going on the truck design of the shuttle again. (10 people AND lots of cargo, a bit over the top maybe?...)

Maksutov · #3 (**permalink**) 07-December-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

[edit]
BTW are the SRB's and the main stage of the LV Energia all reusable? The SRB's probably will be, I thought the main stage (fuel tank with engines) too, at least here on the univ. there has been a research to make the Ariane5 main stage reusable, I thought with Energia as example...

No SRBs involved. The strap-ons were/are liquid fueled. The overall plan for the booster assembly was for nine reuses for a total of ten launches.

Nicolas · #4 (**permalink**) 07-December-2004, 10:40 PM

Good point. Using SRB for a booster that ain't using solid fuel misses the point of the acronym.

So you're saying that the 10 times reusability (or 9, how you count it) counts for both the boosters and the core stage of the LV energia?

Launch window · #5 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 01:01 AM

Some news & debate on the net on this one

Quote:

There has been much talk on the web about this spacecraft, I have gotten some quick info of other postings and space forums

QUOTE

It could be very good, it is a space craft with a 6 manned crew (2 pilots, 4 passengers) and a Launch mass of 14.5 tons. The craft might be a very nice and cost effective reusable re-entry vehicle something the shuttle always wanted to be but never actually was. This could become Russia's number one space ship and like the Soyuz, it has a rocket to pull the spaceship away from the launch vehicle in an emergency. What many whated to see was some agency develop a new space plane or a space craft with the wings that are retractable or a cheap craft that could go on a mission to the planets.
http://www2.arnes.si/~ssdszaj1/vesol.../02/kliper.jpg
Energia, the developer of the Soyuz spacecraft, has been working on a brand-new vehicle for some months and it looks like they have been doing a very good job. The giant Russian Energia rockets were great and today the Russian president has been putting more money into Russian Nuclear technology and its likely to put more cash into space before 2007 so Russia can celebrate the SputnikI launch of 57.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/P_rkk_15.jpg
This craft might be a great help to Russia's space flights and has an Internal available volume 20 cubic meters. Russia had already NASA to take part in the Klipper project but did not receive an official answer, now it has built the craft on its own however the European Space Agency showed interest in the offer and might buy into it if Europe desires manned flights. The Russian craft kliper can be used for inplanetary flights, but maybe the Russians really only mean to the moon?
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/kliper04.jpg
The Russian spacecraft is a great design and consisted of three major modules. Klipper will be capable of flights to the ISS and interplanetary missions. Maybe the entry vehicle (CEV) would be used for LEO flights and as a entry vehicle for the Moon or Russian Mars crews when they get back. Scientists expect that the Kliper would be launched by the Russian Angara booster, an existing pad at Baikonur would be modified initially but it is not really known where the launch site will be. A Russian Kliper may launch from a pad at Plesetsk, or the new Soyuz pad at Kourou at a French facility in South America it could be modified eventually to accommodate the Onega.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/p_rkk_18.jpg
The Russians seem to be one of the top players in making headway on developing the next-generation spacecraft. At the current rate of development, the United States will not have an alternative to the shuttle for another 10 to 15 years, if then. The Russians have had many good space plans Russians have what appears to be a sound, practical design for a vehicle . Now the Russians have been slogging away, in spite of being broke, building upon success after success. The craft has a maximum diameter of 3.06 meters and a Landing mass of 9.5 to 10.0 tonnes.
http://www.federalspace.ru/PictFiles/P_rkk_19.jpg
If the Europeans buy into this craft the Russians will no longer be broke and full of cash for their space programme, and having a European manned access to the station is really the only thing missing from European capabilities at the moment. An interplanetary CEV would be a fantastic thing, and this Russian design might be great. The Kliper will land with the help of a three main uncontrolled parachutes and several solid-propellant engines, which would be fired shortly before the touchdown. Space writers have noted that while in orbit, the Kliper would be capable of delivering crew and cargo to the space station or carrying two pilots and four passengers, including tourists, on an autonomous flight.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/klipercu.jpg
This Russian design has been quiet smart and Investment in the future is the key to choosing what the future of Space will be.

