Talk:CSTS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Unassessed

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Design development

An article has come out saying thet the 3 module design has been abandonned in favour of an Appolo like capsule and service module aproach. SOURCE. I'm not shure how to incorporate this data into the present article. Any input would be appreciated. U5K0 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't bother, this is just a Euro-Russian fantasy project that will never go farther than viewgraphs; ESA can't afford its own human capability. Hektor (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I realise that this project may never come to fruission but even potentially doomed relevant initiatives should be documented here. I just don't know how to modify the article best.U5K0 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] O'Keefe / Steidle vs. Griffin approach

The 7 seven launches are ok for me. This is shat is stated by Energia and it is with available hardware. Maybe you can do it in four launches with new hardware and you can do it in one launch as the Saturn V demonstrated but the economics today make that 20Tm LEO rockets are "mass produced" and the cost is easy to get. If you apeak about new hardware it ican be just an assumption f the future.

  • From what I read in this new text, well I would say that ESA guys are trying to emulate the original VSE project, at the time of Sean O'Keefe and Admiral Steidle, when they were trying to fly on EELVs. Here you want to go to the Moon with Ariane 5s and Angaras... how many do you need ? two, three for Lunar Orbital ? six or seven for a landing ?

Bottom line is that when O'Keefe was gone, it took little time to his successor Griffin and his team with the ESAS study to conclude that the CaLV and CLV approach was the way to go... a heavy lift Ares V, 130 ton class, and an Ariane class human launcher, the Ares I. Seems this is not the ESA approach... well, good luck to them...

But €15 millions for two years, my, my... at this rate they will reach the Moon in 2450 ... I fear that NASA has spent last year on the ESAS study alone more money than ESA intends to spend during the next two years on this ACTS.Hektor 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Just tried to analyse what has been said by Manuel Vallis here. He said two launches for the lunar spacecraft. Not sure why you would need six or seven for a landing then - even with Kliper ESA would have tried to do it with 4 launches (2 for the spacecraft, 2 for the LM) see here: http://www.astronautical.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=32&Itemid=56. If that is not possible, please explain why - I would be rather interested. At the end ESA would probably resonsible for 2 launches per mission, and Roskosmos for 2 launches. That sounds reasonalble for me!
  • By the way, I doubt that the ESAS has actually cost very much - and even if, that does not matter, a study is a study and does not need to be funded with hundreds of millions of EUROs/USD. Themanwithoutapast 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the mass injected in LEO by the Americans is 130 + 25 = 155 t for a Moon mission. What is the miracle which allows to launch a smaller mass when it is cut in smaller pieces ? 155/20 = 7.75. All this, like Aurora, and Kliper, is another example of the little game that the human spaceflight directorate of ESA has been playing during the last few years. Raising huge expectations, and finally a few years later come with something which is quite mundane. See Aurora, they were going to put astronauts on Mars by 2030. What is Aurora now, little more than ExoMars and a few general studies. Same here. In a few years they will 'discover' that they can't afford ACTS and if the Americans are nice they will take a few ESA astronauts along on board the CEV. Hektor 13:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Could very well be Hektor. Still, this article is about the study ESA and Roskosmos are conducting and I think it is ok to analyse the plan as it is outlined by the responsible ESA representatives. It might very well be that NASA is contemplating to do a Moon mission with 155t LEO weigh, that however does not stop other scenarios to be valid as long as correct numbers are applied. Ariane 5 can carry up to 24tons to LEO (the ATV only weighs 21tons in LEO because it has to be launched into an orbit with 51 degree inclination from Korou). Angara 5 may very well carry payloads beyond 25tons to LEO. That would put a four launch scenario to a max. 100tons in LEO. The 'trick' then would be to create a moon vehicle and lander which weigh about 1/3 less than the CEV/LSAM architecture. The numbers that are in the article right now reflect that. Apollo did a lunar landing with appr. 125tons LEO mass (although that is misleading as Apollo did not inject spacecrafts into LEO) - and the EDS, Apollo SM and LM all worked with lower thrust engines (isp 310 sec max). This said, if you think the numbers in the article or the mission scenario as mentioned by Manuel Valls are completely unrealistic, please explain. And again, this article is not about the likelihood of ACTS becoming a reality (who can judge that now, it is even possible that NASA scrubs the CEV at one point, although not likely), it is about the feasibility of such a plan and about the preliminary study phase that ACTS is in right now - I think the article reflects that. Themanwithoutapast 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you rendezvous payloads in LEO launched from Kourou and Baikonour you have to make rendezvous in the orbit corresponding to the highest latitude, i.e. 51.6° because it is prohibitive to launch in LEO from Baikonour to Kourou like inclination. So already Ariane 5 is not 24 tons to LEO. All I was saying is that NASA has already traded with a far more expensive study, ESAS, far more experience and better technology than ESA against what ESA says is their scenario. So I have my doubts. I think I believe more in Doug Stanley than in the ESA guys. Hektor 14:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There would not necessarily be a rendezvous between spacecrafts launched from Kourou and Baikonour, rather two launches for the manned spacecraft and EDS from Kourou (say a Soyuz-3 and Ariane 5) and two launches from Baikonour (2x Angara 5 or Angara 5 and Soyuz-3 etc.) for the LM and its EDS (the roles between Kourou and Baikonour could be switched every time, having one time the Europeans in charge of the manned craft, one time the Russians). The LM and the ACTS spacecraft would rendezvous in LLO - so there would be no losses through use of launch sites of different inclinations.

