Talk:CSTS

message: 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)
thread_title: Design development

message: 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)
thread_title: O'Keefe / Steidle vs. Griffin approach

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 []. 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)
thread_title: Original research tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect dV calculation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fantasy world

message: *For your info, it seems that ESA has dropped ACTS for CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System ). Same concept, but new name.   Hektor 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New name - CSTS

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

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  ESA, ROSMOSKOSMOS CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT 2008 May 14 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "planetary 0628" :
** Europe and Russia Join Forces to Study ACTS - Planetary News | The Planetary Society
**  
In a July 2006 interview with New Scientist, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin however suggested interest in international cooperation in the general context of NASA's Moon exploration plans. "The US will return to the Moon but we think we will do it better, that it will be more rewarding for all, if it can do it in the company of as many of our ISS partners as we can, and with new partners."<ref>NASA seeks help for human exploration of Mars - space - 19 July 2006 - New Scientist Space
DumZiBoT (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: The image :Image:Kliper-esa.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Kliper-esa.jpg

message: I've tried my best to improve this article with updated info and filling in missing references/citations. Nevertheless, it still needs some serious improvement, especially in light of how vastly the original plan has changed in the last five years alone. Given that ESA is currently focusing most of the ATV-related development efforts on the construction of the first Orion service module, and given how there's some rather contradictory information on whether the PPTS is still in development or not, I think clearing up the confusion around this once and for all would help greatly with outlining an up-to-date version of this article. In addition, could someone please find any sort of confirmation that the Constellation program's version of the Orion did not count with any international cooperation ? The claim has been in the lead-in section for years now, and I'm not sure what to do with it. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2015 state, in need of major improvements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CSTS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://planetary.org/news/2006/0628_Europe_and_Russia_Join_Forces_to_Study.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CSTS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115070145/http://seradata.com/SSI/2009/07/picture_eads_astrium_wins_21_m/ to http://seradata.com/SSI/2009/07/picture_eads_astrium_wins_21_m/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified