If the Chinese can change there design from a single seater in less than 2 years, how come we can not design a new ship in the same time frame or less.
Does anyone have a good reason for all the heel dragging that NASA is doing with regards to the CEV, Constellation. When most of the developement work should be nearly complete if you roll in all the other demonstator projects x-37,x40A and OSP as well as the current design work done by Boeing and Lockheed for a capsule or plane design. Even if you say one year to finalize proto design and two years for released for use that puts us around 2011 for a functional ship for crew transportation to the ISS worst case time frame.
what seems to be taking NASA so long?

Actually, Shenzhou has always been a 3-seat design. Minimal changes will be required in the design to convert from 1 crewmember (Shenzhou 5) to 2 crew (Shenzhou 6). I believe the article is simply mentioning that they are constructing the actual capsule that will be used for the Shenzhou 6 mission (from previous design).

However, I do agree with your argument that they should speed up development of the CEV. After all, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo (3 distinct craft designs) were successfully built & flown within the same timeframe as the CEV's development.

I'm a bit worried about the OSP to CEV migration - from my point of view they were tasked with different missions. (Exploration vs Crew Transfer)

Both of the Russian and Chinese designs are evolutions on Soyuz - hence the shorter design / implementation time (that is my impression at least from the information avialable on these programs). Even NASA should be able to do Shuttle-C from the STS in two years, if they choose to do so.

I wonder why the Russians chose the "Clipper" moniker for the new design. Decidedly un-Russian. Hopefully this "Clipper" will be more sucessful than the "Delta Clipper".

I agree with your peception of the OSP to CEV migration and believe that both need to be done concurrently for one is geared towards LEO while the other is more space bound though incomplete without other projects for the moon to mars mission designs being done.
I also agree that a shuttle based launch derivative with; both the CEV capsule or OSP plane as the option to be mounted as need be for each mission as will be needed is the best approach to getting the US and NASA moving again.
Inaddition other options for heavy lift vehicles to the ISS must be explored.

This article seems to be a bit loose on the facts. None of the other articles I could find mentioned seven cosmonauts - just six.

I'd also like to see the source of the article's claim that this is a next generation Buran design. I find that hard to believe, given the very low 700kg number. I also find it hard to believe that any serious space-faring nation would choose a new design today that emulates the Space Shuttle. I think it's much more likely that this will be a Soyuz inspired design.

Heh thats what i get to read the first article of the day, do what i'm paid for untill lunch then comment on that before reading what else occord on other articles :)

Anyways, the DC-X was killed by pollitics. Money for its compleation of the test phase is what really killed it. They had the grant money, but they couldn't use it cause it was allocated to the wrong NASA center. The last flight of the DC-X although a failure, (was due to a weakness in the landing strust) was not a design flaw, and the money was there to repair it and continue testing. Congress would not let the money allocated to them reach them.

DC-X is a succefull design that will never fly. Its a poor choice for the X-33 project cause the X program is for development of cutting edge tech. Everything but the fuselage in the DC-X was off the shelf. In fact most of it came from a junkyard. But since boieng now owns the design of the DC-X, and they are trying for the CEV, there i no profit in bringing out the DC-X. Its the whole cost plus model that NASA uses with its contractors. If the thing costs more to make, then the contractor sees more money on the profit.

The DC-X program amounted to 150 million dollars. they were 50 million from a full scale DC-Y prototype.

So honestly i hope Russia's Clipper is alot like MacDonald Douglas's DC-X.

hmm now i'm peeved. I quickly skimmed thrugh "Halfway to Anywhere" To find out which company was the one that worked on it to do my previous comments. I just looked at the copyright on it. 1996.

8 years ago! and part of the tag info on the back was "In perhaps 10 years, it will be possible to send a package anywhere in the world in under an hour." Thats not likely to happen now.

Only good news out of this, in less then 10 years any patents filed will be public domain. I hope there was, so that then the Russians or Chinese will use them to rebuild it. I guess its time to learn Russian and Chinese.

Greed is what will ultimatly doom us.

LOL okay maybe i should finish learning English before going to any other language. I look up the company and still spelled it wrong.. Its McDonnell Douglas.

No wonder people don't take me seriously.

So the DC-x series of projects were geared at VTOVL vertical takeoff vertical landing and being reusable. Aside from the bad landings for this project, I guess the good news was the semi quick turn around time for relaunch 3 days. I am not sure what everybody elses thoughts are on quick turn around time for a RLV but I think that it should be measured in hours not days to be practical. Probably Boeing could use some of the data as a way of improving there reusable moon lander but this does not do much in the way for the Mars lander with a record high 2500 meters flight. This is not much of an altitude for a 1/3 scale working unit when it tips over so easy just think if it were larger. Kaboom...

I think the Alderidge Commission has correctly pointed out that political survivability is the weekest link in any SEI.

Just think of how many valid, feasible project (Clipper, TransHab) have been torpedoed by the US Congress - it's sad really.

This just goes to show that Privitization of space and that big spaced base businesses must do there own thing with regards to the Presidents vision allowing NASA access to the data. Giving NASA a tag along sort of role for corporations like Boeing and Lockheed to do there own missions of exploration with Nasa paying the per seat charge to go.

3 day turnaround is practical at this time, one vehical that can go up every 3 days can actually handle all the commercial launch market. Granted since access will be made cheaper the market will increase. Its really the man hours that makes it cheap. Lets assume 100 people crew (including mission control, crew to get it flight ready), 100K a year sallery for each, and 100 launches a year. Cost of man power is 100k a launch. Fuel is estimated at 5-20 million a launch. (This is one of those magic numbers, i haven't seen the math behind.) So lowering it much furthur would not really make it much cheaper.

