Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle --ANATOLY ZAK

Fri 19 Aug 05 22:07 1900 GMT // IEEE Spectrum On-Line

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY...0805nshut.html

Development agreement takes shape during the Paris Air Show

It's all but official-Russia and Europe will soon embark on a cooperative
effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle. Speaking at the
Paris Air Show, in Le Bourget, France, in June, Russian space officials
confirmed earlier reports from Moscow that their partners at the European
Space Agency would join the Russian effort to build a new reusable orbiter,
dubbed Kliper. After the cautious optimism they expressed at the beginning
of 2005, Russians are now confident that their European partners will be on
board for the largest, boldest Russian endeavor in spaceflight in more than
a decade.
_

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's all but official-Russia and Europe will soon embark on a cooperative
effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle.

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far. It is a soyuz replacement. Falls quite short of
what the shuttle can do. But compared to soyuz, it is a great/huge improvement.


What is interesting according to Anatoly Zak's web site
(www.russianspaceweb.com) is that it should have the ability to stay in
space for 365 days. Twice what Soyuz can do.

What I don't quite understand is that the new shape which has small
wings would have winglets. My understanding is that winglets end up
reducing wind resistance to make fllight more efficient. Isn't the
purpose of a space vehicle totally the opposite during re-entry, wanting
to be as inefficient as possible to bleed speed ?



With shuttle's replacement still vapourware, there is the chance for
russia and europe to come up with a working vehicle before the USA. This
may help NASA get funding because US politicians will see this as a
competition, amd may make it a bit harder for politicians to cancel CEV
at the first cost overrun.

On the other hand, should the russia/ESA come out with their Klipper on
time, and NASA have delays and cost overruns with its CEV, politicians
may decide NASA is really incompetant and can the project alltogether.

John Doe wrote:
Jim Oberg wrote:
It's all but official-Russia and Europe will soon embark on a cooperative
effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle.

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far. It is a soyuz replacement. Falls quite short of
what the shuttle can do. But compared to soyuz, it is a great/huge improvement.

Combined with an Arianne or Proton launcher, than can put 20 tons into
orbit, what can the shuttle do that this can't do?

Only land 14 tons from Space, and there's not much demand for this
service. Oh - and seven crew instead of six.

I personanly think for simple space access, the T-space concept seems
the best.

Alex

John Doe wrote:

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far. It is a soyuz replacement. Falls quite short of
what the shuttle can do.

....or should we say: What the shuttle was supposed to do?

Rainer

What is the point of building a human access means to LEO which will be
operational in the 2010s ... could someone explain to me what is the
mission... what is the need ?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:46:15 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Op Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:35:13 -0400, schreef John Doe:

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's all but official-Russia and Europe will soon embark on a
cooperative effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle.

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far.

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Rene

"nmp" wrote in message
news
Op Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:58:58 +0200, schreef Rene Altena:

[snip quoted stuff]

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far.

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a definition
in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Right, exactly what I meant

And as you surely know, Rene, in the Netherlands we also call a spacecraft
like this (including STS) a "ruimteveer", meaning Space Ferry.

Jazeker!

Rene

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:58:58 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called
a shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Only by your definition, and that of others who share your narrow
viewpoint.

Aha! Already starting the ad-hominems?

My my!

Pray tell: why do you think it was called the Space Shuttle to begin with?

I am curious...

Rene

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:58:58 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called
a shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Only by your definition, and that of others who share your narrow
viewpoint.

Maybe nmp can comment on this, but in the Netherlands, we would call you a
'zeurpiet' ;-)

Rene

My point is as a European

what is the meaning for Russia an Europe to continue to circle
endlessly in LEO while NASA is building the CEV with the goal to fly
twice a year to the Moon

how will we get support from European people for such a plan

is it acceptable that 50 years later Europeans are in the same position
as in 1969 and have to watch the moon landing on TV