Kliper is dead, long live Moonship.

If you guys thought the CEV was bloated, just look at this monstrosity:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+capsule.html

The ESA/FSA Moonship consisting of ATV (service module), Columbus
(orbital module) and Sojuz re-entry capsule. It seems that ESA
followed "safe, simple, soon" philosophy when designing this
Frankencraft .

Regards,
NE

In message
Andi Kleen wrote:

New European writes:

The ESA/FSA Moonship consisting of ATV (service module), Columbus
(orbital module) and Sojuz re-entry capsule. It seems that ESA
followed "safe, simple, soon" philosophy when designing this
Frankencraft .

Columbus can only be launched by the shuttle right now. I assume
it would need to be a heavily modified Columbus suitable
for Proton or Ariane 5?

The ATV cargo section is a short Columbus. Alenia built the nodes,
Columbus, PLMs and ATV sections from the same five basic units, a plain
ring, a ring with 4 CBMs, a plain endcap, a CBM endcap and an endcap
with Russian docking system. Three of those can be launched on an
Ariane 5.

I do wonder why the ATV and a Columbus though, I'd have though a
stretched ATV launched empty and restocked from a PLM would have given
enough room for a Moon trip, the PLM can be left in earth orbit to save
weight.

Anthony

I do wonder why the ATV and a Columbus though, I'd have though a
stretched ATV launched empty and restocked from a PLM would have given
enough room for a Moon trip, the PLM can be left in earth orbit to save
weight.

My impression from the article was that this was just an exercise in
viewgraph engineering, and that the mention of ATV and Columbus was
kind of gratuitous (that is, that the decision which they are
announcing is really about the capsule).

I *think* this is based on the overall roadmap at
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/ESAONKTHN6D_0.html but I'm not sure
- they could be different ESA programs.

Are there any more descriptions of this on the web? The article is
pretty brief, and I didn't find anything else (for example, when
searching for "Advanced Crew Transportation System"). I do note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTS which seems to be based on the
flightglobal.com article which we have been discussing.

But I'm not really sure there is much of anything to this announcement
other than "ESA isn't going to fund Kliper" - more on that at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

Jim Kingdon wrote:

But I'm not really sure there is much of anything to this announcement
other than "ESA isn't going to fund Kliper" - more on that at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper


Actually, there's a bit more to this announcement: "A winged
vehicle was considered too risky in cost and development terms."
Prudence or timidity? Paving the way it certainly ain't.

Regards,
NE

"New European" wrote in message
...
If you guys thought the CEV was bloated, just look at this monstrosity:


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+capsule.html

The ESA/FSA Moonship consisting of ATV (service module), Columbus
(orbital module) and Sojuz re-entry capsule. It seems that ESA
followed "safe, simple, soon" philosophy when designing this
Frankencraft .


Why are the Europeans suddenly interested in a manned moonlanding when
they've never even launched a man into space?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Widget" wrote:

Why are the Europeans suddenly interested in a manned moonlanding when
they've never even launched a man into space?

For the same reason that they've perennially been interested in a
manned program - it's what Great Nations Do.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Widget" wrote in message
...

"New European" wrote in message
...
If you guys thought the CEV was bloated, just look at this monstrosity:


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+capsule.html

The ESA/FSA Moonship consisting of ATV (service module), Columbus
(orbital module) and Sojuz re-entry capsule. It seems that ESA
followed "safe, simple, soon" philosophy when designing this
Frankencraft .


Why are the Europeans suddenly interested in a manned moonlanding when
they've never even launched a man into space?

ESA has *always* produced viewgraphs for manned spacecraft. Remember
Hermes? Currently, the ATV and Columbus are the closest things they've got
to such a craft, so it's no surprise to find a new viewgraph with an ATV
derived module and a Columbus derived module attached to a re-entry vehicle.

Viewgraphs don't mean that hardware will follow. After all, NASA is the
king of manned spacecraft viewgraphs, and look how precious few viewgraphs
actually produce flying hardware.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

The ATV cargo section is a short Columbus. Alenia built the nodes,
Columbus, PLMs and ATV sections from the same five basic units, a plain
ring, a ring with 4 CBMs, a plain endcap, a CBM endcap and an endcap
with Russian docking system. Three of those can be launched on an
Ariane 5.

I do wonder why the ATV and a Columbus though, I'd have though a
stretched ATV launched empty and restocked from a PLM would have given
enough room for a Moon trip, the PLM can be left in earth orbit to save
weight.

What I find hard to believe is that the article says that "it could be
operational by 2014...". If they mean a first flight into Earth orbit,
maybe...or not. Consider the fact that they need to solicit funding from
each of their member nations to make this happen. It makes the USA's
funding cycle look robust and stable.

"Andi Kleen" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
New European writes:

If you guys thought the CEV was bloated, just look at this monstrosity:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+capsule.html

The ESA/FSA Moonship consisting of ATV (service module), Columbus
(orbital module) and Sojuz re-entry capsule. It seems that ESA
followed "safe, simple, soon" philosophy when designing this
Frankencraft .

Columbus can only be launched by the shuttle right now. I assume
it would need to be a heavily modified Columbus suitable
for Proton or Ariane 5?

Not so heavy a modification is required. Just additionnal internal bracing.
This was actually studied when it was ensure that shuttle would fly again.

And, from the drawing alone, this seems not to be a complete ATV; They seem
to have removed the ICC and put columbus in its place.

But I suspect this is just a VERY preliminary drawing made upon a short
verbal description.