Energia pictures of Klipper mockup posted to web

Someone on Space.com listed these links to Energia graphics about the
Klipper:


http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_1.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_2.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_3.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_4.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_5.jpg


They also posted this translation of the slides:

"1:
launch mass - 13000 kg
crew - up to 6 people
cabin pressurized volume - 20 m^3
cargo mass: spacebound - 500 kg, earthbound - 500 kg, removable (?) -
200 kg
autonomous flight time - 5 days
flight time as part of orbital complex - 360 days

2:
on the top there is the additional arrow - aerodynamic shielding cover

3:
reenry capsule mass - 8800 kg
acceleration during the nominal reentry - up to 2,5 g
cabin volume - 20 m^3
crew - up to 6 people

4:
left -
capsule-like returning module
- landing to the pre-selected regions
- side manoever up to 500 km
- land landing from each orbit is possible for 80% longitude variants
of orbit ascending node
- parachute system is used
- soft landing engines are used to compensate vertical landing speed
and side speed due to winds
- ensures the survival of returning module in a case of launcher
failure
right -
aeroplane-like returning module
- lands on the pre-selected airfields
- side manoever up to 2000 km
- landing is possible for each orbit
- the survival of the returning module in a case of launcher failure
ensured by reaching an airfield

The last, 5th picture shows the Zenit launcher with Kliper spaceship
on top."


They also posted this translation of the earlier Energia photos (24 &
25):

"This unit is denoted in photo 24 as "Adapter section with launch
escape engines". Photo 25 texts, from left to right: (upper)
"Equipment compartment", "Parachute container", "Cockpit module",
"Service module", "Docking module", (lower) "Electrochemical
generator", "Hull", "Fuel storage and supply unit", "Utility module"
(hmm, not sure what does 'bytovoi' mean here)."

http://www.photocenter.ru/myphoto/fi...LBrsAAAAE.html



Rusty Barton
Sacramento, CA

(Rusty B) wrote

"Utility module" (hmm, not sure what does 'bytovoi' mean here)."

The root is "byt," which means something like "day-to-day life."
So "living" or maybe "habitation" module is indicated. The
FPSpace discussion indicates that this is analogous to the
forward module of Soyuz. (Which I think is a little strange,
but I think the retention of the Soyuz forward module after all
these years is also a little strange. Just shows what I (don't)
know.)

(Rusty B) wrote in message . com...
Someone on Space.com listed these links to Energia graphics about the
Klipper:


http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_1.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_2.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_3.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_4.jpg

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c...s/kliper_5.jpg


They also posted this translation of the slides:

"1:
launch mass - 13000 kg
crew - up to 6 people
cabin pressurized volume - 20 m^3
cargo mass: spacebound - 500 kg, earthbound - 500 kg, removable (?) -
200 kg
autonomous flight time - 5 days
flight time as part of orbital complex - 360 days

2:
on the top there is the additional arrow - aerodynamic shielding cover

3:
reenry capsule mass - 8800 kg
acceleration during the nominal reentry - up to 2,5 g
cabin volume - 20 m^3
crew - up to 6 people

4:
left -
capsule-like returning module
- landing to the pre-selected regions
- side manoever up to 500 km
- land landing from each orbit is possible for 80% longitude variants
of orbit ascending node
- parachute system is used
- soft landing engines are used to compensate vertical landing speed
and side speed due to winds
- ensures the survival of returning module in a case of launcher
failure
right -
aeroplane-like returning module
- lands on the pre-selected airfields
- side manoever up to 2000 km
- landing is possible for each orbit
- the survival of the returning module in a case of launcher failure
ensured by reaching an airfield

The last, 5th picture shows the Zenit launcher with Kliper spaceship
on top."


They also posted this translation of the earlier Energia photos (24 &
25):

"This unit is denoted in photo 24 as "Adapter section with launch
escape engines". Photo 25 texts, from left to right: (upper)
"Equipment compartment", "Parachute container", "Cockpit module",
"Service module", "Docking module", (lower) "Electrochemical
generator", "Hull", "Fuel storage and supply unit", "Utility module"
(hmm, not sure what does 'bytovoi' mean here)."

http://www.photocenter.ru/myphoto/fi...LBrsAAAAE.html



Rusty Barton
Sacramento, CA



I work for an American aerospace firm and obviously I'd like to see
NASA buy American. However, I can't help but think that Klipper was
designed to meet some of NASA's requirements for a CEV. Obviously,
Klipper would help NASA reach it's goal of having CEV flights by 2010.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore,Md.

Allen Thomson wrote:

The root is "byt," which means something like "day-to-day life."
So "living" or maybe "habitation" module is indicated. The
FPSpace discussion indicates that this is analogous to the
forward module of Soyuz. (Which I think is a little strange,
but I think the retention of the Soyuz forward module after all
these years is also a little strange. Just shows what I (don't)
know.)

It's a well-proven design, and also allows you to use the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system on Klipper.
Russian spacecraft are a lot more "assembly line" produced than ours
are, and they have a penchant for using stock components for new designs
like assembling things from a Lego set.
One of the advantages of the Soyuz's orbital module is that being
basically a sphere it maximizes internal volume while minimizing weight.
Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
It's a well-proven design, and also allows you to use the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system on Klipper.