NASA plans on having the shuttle back soon. People are saying that the shuttle might again become a major problem for NASA. There have also been remarks that NASA will lose valuable learning experiences allowing other nations to catch up and possibly surpass them all the while the private sector will continue to embarass NASA by doing it cheaper, faster, better. Some people say shuttle really needs to be retired - but as NASA have missed the opportunity to develop something else in the two years the shuttle has been grounded (and of course pumped a huge amount of their budget into it rather than a 'replacement)Now it has been reported that nearly two years after Columbia shattered in the sky, NASA still has no way of repairing the kind of holes that could doom another shuttle, space agency officials acknowledged Monday in their latest status report on the return-to-flight effort.The development of patches for the shuttle wings and other vulnerable locations is proving far more difficult than imagined just months ago and, along with devising a way for astronauts to inspect their spaceship in orbit, represents "one of the most challenging and extensive return-to-flight tasks," the 268-page report said. The Space shuttle was originally supposed to push us out further into Space, it was to be cost effective, do wonderful groundbreaking science and fly every two weeks. It already had serious safety questions, it began costing over $450 million per launch, not enough science was done and it only went up about four or five times a year.

As the shuttle begins its return to Space there are people who have questions about the current space programe. NASA still has to get its management right, get the budget books in order and answer those questions of saftey. Some people like myself hoped that the Shuttle would be gone and NASA would have come up with a new and fantastic functional space craft.The shuttle will be kept very busy after its return to flight, there is much science to catch up on and experiments to do. There is also the current problem with Hubble and the possibility that shuttle will be used to do this work. The shuttle will also need many other trips and will be required for the ISS, estimates are that about 25 ( minimum ) shuttle flights will be needed for NASA to finish its work and the shuttle can then bow out of service by 2010. Some think that 25 flights and pushing the shuttle until 2010 could be quiet dangerous and risk lives. Some top scientists and astronauts have wrote ideas and talked on how the ISS station could have provided safe haven for the Columbia crew while everybody scrambled to launch a second orbiter to bring them all home safely. Some think that this plan of an ISS safe haven cold be very important for the shuttle return. The astronaut Buzz Aldrin who has been helping commercialisation, privatization of space-flight, push space-tourism, written much material and made very important comments on NASA has also had some good views on the current situation. Buzz has had many fantastic insights into the future of Space, the Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin has been calling for rejuvenated space efforts, steeped in market economics. Aldrin had said how the shuttle was expected to be a lot more robust but Buzz Aldrin told the reality of the shuttle in flight is that it is "not robust" on launch and "hazardous". Buzz, the second man on the Moon also explained what NASA will have to do saying we may need to have some risky shuttle flights for a limited period of time, or we are going to stand down and fly Soyuz spacecraft. Buzz has already explained how future shuttle flights should be required to be lofted into an orbit that is compatible with that of the space station, so if problems came up or inspections/repairs were needed, shuttle crews would find safe-haven at the station.

I hope everything works out fine and everything goes ahead safely, this shuttle business has a lot of people looking at NASA.

Why haven't the American public backed a new space craft designs, is it that it doesn't even really care about Space exploration anymore ??

A a new manned shuttle to the station at 2010 or before would be great, even if it is the Russians who are doing it, the Kliper space ship might be very good indeed.

Maksutov · #6 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Good point. Using SRB for a booster that ain't using solid fuel misses the point of the acronym.

So you're saying that the 10 times reusability (or 9, how you count it) counts for both the boosters and the core stage of the LV energia?

Just the boosters.

Quote:

The Block A 11S25 booster stages were the responsibility of KB Yuzhnoye in the Ukraine, F Utkin, General Constructor. They were to be reused ten times, and were therefore fitted with parachute containers. Solid fuel soft landing rockets in the parachute lines provided a soft landing downrange. It's not clear how the 35 tonne boosters were to be transported back to base for reuse.

This was per the government decrees 132-51 authorizing development of the Energia-Buran system, issued on 12 February 1976 with the title "On development of an MKS (reusable space system) consisting of rocket stages, orbiter aircraft, inter-orbital tug, guidance systems, launch and landing facilities, assembly and repair facilities, and other associated facilities, with the objective of placing in a 200 km Northeast orbit a payload of 30 tonnes and returning a payload of 20 tonnes", and 1006-323 of 21 November 1977, and the ensuing TTZ (official military specification).

