Russian Clipper Ship Draws European Interest

space.com ^ | 08/24/05 | Leonard David

[KevinDavis]

Europe is eying Russia’s proposed crew-carrying Clipper spaceship, not only for use in International Space Station operations, but also to carve out their role in future Moon, Mars and beyond exploration.

The Russian Clipper would be a sporty replacement for the venerable Soyuz spacecraft and would feature abilities like those touted for NASA’s drawing board vision of a Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV.

It is expected that a decision on Europe’s future involvement in the Russian Clipper concept will be made this December at a European Space Agency (ESA) Ministerial Council meeting.

[KevinDavis]

[RightWhale]

The competition warms up. They may be angling for NASA contracts, but they could also do some missions on their own. One thing needed, in the spirit of international participation, as was done to a degree for the ISS, is standardized hardware specs where modules are expected to join.

[fat city]

would feature abilities like those touted for NASA’s drawing board vision of a Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV.

There's a reason for that.

[KevinDavis]

Competition is good....

[fallujah-nuker]

Some info on the CEV:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050803_shuttle-derived_cev.html

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cev.htm

[Dreagon]

I am well aware of the shortcomings of the shuttle, but at least the shuttle was a platform which could undertake projects such as the repairing of the Hubble and other satallites.
This russian ship and the new NASA prototype could not possibly be used for that, and could do little more than ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Forgive me for seeming dense, but what exactly is the mission of the new vehicle?

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

“Europe is eying Russia’s proposed crew-carrying Clipper spaceship, not only for use in International Space Station operations, but also to carve out their role in future Moon, Mars and beyond exploration.”

This “Russian” Clipper sure looks like one of the lifting bodies from NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. I believe they flew these planes during the 1960’s through the mid 1970’s.

I find it most interesting that the EU nations want to take it to the Moon. I would think a lifting body would work best with an atmosphere. I keep picturing the Europeans trying to use the lunar atmosphere to slow down their Russian lifting body to a safe speed for deployment of their parachutes.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

Headline:
Europe lands on the moon.

[SunkenCiv]

The new vehicle will ferry people to orbit and back. When large payloads need to go, they'll go uncrewed. Right now, there's only the STS for both jobs, and it's not only far too expensive, it takes too long to recycle the vehicle. The US needs a heavy lift capability for any human missions in space (including back to the Moon, to Mars, and whatever else comes up); it also needs a cheaper way to get crews to orbit and back; a modular approach will serve US needs better than the STS.

[SunkenCiv]

The excuse the Russians gave for their "Concordsky" SST knockoff of the Concorde, and for "their" Buran shuttle design, was that the laws of aerodynamics were the same everywhere. Regardless whether one believes that or not (I don't), the main problem with these Russian space proposals is, there's no capitalization to achieve them. Some US investors have snapped up some Soviet-era developments, such as the four engine cluster (which is called "multi-chamber", but it's just four engines joined together to reduce weight in the design, the same approach used for Korolev's N-1) used for the Buran's main engine. That model has been successfully used for commercial satellite launches.