Sure... After you completely replace it's software and good chunk of
it's hardware to compensate for the fact the Kliper isn't a Soyuz.

Russian spacecraft are a lot more "assembly line" produced than ours
are, and they have a penchant for using stock components for new designs
like assembling things from a Lego set.

Assuming that the 'Soyuz orbital module looking thing' in the diagram
is actually a 'Soyuz orbital module', and not something of the same
general shape and size. Even if it is, it's been significantly
modifed already with the surpression of the side hatch, and the
addition of the rocket belt.

Like the control systems, it's just like a Soyuz, except for all the
parts where it's not.

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

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

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
Pat Flannery wrote:
It's a well-proven design, and also allows you to use the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system on Klipper.

Sure... After you completely replace it's software and good chunk of
it's hardware to compensate for the fact the Kliper isn't a Soyuz.


I gather you have authoritative information that the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system would require software and
hardware modifications for use on Klipr. Is it the increased mass of
Klipr that drives these modifications, or the different flight
computer? If it is the latter, what is the Klipr flight computer?


Assuming that the 'Soyuz orbital module looking thing' in the diagram
is actually a 'Soyuz orbital module', and not something of the same
general shape and size. Even if it is, it's been significantly
modifed already with the surpression of the side hatch, and the
addition of the rocket belt.


Have Soyuz orbital modules been modified in the past? If so, what was
the cost of these modifications?

(Explorer8939) wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
Pat Flannery wrote:
It's a well-proven design, and also allows you to use the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system on Klipper.

Sure... After you completely replace it's software and good chunk of
it's hardware to compensate for the fact the Kliper isn't a Soyuz.

I gather you have authoritative information that the standard Soyuz
automated rendezvous and docking system would require software and
hardware modifications for use on Klipr.

I have eyes to see, and a brain to think. I need no more in this
instance.

Is it the increased mass of Klipr that drives these modifications, or the
different flight computer? If it is the latter, what is the Klipr flight computer?

The increased mass, the completely different configuration (I.E.
different mass distribution, different locations for the RCS
thrusters...)

Assuming that the 'Soyuz orbital module looking thing' in the diagram
is actually a 'Soyuz orbital module', and not something of the same
general shape and size. Even if it is, it's been significantly
modifed already with the surpression of the side hatch, and the
addition of the rocket belt.

Have Soyuz orbital modules been modified in the past? If so, what was
the cost of these modifications?

It's been modified at least thrice, all back in the bad old days when
it was impossible to determine what Soviet hardware really cost.
Nowadays its impossible to determine what Russian hardware really
costs.

The situation hasn't changed that much.

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

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

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(Explorer8939) wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote in message
...
Is it the increased mass of Klipr that drives these modifications, or the
different flight computer? If it is the latter, what is the Klipr flight
computer?

The increased mass, the completely different configuration (I.E.
different mass distribution, different locations for the RCS
thrusters...)

The Russians surely have some idea how much this would cost. Look at how
Pirs was delivered to ISS. That was a "one off" delivery and would give
some insight into what it cost to modify the rendezvous and docking systems.
Going back a bit further, they have much experience with FGB derived
vehicles automatically docking with space stations (this also includes ISS).

It's not like the Russians only have experience docking Soyuz and Progress
to stations, so I doubt this cost is as great as you'd think. For the
Russians, Clipper is just another in a long string of vehicles which they've
successfully docked with space stations.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Pat Flannery wrote

Allen Thomson wrote:

I think the retention of the Soyuz forward module after all
these years is also a little strange. Just shows what I (don't)
know.)

It's a well-proven design, and also allows you to use the
standard Soyuz automated rendezvous and docking system on Klipper.

Also, now that I think of it, if Kliper (turns out to have one "p",
though it's a borrowing of Clipper. Oy.) is intended for accomodating
multi-person crews for up to two weeks of independent flight, a
separate compartment for day-to-day functions might be a good idea.

Details of the life-support system will be interesting to learn.

BTW, a question on FPSpace returned a reply indicating that the
"electrochemical generator" in the nose is a fuel cell.

Jeff Findley wrote:

The Russians surely have some idea how much this would cost. Look at how
Pirs was delivered to ISS. That was a "one off" delivery and would give
some insight into what it cost to modify the rendezvous and docking systems.
Going back a bit further, they have much experience with FGB derived
vehicles automatically docking with space stations (this also includes ISS).

It's not like the Russians only have experience docking Soyuz and Progress
to stations, so I doubt this cost is as great as you'd think. For the
Russians, Clipper is just another in a long string of vehicles which they've
successfully docked with space stations.


I was primarily referring to the antennae end of things when I was
talking about commonality with Soyuz; obviously new software will be
needed for this use on the Klipper.
I wonder about the side hatch on the orbital module; does that get
removed, or is it lined up with a hatch on the exterior of the Klipper
so that EVA's can be done from it without opening the main hatch in its
side? Assuming that it really will have that rectangular entry door on
the flight version. It looks odd, and I wonder if it's just to allow
easy access to the mockup.

Pat