I sort of remember plans for the core stage to be redesigned for recovery, but it was definitely expendable in the first design go-around.

Here's a useful link.

Launch window · #7 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 05:31 AM

kind of on a related note on Russian space plans

-

Russian scientists are selecting volunteers to be locked in a capsule kind of liike the BiosphereII, the Russian volunteers will be locked inside for 500 days to test plans for a trip to Mars

The project might be similar to Biodome-2 , & the mock mission is also designed to simulate the tough conditions of a space trip to the Red Planet. The experiment, to be based in Moscow, tests a plan to make long-range space travel and settlements possible.

I wonder if this Russian plan will also be a mess like other sealed Enviornment projects did when they ended in failure ? I suspect we have much to learn before we are able to get to Mars.

Nicolas · #8 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 12:28 PM

That first picture puts it on top of a soyuz. I hope they can make this configuration reality, as this configuration was the showstopper for a manned European design.

The Angara launch vehicle seems reasonable, finally some of the LV Energia stuff gets into use.

I see on the pictures (klipper04.jpg) 3 configs: the shuttle alone, the shuttle with "something extra" on the back (interplanetary SM I presume, looks like the Soyuz SM?) and "something extra on the front" which I don't really get... It looks like an ascending stage (to return from an interplanetary flight?) But only having this size, that would only work on things like the moon I guess? (gravity). Is that thing in the front part of that thing in the back which is relocated before an interplanetary landing?

The quoted text already suggest only the moon, that would also explain the limited room given to the cosmonauts.

Also, in the pictures I see 4 people, where will the other 2 be placed? Are it rows of 3?

Interplanetary flights are fine by me, but that would be the one case in which I would prefer a Space Shuttle with a nice payload (spacelab like) which would give you some place to LIVE during the travel...unless it is the moon.

If the vehicle would fly with Angara to ISS or the moon, it would be a nice design: 6 pax ain't little, and can be replaced by less pax and some (lunar) cargo. The craft itself is reusable, os are the ANgara boosters. The Angara main stage isn't yet as far as I know, but if needed could possibly be redesigned to meet that goal. I don't know if this craft would need a stronger (Energia?) launcher to reach the moon, but the design seems at least realistic. Let's hope this will be the next step. And if it's as safe as soyuz, the space shuttle will get very close to retirement.

Launch window · #9 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 07:48 PM

It may not take off, the Russian craft might look like a good the Russian Clipper ship could maybe carry up to seven people and be reused. But who will back the Russian CEV which will carry people into space, it seems maybe the Russian government is happy as things are. Are the Russian government will be willing to pay for the development of a radical new vehicle when the Soyuz does the job reasonable well now ? This Cliper - spell ? craft would require 10 billion roubles of investment for construction and completion. It is said that there was no substantive funding for the project and any major work would be dependent on enabling resolutions (and funds) from the office of the Russian President and the Russian government, so maybe they will have trouble to get more funding.
Here are some more photos / pics of the craft

Russia's Kliper
The Clipper again - spelling ?
Another photo
photo 4
photo 5
photo 6
last photo

Zachary · #10 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 07:55 PM

I doubt this thing will ever come to fruitition as I simply don't see the Russian government shovelling over 10 billion roubles for this.

Nicolas · #11 (**permalink**) 08-December-2004, 08:26 PM

Is that an unfinished Buran in the back?

And how much is 10 billion Roubles? The Buran costed 14.5 billion rubles to develop.

I don't know where they will get the funds from. Maybe from selling Kyoto air?

ANyway, they just updated the Soyuz, by the time this Clipper is finished (2010-2012) they can use something different, Soyuz is an old and limited concept (capacity, power, non reusable) though very safe. Seems like Clipper will use parts of Soyuz. (or derivatives)

Launch window · #12 (**permalink**) 09-December-2004, 06:14 AM

Has anyone see this
[ /quote] [ quote

photos and a description of a laser space battle station Skiff the Soviet Union was building in the 80's to counter the US's Star Wars initiative.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ic.php?t=30510

Pretty cool, and scary.

