Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc?
Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?
Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc? Will it mean somehow radically restructuring Arianespace? Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?
Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.
I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.
considering NASA regressed from Apollo to the space shuttle and to Orion the playing field is mostly level frankly...
Quote from: redliox on 05/02/2015 08:23 amconsidering NASA regressed from Apollo to the space shuttle and to Orion the playing field is mostly level frankly...That is an untrue characterization. How many space agencies have gone past Mars or to Mercury? Who has two rovers on Mars?
This is in regards to manned flight. However, ESA does have the precedence of being the first to land on Titan....They also built the ATV, which was larger than Progress or the current batch of commercial ships.
I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.
If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.
Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?
For cargo launch vehicles Europe has the Ariane 5 and 6.There is very little glory in having a rival to the Dragon, Orion, CST-100, Dreamchaser and Soyuz. There is plenty of glory in having a transfer vehicle and somethng else NASA does not have a manned lunar lander.
Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited... As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars.
NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points;
...the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).
Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.
Quote from: redliox on 05/02/2015 06:08 amUnless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...
ESA might simply partner with Russia to do this. We know the Russians are looking at that L1 station and will have plans for a large Orion like crew vehicle that would be adequate for trips in cis-lunar space. ESA landers and surface habitats would pair just as well with what Russia will have as it will with American equipment, as we both have over-sized launchers and crew vehicles in the works. And ESA has a good working relationship with Roscosmos and other up and coming space agencies may also come on-board.
I think this kind of growing international co-operative moon exploration will inevitably pull the US back in to lunar activity simply to avoid being left out.
Epic agree there. There will be a paradigm shift the moment administrations change, and if everyone insists on the Moon NASA will meekly nod in that direction, possibly while still claiming "it's still the path to Mars!"
Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...