2. With regard to human spaceflight NASA has as much experience and the same technology available as ESA and Roskosmos. There is no 'secret' or for other agencies unobtainable technology that NASA is going to use that is not available to other agencies.

3. If you believe more in NASA's representatives than ESA that is your right (although solely paper studies of new vehicles have come out of both agencies for the past 20 years or so alike), still that does not make any difference in that other ways to doing a Moon mission exist.

4. And just for comparison of plans, consider the following: there is no reason but 'convenience' for astronauts as to why the CEV crew module has to weigh more than 9tons. It is not necessary to provide that much space for a short lunar mission. Apollo's CM had a mass of 5.5tons (and the electronic and other hardware was much heavier than equipment used today). That is by the way one of the reasons why NASA's plan needs 155tons in LEO to do one mission. Each ton that you decrease the mass of the CEV CM would decrease overall mass by nearly 10tons in LEO. Therefore, by reducing the mass of the re-entry capsule and habitation module and using an LM the size of about the Apollo LM, you can do a Moon landing mission with 4 launches - you can analyse the numbers stated in the article in detail, they are correct. Themanwithoutapast 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

5. I will add that a Soyuz-type capsule can provide more habitable space for less weight than the Apollo-style CM. In addition, CEV plans to put 6 people in LEO and ACTS only plans to put 4 people in LEO. All in all, I think that 4 launches for the ACTS proposal is reasonable. [Daniel]

[edit] External link

An internet forum is not a reliable source. To user: Gaetanamorano, you provided a link to a forum containing mostly your own posts, most of them are in rather bad English and hardly understandable. Please provide a credible source on your allegation.

This article is not based on Flight-Global articles, rather to the most part on other sources and ESA presentations. Jean-Jacques Dordain has, as reported in various sources, talked about this collaborative study with Russia. I hardly doubt that Dordain, ESA's director, is part of a conspiracy that want to make people believe that a small 15 million EUR study exists and was approved by ESA memberstates, although it was actually not approved. Themanwithoutapast 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained in the ("unreliable") forum thread, I don't refer to the ACTS study but to the IMAGE of "ESA/Russia Moonship" published in the Flight Global article that, months after the article, has NO official source since that IMAGE (not the ACTS study) is ONLY a (Photoshop's made) "invention" then I think that the article's link must be removed until Flight Global will give an OFFICIAL SOURCE of the moonship concept image.

Also, the "moonship" article is NOT written by Jean-Jacques Dordain but by the Flight Global's journalist Rob Coppinger.

The Flight Global "moonship" image and the ACTS are two DIFFERENT kind of vehicle... ACTS will be a CAPSULE while then "moonship" image is only a photomontage of three vehicles: an ATV + an ISS module + a Soyuz reentry module.

Hi Gaetano, welcome back and thanks for spotting the broken and duplicate links. I have temporary "fixed" the broken link using the google cache and I have removed from "External links" the links that are already in "References". But I haven't removed the link to [1] because IMO the text of the article is a legitimate source of information: you are right that the image is a montage, and probably far from its final appearance, but given that the ACTS is still in an initial study phase I guess that currently nobody knows for sure what it will look like.
Anyway thanks again for your contribution and, please, in the future try to keep separate the encyclopedic content (the article) from the suggestions/notes (that belong probably to this, discussion, page). Lino Mastrodomenico 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research tag

Hektor, what do you want to delete from the article to remove the tag? Or where do you want to have additional sources. Themanwithoutapast 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For now I have the tag moved down to the section about the lunar lander, as this one is actually really only 'original research' in that sense that the ACTS program isn't about designing a lander. I think to leave the tag on the top of the page is not warranted. As I said before, please state what sections need to be sourced or modified in your opinion. Themanwithoutapast 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a space specialist but I've just saw an interesting article at the web site of the RIA Novosti News and Information agency [[2]]. It says that russians have plans for Lunar orbital station and reusable landing module. Acording to the article this should be achieved during the second stage of the program. It seams to me that this will reduce the number of the required rocket launches and the cost. The article doesn't say whether for the first stage a landing is planned or there will be only circum-lunar flights. --Zinoviev 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect dV calculation?

Very interesting article and interesting critique.

However, it seems that the dV = 3.2 km/s that is mentioned in the article does not include inclination changes. As it was already pointed out, Kourou launch would put ACTS into 3 deg inclination (probably - to maximize payload), while Baikonur can launch to minimum or 51.6 deg. So to merge vehicles launched from these two inclinations, LEO change would be required, which for inclination change is extremely costly in dV. As such, I doubt that any combination of Kourou and Baikonur launches is possible.

I will calculate this during the weekend, and give some numbers.

At the same time, puting a lander on permanent Moon orbit is a great idea. If they could make it reusable and refuable it would greatly reduce LEO launched masses. 22:28 GMT on 15 September 2006 Alatien

I quote from the article: From different launch sites, different LEO inclinations are the most payload effective. Kourou's proximity to the equator allows Ariane 5 to lift more payload to LEO into a 3° inclination than a higher inclined orbit. If both the ACTS spacecraft and the LM would be docked in LEO, a Russian-European cooperation would need to decide which 'compromise orbit' they would chose for docking spacecrafts and EDS-stages launched from Kourou and Baikonour resulting in LEO payload capacity losses of well over 10%. Instead launching the ACTS spacecraft and its EDS from one spaceport and the LM with its EDS fro the other spaceport and dock them in LLO does not encounter the problem of different launch site locations.
That said, the tables in the article do not assume integration of modules in LEO launched from Baikonour/Pletsesks and Kourou. Rather 2 separate launches from each side and LLO-rendezvous of lunar lander and ACTS spacecraft would circumvent the problem of different optimal inclinations from different launch sites. Themanwithoutapast 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy world

I am once again going to look as a mean guy but all this amounts to fancruft. This is the story of the program which can't stop shrinking... At the beginning there was Klipper and original stories in 2004-5 were about Europe spending hundreds of millions euros about Kliper. Then came the ministerial in 2005, ESA asked for 50 millions, saw it wouldn't work tried to ask for 30 millions and the Ministers rejected Kliper. Went back to drawing boards, had this idea of ACTS (by the way ESA calls it now CSTS), came in June asking for ACTS money, failed again, another reduction, now speaking of 12 millions and maybe at the end they will get only 6 millions for two years at the end of the year. You see the spiral ?

So when will you understand that the national delegation and agencies in Europe don't want to hear about human spaceflight. Human spaceflight is over when the ISS dives into the Pacific in 2016 ... they will retire the astronauts, find another use for the EAC in Cologne and watch the Americans on the Moon on NASA TV.

The future of European exploration in ExoMars, not these space cadets dreams of Euro Russian flights to the Moon. There is no Euro for that in the countries budgets. Hektor 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted speculation in article that was solely based on the ESA presentation from June on ACTS. The article mostly includes facts on the program. please help in improving the article further. Themanwithoutapast 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not want something so drastic. Just that it is explained that all this is very preliminary and unlikely in current CNES and DLR mindset. Hektor 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
the last part of the article was unsourced and only based on an ESA presentation - this is not enough. I actually wrote most of the stuff under lunar missions, so I know it is just speculation. Themanwithoutapast 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
@Hektor, €500 million is given to manned space flight by ESA every year, I doubt that after the ISSproject is over, they wil just decrease the budget from €3 billion to €2,5 billion, and have no astronauts at all. In the past we didn't scrub Hermes en Kliper because we weren't interested in human space flight, their were too expensive because we had cheaper alternatives. Now NASA has decided that they will build a new space ship on their own, while Roskosmos asks ESA to cooperate to build one to, they have 2 choices: pay NASA to fly their astronauts or have an own space ship. That choice will probably made by the ministers of the memberstates.Ckiki lwai 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that these €500 million will be transfered to robotic exploration of the Solar system and in particular Mars, starting with flagship missions such as ExoMars, later a probable Exomars follow-on, and even later a Mars Sample Return mission. The total ESA budget for CSTS till 2008 if I remember well is somewhat less than 15 million, with DLR, for instance, ready to pay something like 2 million, hardly what is needed to build a human spacecraft. And by the way ESA member states cannot even agree on who will lead the study so any real study will not start now before the first half of 2007.Hektor 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that ESA won't delete its human spaceflight program after the ISS, all the ESA members are convinced that it's a crucial factor of space exploration. Most countries will give more attention to an astronaut with their nationality in Low Earth Orbit than a rock from mars. I remember when Frank Dewinne (second Belgian in space) was launched into space, half of the news was about him! (Just imagine what a hype it would create when an European is circling the moon.) You can't compare it to the US where every year more then a dozen Americans are launched into space. Plus the relation between Russia and Europe is getting better at other space related sections like the new Soyuz launcher, and allowing Russian rockets to launch from Kourou.Ckiki lwai 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name - CSTS

  • For your info, it seems that ESA has dropped ACTS for CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System ). Same concept, but new name. Here is a referencePDF (2.57 MiB) Hektor 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASA vision of space?

is this picture of any relations to the subject? lol Akinkhoo (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESA, ROSMOSKOSMOS CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT 2008 May 14

Hello, there is no mention in this article that 2008 May 14 preliminary agreement had been achieved with Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos and European Space administration, ESA, and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JAXA [3]. It seems that the without any delays Russian, European Japanese parties will make first Lunar and later on Martian Missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)