Nicolas · #13 (**permalink**) 09-December-2004, 07:59 AM

That's what I know as Polus (Polyus) sitting on top of an LV Energia. The Energia was succesful, though Polus failed to reach final orbit (as pointed out in the linked thread). Russia was extremely cautious about the place where the remains of Polus fell to earth (it lies on bottom of the ocean now).

Polus was the unarmed test bed for the Skiff military station, which never was built as far as is known. Military Polus/skiff development stopped after the Polus failure. Possibly there were checks for commercial adaptation of the Polus station (minus the space weapons I presume

)

Was this to be a manned station? That never has been clear to me.

Manchurian Taikonaut · #14 (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 06:10 AM

Here's what I understand of the Russian plans, there are a numebr of space writers that think in the next decade Space flights could just as easily be dominated by a resurgent Russian space industry, a high percentage of good launches which means efficient, and the ability to do this at a lower cost. They also might plan on selling off some of their designs on pervious spacestations where efficient and practical atmospheric and water recycling systems came about. The Russians have had mega problems in space and they are very short on cash but their space designs were very good. Roskosmos of the Russians has recently signed a long-term agreement with the Europeans allowing Russians to establish Russia rocket-launch facilities at ESA's spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana - South America. This will make Soyuz almost double the payload it can lift to geosynchronous, plus leave room for many Tourist flights giving Russia extra cash boosts. They are also working on this new vehicle Clipper, and the Russian six-crew reusable space capsule is to go on display at the French international aerospace show at Le Bourget in June. 2007 will mark a big year for the Russians it is likely that they have something planned for this important date. Space Adventures working with RSC Energia might be giving two extra Tourist flights for sale, Russia wants to keep as many seats as possible available to sell commercially for Space trips, perhaps Russia is looking at setting up a steady flow of Soyuz seats for sale.

kg034 · #15 (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manchurian Taikonaut

Here's what I understand of the Russian plans, there are a numebr of space writers that think in the next decade Space flights could just as easily be dominated by a resurgent Russian space industry, a high percentage of good launches which means efficient, and the ability to do this at a lower cost. They also might plan on selling off some of their designs on pervious spacestations where efficient and practical atmospheric and water recycling systems came about. The Russians have had mega problems in space and they are very short on cash but their space designs were very good. Roskosmos of the Russians has recently signed a long-term agreement with the Europeans allowing Russians to establish Russia rocket-launch facilities at ESA's spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana - South America. This will make Soyuz almost double the payload it can lift to geosynchronous, plus leave room for many Tourist flights giving Russia extra cash boosts. They are also working on this new vehicle Clipper, and the Russian six-crew reusable space capsule is to go on display at the French international aerospace show at Le Bourget in June. 2007 will mark a big year for the Russians it is likely that they have something planned for this important date. Space Adventures working with RSC Energia might be giving two extra Tourist flights for sale, Russia wants to keep as many seats as possible available to sell commercially for Space trips, perhaps Russia is looking at setting up a steady flow of Soyuz seats for sale.

Go Ruskies!!!....hopefully they don't have earmarks over there....

Doodler · #16 (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 01:52 PM

Technically, the Russians can do this. The question is can they afford it? If they're feeling particularly brave, they can test and launch this thing, and if it works as well as expected, do the space tourism routine and maybe finance it. 1 or 2 launches, load it up with tourists for a jaunt, then use the rest for station trips.

publiusr · #17 (**permalink**) 03-March-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

That's what I know as Polus (Polyus) sitting on top of an LV Energia. The Energia was succesful, though Polus failed to reach final orbit (as pointed out in the linked thread). Russia was extremely cautious about the place where the remains of Polus fell to earth (it lies on bottom of the ocean now).

Polus was the unarmed test bed for the Skiff military station, which never was built as far as is known. Military Polus/skiff development stopped after the Polus failure. Possibly there were checks for commercial adaptation of the Polus station (minus the space weapons I presume

)

Was this to be a manned station? That never has been clear to me.

Look it up on www.astronautix.com
www.k26.com/buran