Now lets take the shuttle. Pre Columbia it was averaging 6 launches a year, 100k people at 50k salary (civil servants some of them but mostly private contractors) thats 833Million per lauch in manpower. If the shuttle was going once a week it will be 100Million.

So if the approximate civil servant count were of the correct ratio for the current shuttle as compared to the 3 day turn around for the DC-X clipper design. Then why does it take so long for the shuttle's to be done in the same manner or is there more to it than meet the eyes and ears. Or is the work done not of the same type to get it ready for relaunch excluding tile rework. Or just maybe some of it is not necessary but is over kill.

Harry, NASA already has a tag along role for Lockheed and Boeing. They are the partners in USA , the private contracting firm that operates the shuttle. It is not in there best interest to Open space access to other private firms, they have a government sheltered monopoly on space access in the United States. With a steady stream of Taxdollar revenue and no incentive of making it cheaper.

Kistler Aerospace's K-1 is both Lockead's and Boeing's direct competetor for unmaned space launches. Its a two stage reusable rocket, with a expected 3 day turnaround time. Unfortnutaly they don't have the funds to complete it. But they are savy enough, that i expect it to have the funds within 10 years. George Mueller is a major part of Kistler. He was the Head of NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight from 1963-1968, the one that was responsable for getting Apollo back on tack on a moonlanding by 1970, it had slipped to late 1971 in 1963.

Oh and i need to make a correction on the numbers i stated for cost of of the DC-X/DC-Y program. DC-X cost a total of 60million, and they could have a full sized DC-Y to deliver cargo to space for 150 Million. I fliped the numbers around in my head.

With a quick turn-around time the total amount mass that can be placed in LEO also increases proportionately. Ideal if you're planning to build things in orbit, and don't have any large individual pieces to put into orbit.

I think the operational level has been (one of) the main reason(s)why launch costs are so expensive.

Considering that Boeing / Lockheed have been taking the government to the cleaners for years - do you think they'll run a project cheaper if it was in their own hands?

I personally think a company should be incorporated tasked with the SEI and commercialization of space. Interested parties, the government and investors would buy stock in the company to provide it with capital. Income would be generated from licensing technologies developed and development / explotation of in-situ resources. Companies providing funding would also have the benefit of being preferred providers for development items outsourced for external development (enter Boing, Lockheed etc.)The profit motive (this is a public company after all - responsible to its investors) should drive efficiency, innovation and cost.

Any thoughts?

Well the promise in the 80's was to have the shuttle launch once a week so they could build the space shuttle in a year. However that was under the assumption that the shuttle is a reusable vehical. Which unforunatly its not, they have to replace tiles, replace the engine and other components. Somewhere between 20-50% of the shuttle is new each launch. (The number depends on whose agenda is stating the number) This takes months sometimes even years to do. This is complicated by the fact that Each shuttle is themselves different enough from each other, that what works on one doesn't work on another. So what prevents them from launching once a week, is it takes them way longer then promissed to get ready in between launches. Its the most complicated machine in the history of man. And thats not a good thing. Its like having to replace your car's engine, tires, sound system, and one of the fenders after each trip

But once the shuttle is no longer in use so goes it's tag along partners and the down hill slide begins. Also the same monopoly is what keeps cutting NASA budget fundings for each project that would have already gotten us into alot better position than we are at this time, which is grounded. I do not for see Nasa doing any better as administrations change.

But the tagalong partners are also who make the Atlas and Delta rockets. And the fore runners for the CEV contract. And all the workers happen to work in very powerfull congressional districts, so when the choice is make it cheaper, or to keep employment, Congress will go for keep employment.

The Shuttle will stay around until we have a replacement for it. So its better for Lockheed and Boeing to delay the CEV as much as possible, or make the CEV cost the same amount as the shuttle.

The only way this will change is if we have a NASA adminstrator with the vision of cheap access for space for commerce, the backbone to show Lockheed, Boieng, and rogue Center Directors the door, and the political Savyiness to stay afloat while doing that. Goldin didn't have the backbone. O'Keef doesn't have the vision, but may have the backbone. But its not looking like it.

I picked up this link from one of the newmars.com forums: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm

I thought it might be of interest.

Nasa should have stayed with the delta clipper and never messed with the risky X33 design as we'd have a shuttle replacement in DCY.The also DCY could go to the moon with a few mods and a LEO refueling station.
With a lunar refueling station you could theory ride the same craft from earth to the moon's surface and back to earth.
Another great ideal is the kistler K1 it would make a great cargo ship fir ISS but I think it's g loading during reentry might be too high for manned use though they could add small winglets to the second stage which would help the g problem.
Nasa should give the K1 a look as you really can't get the best ideals dealing with only two companies.An uprated K1 could accually make it cost effective to launch a lunar vehicle in pieces other wise you will need a saturn 5 like vehical probley shuttle-c to even afford to do it.
Also nasa should take a hint from the russians Klipper and do the CEV as a reusable lifting body the advantages of it over the other two designs plane and capsule are too numerous to list here but basicly it has the strengths of both.
Make it a 6 man scaled up X-38 derivitive it can weigh as much as 25tons"the maximun payload of an off the shelf delta IV heavy" so it can be a versital and roomy craft able to do much of what the shuttle does now except launch large payloads but shuttle-c and modified EELVs will be doing that.
I see no purpose in building anything smaller then the klipper.Also the Klipper weighs less then the apollo which was a some what ineffiect design by modren standards.